(1) Does President Bush support the legislation passed by the Senate on Thursday making English the "national language" of the United States?
Alberto Gonzales says "no." According to him, Bush opposes such a measure and always has:
President George W. Bush has long opposed making English the country's national language, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Friday, the day after the Senate voted to do so. . . .
Gonzales did not directly address Bush's position on the controversial amendment because the Senate has not yet voted on the whole bill. But he said that Bush has in the past rejected such efforts.
"The president has never supported making English the national language," Gonzales said after meeting with state and local officials in Texas to discuss cooperation on enforcement of immigration laws.
But Press Secretary Tony Snow disagrees, insisting that Bush does support making English the national language:
WHITE HOUSE President Bush is backing the Senate's move to get immigrants to learn English.
Press Secretary Tony Snow reports the president agrees with two amendments that senators tacked onto the immigration bill yesterday. One would make English the "national" language. The other calls it a "common and unifying language." Snow says both are "consistent with" Bush's views.
(h/t Hot Air). The Bush administration can't even decide on the same day what the President's position is on an issue of great significance to his base. Immigration was supposed to be the rallying cry for re-solidifying support from Bush's base, but he has bungled the issue so badly that it has done nothing but alienate his base further. The staggering ineptitude which characterizes this administration's approach to every issue of governance used to magically disappear when it came to electioneering and political strategy, but no longer. They seem as politically hapless these days as they have been at governing.
(2) National Review Editor Rich Lowry can't believe that John McCain, whom Lowry notes is a "war hero," was treated so disrespectfully when he spoke last night at the New School in Manhattan. Lowry finds it "incredible" and "amazing" that a war heo would be subjected to heckling when giving a highly controversial speech praising a highly unpopular war.
Apparently, heckling a war hero during a speech is a despicable act. But it's perfectly OK to waive purple band-aids at decorated, wounded war veterans; and it's fine to accuse them of being soft on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein even after they voted for the Iraq invasion and co-sponsored creation of the Homeland Security Department; and there is nothing wrong with going to the floor of the House and labeling a war hero a "coward" and then following it up with a year's worth of accusations that they are also a traitor. Calling into question a war hero's patriotism, their courage, the seriousness of their war wounds, and their allegiance to the United States is all perfectly fine. Just don't boo them at a speech.
Oddly, Rich Lowry's Chivalrous Code of Conduct for how a War Hero should be treated wasn't much in evidence when he penned this column back in July, 2004 -- entitled "Max Cleland, Liberal Victim -- in which Lowry snidely dismissed complaints about how Cleland was treated during his election defeat with tough-guy, suck-it-up, politics-is-tough sermons like this:
If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize? . . . If John Kerry wants to surround himself with veterans like Max Cleland, fine — their country owes them a lot. But, please, stop the whining.
Today, though, Lowry is effetely lamenting the fact that McCain was booed at a highly politicized college by liberal students when McCain praised the Iraq War. John McCain is running for President, but he's a war hero, so no booing him.
(3) That Gen. Hayden shares the administration's claim of presidential lawbreaking powers has long been evident, and it is but one reason why he is such a poor choice to lead the CIA. But this exchange, highlighted by today's Editorial in the Washington Post, is independently indefensible:
AT THE SENATE intelligence committee hearing Thursday on Gen. Michael V. Hayden's nomination to head the CIA, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the nominee a simple question: Is "waterboarding" an acceptable interrogation technique? Gen. Hayden responded: "Let me defer that to closed session, and I would be happy to discuss it in some detail." That was the wrong answer. The right one would have been simple: No.
Last year Congress banned cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment of detainees; one of its explicit aims was to stop the CIA's use of waterboarding, which induces an excruciating sensation of drowning and is considered by most human rights organizations to constitute torture. So why couldn't Gen. Hayden say clearly that the technique is now off-limits?
The American people, through their Congress, decided overwhelmingly when the McCain anti-torture amendment was enacted into law that we do not want to be a country which uses interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. In light of the president's signing statement reserving the right to violate that law, followed up by anonymous administration officials expressly claiming the president's power to do so, whether the administration intends to obey this law is a pressing issue, and there is no excuse for Hayden's refusing to answer that question publicly.
The question amounts to nothing more than an inquiry as to whether Hayden intends to obey the law as CIA Director. Although the Bush administration's claimed right to break the law amazingly compels that such a question has to be asked, there is nothing secret about it. Americans have the right to know if the nominated CIA Director intends to follow the law.
This Administration doesn't do law. It does raw power. And I see no reason to believe that any subsequent one, even a Democratic one, is going to cede the asserted power to do whatever it likes in the name of the sacred "national security."
ReplyDeleteWe're screwed, barring an unforeseen citizen uprising.
Chimpy and his enablers arejust doing the "doublespeak" thing -- you know, issue a bunch of contradictory statements so that no one actually knows where they stand.
ReplyDeleteIt worked with the lies and excuses for the Iraq war and the MSM is still dutifully "catapulting the propaganda." Its just like the ways the administration is still trying to keep 911 connected to Iraq.
IMHO, your making far too big a deal out of this -- just more of the "standard operating procedures."
Truly there must be better issues to hold chimpy and gang accountable for than whether or not he supports irrelevant legislation that is designed to let republicans save face while chimpy talks about meaningless, poorly thought out immegration reform.
His speech last Monday was just more of the "Mission to Mars" crap.
It's such a shame that Lowry's hypocrisy will never penetrate the thick skulls of his troglodytic devotees.
ReplyDeleteCell Phone and a Camel
ReplyDeleteThis New York Times article on the mendacious incompetence of the people running the Iraq strategy should be read all the way through.
Cell Phone and a Camel
ReplyDeleteThis New York Times article on the mendacious incompetence of the people running the Iraq strategy should be read all the way through.
One thing it's important to highlight was just how much the Tinkerbell Strategy of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders has been responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Tough questions, early on, might have helped save their pet war. To them, Dear Leader can do no wrong.
I don't know how any of them sleep at night.
"What Bush did to McCain in the 2000 S. C. primary"
ReplyDeleteFACT SHEET:
Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000
Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”
McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”
Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.
“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”
Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.
“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”
Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.
Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”
Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.
In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.
After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.
A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”
Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.
Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”
Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.
College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.
Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.
Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”
Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”
“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”
Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.
“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0821c.html
Of course, the Freepers will deny that any of this actually took place, the poor saps.
Its almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
ReplyDelete1: Bush hasn't yet been told how he's supposed to feel about the issue therefore, his press secretary releases the talking point while the AG lets slip the truth.
2: The record of right-wingers attacking military figures for daring to defy them would fill a book (maybe you shoud write it.) Note that the phrase "attack poodles" has already been taken by Wolcott.
3: This adminitration has made clear that it has no intension of obeying any constraints and it is sure that the only way to deal with evil in the world is to surpass it.
What is good for their goose can cook our gander-so to speak.
ReplyDeleteAT THE SENATE intelligence committee hearing Thursday on Gen. Michael V. Hayden's nomination to head the CIA, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the nominee a simple question: Is "waterboarding" an acceptable interrogation technique? Gen. Hayden responded: "Let me defer that to closed session, and I would be happy to discuss it in some detail." That was the wrong answer. The right one would have been simple: No.
ReplyDeleteIn a sane political climate, this should be enough to sink his nomination.
I do believe that several times in his testimony, Hayden suggested violation of law was permissible. Where is the outrage? Better yet, where is the coverage?
ReplyDeleteThe American people, through their Congress, decided overwhelmingly when the McCain anti-torture amendment was enacted into law that we do not want to be a country which uses interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.
ReplyDeleteYes, but our “Decider” has decided to override Congress and the American people and engage in what civilized nations regard as “torture.”
What is the basis for that decision?
I couldn’t help but be reminded of a scene in Speilberg’s Munich where one character suggests that the law should be followed, "Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong," he argues, and "if these people committed crimes we should have arrested them."
But, the leader at that time, Golda Meir, had decided against that saying, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values."
As Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, “The same debate is going on right now in America. If it is true that civilizations must sometimes compromise their values, the questions remain: What is the cost, and what is the benefit?”
It seems that we’ve forgotten to ask “what is the cost” of abandoning the law and adopting such tactics while we focus exclusively on our “fear” of a terrorist attack and ignore what that decision is doing to us as a nation.
The Bush administration is arguing that we must compromise our values to defend them – that we must abandon the rule of law, trample on the Constitution’s checks and balances, and restrict basic civil liberties.
But the questions that they don’t ever address are: What is the cost? Will these compromises ever end? And when will we be able to return to our values?
"AT THE SENATE intelligence committee hearing Thursday on Gen. Michael V. Hayden's nomination to head the CIA, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the nominee a simple question: Is "waterboarding" an acceptable interrogation technique? Gen. Hayden responded: "Let me defer that to closed session, and I would be happy to discuss it in some detail."
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
Would it be worthwhile for we California constituents to telephone our senator's office and ask what the answer to that question was (assuming that it was, indeed, subsequently answered in closed session)? And, assuming the legislative aide we speak to won't answer that question over the phone, would it be worthwhile to insist that our senator provide the answer, publicly, on the Senate floor?
I can certainly predict that the default answer we phonin' constituents will get is likely to be something akin to, "The Senator is not permitted to discuss what was said in closed session," but:
a) It's my (uninformed) understanding that a U.S. Senator can't be prosecuted for anything he/she says on the Senate floor. Am I wrong about that?
b) As citizens, we really do have a right to know whether or not the administration intends to break (or is currently breaking) this very explicit and specific federal law. And when the administrative branch refuses to be honest and clear with the American people as regards their intent to follow federal law, it falls upon the legislative branch (in this case, Senator Feinstein) to provide that honesty and clarity.
So, I dunno, what do you think, Glenn? Should we fire up the phones? Or would it just be a big ol' waste of time?
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
I love this comment: This Administration doesn't do law. It does raw power.
ReplyDeleteGlenn says:
ReplyDeleteAmericans have the right to know if the nominated CIA Director intends to follow the law.
I'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know that, rather than the entire world, but the issue of waterboarding seems to be only part of the deal. According to my research, McCain's amendment refers to this UN document
where even offering an alcoholic beverage is considered off limits. It looks like another page in the Al Qaeda bill of rights.....
Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'm still interested in seeing how Glenn rationalizes a difference between communication by mail and telephone being searchable at the border.
Then there's my question about how searching a telephome call at the border is more intrusive than say a physical strip search.
Glenn: "Americans have the right to know if the nominated CIA Director intends to follow the law."
ReplyDeleteshooter242: "I'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know that, rather than the entire world..."
Actually, I--as an American citizen in what is supposed to be a democracy--kind of insist on *personally* knowing if my CIA Director (and my whole administrative branch) is gonna follow the laws that we as a nation have enshrined. *You* may just trust our representatives to work it out on their own in secret, but *I'm* no longer offering that kind of trust. Our elected officials have betrayed our trust too often to have earned the kind of doe-eyed faith you continue to obediently, meekly and unquestioningly provide them.
Now, I genuinely don't know how much personal security I would lose were the whole world to learn (along with me) whether or not our government is following its own federal laws. But however much personal security that is, I'm willing to sacrifice it. I think such a sacrifice is necessary for anyone who believes in the rule of law, rather than the rule of men. And I believe our founding fathers would *want* me to make such a sacrifice. Especially since they did so themselves.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
shooter:
ReplyDeleteYou know fully well that the distiction is between a physical object which was the topic of the decision cited and a communication over a wire, about which the expectaion to privacy has not been determined. If that ruling is carried out, so be it, but to pretend that it is settled law as bart did is to be a liar.
Shooter: ... According to my research, McCain's amendment refers to...
ReplyDeleteOf course, Hayden wasn't asked about the Amendment. He was asked about waterboarding.
...refers to this UN document
where even offering an alcoholic beverage is considered off limits. It looks like another page in the Al Qaeda bill of rights.....
So, somehow, wanting to know if the current nominee for the position of Director of the CIA is going to pursue a policy of committing acts of torture specifically outlawed by the United States Congress is akin to offerring OBL a nice glass of chablis.
What fu&^!ng world are you living in?
Immigration was supposed to be the rallying cry for re-solidifying support from Bush's base, but he has bungled the issue so badly that it has done nothing but alienate his base further.
ReplyDeleteThis is true. The Democrats, however, have bungled it even more badly.
For a very good discussion of why the "left" progressive blogosphere (and the present Democrats in office) does not represent the thinking of the majority of Democrats in this country, read the comments sections on these topics at Huffington Post.
The "right" blogosphere does and they will take care of their own elected Representatives and force them to represent their position on this issue so that it is the Republicans who will come out the winners on this important political issue.
As for Hayden, I am getting my black armband ready.
What is more, the criticism of Kerry and Cleland and Murtha involved calling them cowards and traitors. If there is any sort of criticism that being a war hero should immunize one to, it is that. The heckling of McCain involved his policy positions, particularly as regards the Iraq war. But no one accused him of being a coward or being on the side of the country's enemies.
ReplyDeleteMost people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
ReplyDeleteNow, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.
These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad -- I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen -- but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples. I number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary:
I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.
Professor Harold Laski
(Essay in Freedom of Expression )
Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate , or put at a loss for bewilder .
Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossia )
On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side ,the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?
Essay on psychology in Politics (New York )
All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.
Communist pamphlet
If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion's roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream -- as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as "standard English." When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o'clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma'amish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens!
Letter in Tribune
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged:
Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution ) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed . Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.
Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.
Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung , are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous , and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers. The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.
Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit (3) above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations -- race, battle, bread -- dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing -- no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena" -- would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes. As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski (1) uses five negatives in fifty three words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip -- alien for akin -- making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means; (3), if one takes an uncharitable attitude towards it, is simply meaningless: probably one could work out its intended meaning by reading the whole of the article in which it occurs. In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:
What am I trying to say?
What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
And he will probably ask himself two more:
Could I put it more shortly?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. The will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.
In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find -- this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify -- that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning's post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled" to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany's social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe." You see, he "feels impelled" to write -- feels, presumably, that he has something new to say -- and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.
I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of flyblown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not un- formation out of existence, to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defence of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.
To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a "standard English" which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style." On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never us a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.
phd9 says:
ReplyDeletesaid...
shooter:
You know fully well that the distiction is between a physical object which was the topic of the decision cited and a communication over a wire, about which the expectaion to privacy has not been determined. If that ruling is carried out, so be it, but to pretend that it is settled law as bart did is to be a liar.
Actually, part of the problem here is that most people really have no idea what the true expectation of privacy is when crossing the border.
The real answer is none. I have to admit to being surprised about that myself.
If telephone calls are actually the only thing not searched at the border then I'd say that Bart has a much better case than Glenn does, at least from a layman's point of view.
I don't think Bart considers the matter settled.
In any event, the law we are arguing about is a reaction to Nixon and doesn't reflect the current technologies. More importantly, the balance of law has swung to the side of protecting criminals from investigation for the last thirty years, even to the point of Gorelick stating that the Justice Dept was setting limits (the wall)even more stringent than legally required.
In that vein I still haven't seen any commentary on how the "wall" chilled investigation to the point where Moussaoui's laptop could not be opened before 9/11, or stymied the search for two of the hijackers.
At some point, enabling criminals and terrorists has to be balanced against public safety.
Nick says:
ReplyDeleteSo, somehow, wanting to know if the current nominee for the position of Director of the CIA is going to pursue a policy of committing acts of torture specifically outlawed by the United States Congress is akin to offerring OBL a nice glass of chablis.
What fu&^!ng world are you living in?
The same world where offering OBL a nice glass of chablis is considered torture.
Apparently you didn't read the cite I gave you, Chablis would be covered under 1(a)2.
You wrote, "John McCain is running for President, but he's a war hero, so no booing him." I think you should strike "war hero" and write "Republican". It's all right to heap any kind of abuse on any Democratic war hero; it's only when somebody shows disrespect to Republicans, war hero or draft dodger, that it becomes a problem.
ReplyDeleteIf Rich Lowry has the ego (and thin skin) I think he does, I can say this here, straight to him: hey, at least the New School student speaker didn't accuse McCain of fathering an illegitimate black girl out of wedlock like the Bush/Rove campaign you adore.
ReplyDeleteFrom shooter242 at 6:40PM:
ReplyDelete"In that vein I still haven't seen any commentary on how the "wall" chilled investigation to the point where Moussaoui's laptop could not be opened before 9/11, or stymied the search for two of the hijackers."
That's because, at least according to the accounts I've seen, this metaphorical 'wall' DIDN'T stymie, chill, or otherwise hinder investigation OR information sharing between agencies. Those lines of communication were already in place, but went untilized due to the lack of priority given to Al Qaeda and terrorism in general by the White House, particularly on the part of then-AG Ashcroft. That was the primary impediment in the case of Moussaoui.
You realize that you're not only shooting yourself in the foot, but that you're then taking careful aim and blowing off each of your toes with comments like this, right?
{I can't believe I am doing this}
ReplyDeleteShooter:
I was unable to follow your link before as I am not a subscriber to the United Nations Treaty Collection website. I did research the McCain amendment which references CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and specifically references the US' Declarations and Reservations made at the time of Ratification (ironically enough, kind of like a signing statement, no?).
In there is the following passage, which I will assume is what you are referring to.
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;...
I suppose that alcoholic beverages could be considered "...mind- altering substances ... calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality...", but, somehow, I doubt that's what they had in mind.
If you are seriously going to suggest that this document's prohibitions can, in any way, by sane people interested in reaching some type of rational, logical concensus, be called ...another page in the Al Qaeda bill of rights..... then I have no choice but to get furious at myself for having engaged in any back and forth with you at all.
Shooter today:
...If telephone calls are actually the only thing not searched at the border then I'd say that Bart has a much better case than Glenn does, at least from a layman's point of view.
I don't think Bart considers the matter settled....
From Bart Yesterday:
...The Supreme Court disagrees. Any communications in and out of the country are subject to warrantless surveillance just like any goods imported or exported....
Shooter, you might want to stick to your own arguments.
I hit publish when I meant to hit preview, so some of that is probably not what I would have said with more time to hone, but I'll stand by it.
ReplyDeleteand, oh yeah - the original question asked of Hayden was about Waterboarding, so this other bullshit you brought up, that I just responded to (God-dammit! ::stomping feet mad at myself::) is just obfuscating the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe nominee for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has refused, under oath, to respond publicly to a question about whether or not he will comply with a congressionally mandated prohibition against torture.
That is the issue.
Hypatia: In a sane political climate, this should be enough to sink his nomination.
I hesitate to turn picky with Mr. Greenwald's command of the English language.
ReplyDeleteBut "ineptitude" smacks of "the gang that couldn't shoot straight" and suggests that these people are trying to get it right.
The evidence of the last 6 years shows over and over again that there are two things the Bush Administration cares about:
1. money for their friends
2. maintaining power by any means necessary
and these they do rather well.
The rest of it? They. don't. care. It's not important.
anon who quotes Orwell's Politics and the English Language doesn't seem to know everybody who's taken Eng 101 had read that.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, enabling criminals and terrorists has to be balanced against public safety.
ReplyDeleteIf we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, so lets outlaw privacy instead.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteanon who quotes Orwell's Politics and the English Language doesn't seem to know everybody who's taken Eng 101 had read that.
Don't look at me. I'm busy shooting an elephant.
Yankee says:
ReplyDeleteThat's because, at least according to the accounts I've seen, this metaphorical 'wall' DIDN'T stymie, chill, or otherwise hinder investigation OR information sharing between agencies.
I'm sure you'll understand if I don't consider what you've seen, if anything, as definitive. Considering that the entire Justice and FBI bureaucracies were held over from Clinton, I'm not too impressed with that argument about Ashcroft. While the "wall" wasn't prominent in the Moussaoui matter, consider how tough it is to be in law enforcement if info from a criminal warrant uncovers a terror plot and you can't tell anyone about it. Nobody, not your boss, not your partner, not any other agency. Nobody.
In order to pursue that info you have to get a FISA warrant and hope the phone wasn't a throw away cell. Meanwhile if you hear about a bank robbery to finance the bombing, that's a criminal matter and can't be passed on either.
As for Moussaoui, here is the memo from Collen Rowley about the trials and tribulations
involved. Just to demonstrate the hoops needed to be jumped....
"3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota."
......And that's just to ASK for a warrant.
Meanwhile FBI headquarters had a fresh memories of this.....
" The bureau's reluctance to press new applications for national security search warrants stemmed, some officials believe, from an incident late in the Clinton administration.
In the fall of 2000, the seven judges on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in Washington summoned Attorney General Janet Reno to their secure courtroom. The judges, in a letter signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, had complained to her of a serious breach. Misleading affidavits had been submitted to the court, which approves warrants to eavesdrop on people suspected of being foreign agents or international terrorists. At the meeting, Ms. Reno agreed that the problem was serious, the officials said.
All of the flawed affidavits had been submitted by Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating the surveillance operations related to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group. The judges said they would no longer accept applications from Mr. Resnick.
In response, the F.B.I. director at the time, Louis J. Freeh, ordered a broader review of the eavesdropping applications — including those related to Al Qaeda. That review, the officials said, turned up disturbing signs that Al Qaeda applications were also flawed."
Mr. Resnick's career was permanently stalled and noone wanted to join him.
You realize that you're not only shooting yourself in the foot, but that you're then taking careful aim and blowing off each of your toes with comments like this, right?
If you're going to be insulting, at least try to be original.
Nick says:
ReplyDeleteI suppose that alcoholic beverages could be considered "...mind- altering substances ... calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality...", but, somehow, I doubt that's what they had in mind.
How do you know? Theoretically even offering a "devout muslim" an alcoholic beverage could be construed as not only a mind-altering substance, but a mortal insult to his religious sensibilities.
That alone is enough for some to holler torture at the top of their lungs.
If you are seriously going to suggest that this document's prohibitions can, in any way, by sane people interested in reaching some type of rational, logical concensus, be called ...another page in the Al Qaeda bill of rights..... then I have no choice but to get furious at myself for having engaged in any back and forth with you at all.
Start banging your head on the wall.... there's no other way to put it. Here we have non-citizens incarcerated, one of which made a mockery of the US legal system for four years, are legally shielded from any coercion beyond holding back desserts after dinner, and are stuck here becasue to send them back to their home countries is rendition and illegal also. They may not have the US Bill of Rights but it's getting closer all the time.
::bang::
ReplyDelete::bang::
::bang::
{That was
ReplyDelete::bang::
as in
::bang head against wall::
not as in
::Kojak, bang, bang::
btw}
Arman says:
ReplyDeleteEven though more than half the population would rather here their own brand of politics,
That doesn't seem to be true. Here in the NYC metro area, arguably the bluest of the blue spots in the country, Air America is losing it's flagship station, because it can't pay the bills.
Currently it's holding on till August.
Meanwhile you have ignored the entire panoply of newspapers and network news on TV.
While I may not think much of them they still command the largest audiences and influenced. The liberal media is still alive and well. Your victimhood is sagging noticeably.
While I may not think much of them they still command the largest audiences and influenced.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at this from the perspective of anon's cut and paste and see if we can parse(!) it.
1)Failure to adhere to punctuation conventions.
2)Failure to adhere to the rule of parallel structures.
My conclusion: anarchist.
If I looked into his eyes
A mystic I would be
Ravenous appetite
For the written word
Having seen the evil
And the truth of
Once and future
Words
Deeds
Thoughts
Ok, now can everyone bow to me, please?
That doesn't seem to be true. Here in the NYC metro area, arguably the bluest of the blue spots in the country, Air America is losing it's flagship station, because it can't pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteCurrently it's holding on till August.
Pooter,
You are an idiot. Maloney rhymes with baloney (bologna) for a reason. Put five in your noggin (John Gibson) and do yourself a favor. You are too stupid to live and just stupid enough to need five shots to the head to off yourself. I'd supply the info about how well Air America Radio is doing around the country, and in NY, but why bother. If I told you why the skyappears blue to you, you'd argue with me because blue isn't your favorite color.
::bang::
Pooter - useless idiot
ReplyDeleteMaloney - Baloney
Specifically - in Men, 25-54 (3 - 7 p.m.) - “The Randi Rhodes Show,” received a 3.3 Share against WABC’s Sean Hannity, who received a 3.0 share. (Hannity's program airs from 3-6 p.m.)
In New York, Al Franken is heard Noon until 3 p.m. on WLIB and Bill O'Reilly's show airs 2 - 4 p.m on WOR so they actually only go head-to-head for one hour. But, during that overlapping hour of 2 - 3 p.m., "The Al Franken Show" pulled in a 2.3 share of Persons 12+ where O’Reilly earned a 2.1. Also, in adults 25-54 during the same period, Franken had a 2.3 share and O’Reilly a 0.8.
Fallacy or not, the behavior of the students WILL be generalized to the left.
ReplyDeleteThey booed a "war hero" - thats rude.
They booed the idea of honorable disagreement - thats scary.
This kind of "disagreement is proof of evil intent" thinking is present on both left and right, but at least the students at Liberty University had the self-control and foresight not to give leftwing talk-jocks a big, gift-wrapped, present.
I am in need of an entrepreur. Wanted -- Tee shirt with the following imprints:
ReplyDeleteFront: "Proud to be a Pre-9/11 American"
Back: "Pre-Abu Ghrab
Pre-"Enemy Combatants"
Pre-NSA Spying
Pre-Preemptive War
Pre-Gitmo
Pre-CIA Rendition"
{This is my last reply, really}
ReplyDeleteShooter:
Your original post made it seem that Hayden, when asked his position on waterboarding, (which you still have not addressed) took some sort of stance in regards to the entire McCain Amendment, which was passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the US President and is the law of the United States.
You go on to imply that this position somehow (although this is only in your words, and I am not going to slander Hayden with this argument) has to do with the explicit reference in the McCain Amendment to the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the US' Declaration and Reservation {i.e. signing statement? this is a question for any of you lawyer types out there} in regards to said convention.
You further imply that said reservation (which was written by the US, I would add, although your implication was that this was somehow a UN guideline) would preclude offering an alcoholic beverage to a prisoner. You do this under the guise that
... Theoretically even offering a "devout muslim" an alcoholic beverage could be construed as not only a mind-altering substance, but a mortal insult to his religious sensibilities.
That alone is enough for some to holler torture at the top of their lungs.
I loudly, and without reservation cry:
BULLSHIT.
From the original post, you have managed to:
- (1)completely deflect the original criticism: that a nominee for a federal post has declined to answer whether or not he would follow federal law in his position
- (2)claim that a prohibition against torture is akin to "...another page in an al qaeda Bill of Rights..."
- (3)misrepresent a US reservation to a UN convention, that we signed, as somehow a UN imposed limit or sanction on US conduct
- (4)misrepresent the content of that reservation as somehow precluding American interrogators from doing so much as "...offering an alcoholic beverage..." to a prisoner.
I am not sure about you, Shooter. I do not know if you really believe what you are saying.
I kind of have a committment to myself to give you the benefit of the doubt, though, so here:
In reverse order:
(4)Your argument about the langauge in the US reservation to the UN Convention is an absolutely classic straw man argument: ...That alone is enough for some to holler torture ... {Emphasis mine}
Has anyone credible ever put forward the argument that this codocil was ever intended to dissallow the offering of alcoholic beverages? Please provide evidence. Otherwise you are arguing with your own concoction of "some people" who are putting forward an argument that is patently ridiculous.
Because that statement is ridiculous. The passage refers to the use of experimental or intentionally harmful chemicals whose use could be ... specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering .... Nowhere is there anything in there that could cause a reasonable person to think "Uh oh. No more Miller Lite for Saddam."
(3)The statement in question was, IMO, intended to spell out the US' understanding of the UN guidelines. {Maybe a local legal eagle could help me on this}. We signed the UN document in question and then added the language in this specific passage ourselves. This is not some liberal conspiracy - this was the Reagan Administration's understanding of Universal Human Rights.
(2)I don't even know where to start with this. Included in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution are Rights of freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and press; to bear arms, to trial by jury and reasonable bail, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, from cruel and unusual punishment, from the uninvited imposition of troops quartered in our homes. This document is an affirmation of our rights as human beings, it is positive and declarative.
Somehow, a prohibition against inflicting "...severe physical or mental pain..." adds up to an appositive analogy in your view. This is just wrong. Laws against venality, cruelty, and immorality are not the same thing as a bill of rights.
With regards to (3) and (2) above, it is also relevant that President Bush at least pays lip service to the morality of the ideas involved:
Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice. - George W. Bush June 2003
I do not cite Bush as a moral authority, but in order to indicate that these are ideas that he does not challenge, and in fact, when politically expedient, he espouses them. He also, in practice, circumvents them with the aid of people like Hayden, which brings us to the fact that:
(1)You have still failed to address the original point: that Hayden, in the hearings to determine his suitability as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America, failed to positively affirm that he would follow the legislatively prescribed sanction against behavior that violates our nation's conscience as being immoral. This is unacceptable.
Daphne
ReplyDelete::bow::
::smirk::
An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11
ReplyDeleteCenter were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know. By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.
So why, at 9:03 a.m.—fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack—did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it.
Bush’s actions on September 11 have been the subject of lively debate, mostly on the internet. Details reported that day and in the week after the attacks—both the media reports and accounts given by Bush himself—have changed radically over the past 18 months. Culling hundreds of reports from newspapers, magazines, and the internet has only made finding the “truth” of what happened and when it happened more confusing. In the changed political climate after 9/11, few have dared raise challenging questions about Bush’s actions. A journalist who said Bush was “flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare” and another who said Bush “skedaddled” were fired. [Washington Post, 9/29/01 (B)] We should have a concise record of where President Bush was throughout the day the US was attacked, but we do not.
What follows is an attempt to give the most complete account of Bush’s actions—from Florida to Louisiana to Nebraska to Washington, DC.
Preparations
Bush’s appearance at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on September 11, 2001 had been in the planning stages since August [Booker web site], but was only publicly announced on the morning of September 7. [White House, 9/7/01] Later that same day, 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi traveled to Sarasota and enjoyed drinks and dinner at a Holiday Inn only two miles down the sandy beach from where Bush was scheduled to stay during his Sarasota visit. [Longboat Observer, 11/21/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02]
The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort, where Bush stayed the night before 9/11. [Colony Resort web site]
On the night of September 10th, Bush stayed at the Colony Beach Resort—“an upscale and relatively pristine tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico, a spindly coral island ... off Sarasota, Florida.” [AP, 07/29/01] Zainlabdeen Omer, a Sudanese native living in Sarasota, told the local police that night that someone he knew who had made violent threats against Bush was in town and Omer was worried about Bush’s safety. The man was identified only as “Ghandi.” A police report states the Secret Service was informed immediately. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]
After a private dinner with various Florida politicians (including his brother Jeb) and Republican donors, Bush went to bed around 10:00 p.m. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 25] It’s not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or whether security was increased because of possible threats.
An Assassination Attempt?
Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]
At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony’s guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled “poolside” interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn’t heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president’s public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]
General Ahmed Shah Massoud.
The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Two North African men, posing as journalists from “Arabic News International,” had been requesting an interview with Massoud since late August. Ahmad Jamsheed, Massoud’s secretary, said that by the night of September 8, “they were so worried and excitable, they were begging us.” An interview was arranged for the following day. As it began, a bomb hidden in the video camera exploded, killing the two journalists. Massoud was rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Tajikistan, but was pronounced dead on arrival (although his death was not acknowledged until September 15). [International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 10/30/01, Newsday, 10/26/01] The assassination is widely believed to have been timed to remove the Taliban’s most popular and respected opponent in anticipation of the backlash that would occur after the 9/11 attacks. [BBC, 9/10/01, BBC, 9/10/01 (B), Time, 8/4/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/9/02] The Northern Alliance blamed al-Qaeda and the ISI, Pakistan’s secret service, for the attacks. [Radio Free Europe, 9/10/01, Newsday, 9/15/01, Reuters, 10/4/01]
Nearly three hours after the incident at the Colony, another Longboat Key resident reported a run-in with possibly the same men. At about 8:50 (when reports of the first World Trade Center crash were first broadcast), while standing on the Sarasota bay front waiting for the presidential motorcade to pass by, this man saw two Middle Eastern men in a dilapidated van “screaming out the windows ‘Down with Bush’ and raising their fists in the air.” The FBI questioned the man, but it’s not known if this was the same van that had visited the Colony. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]
Later on the morning of September 11, the Secret Service searched a Sarasota apartment looking for further corroboration of Zainlabdeen Omer’s report of an assassination threat. Three Sudanese men were questioned for about ten hours. The Secret Service also raided a beauty supply store in Sarasota, whose owner, identified as “Hakim,” told the agents that “Ghandi” was a member of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, a group fighting against the fundamentalist Muslim government in Sudan. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]
Monica Yadav of Sarasota’s ABC News 40 reported that a few days after the Secret Service visit, the beauty supply store was closed up and Hakim was long gone. Yadav also learned that Zainlabdeen Omer had suddenly quit his jobs and vacated his apartment. “All I know is he can’t leave town,” a friend of Omer’s told Yadav. “Omer got in a lot of trouble with the law.” The Special Agent in charge of the Presidential detail in Sarasota told Yadav that Bush was never in any danger and the various warnings and possible terrorist connections were all “just a coincidence.” [Hopsicker, 7/22/02] Yet, as we will see below, there are more details of a threat against Bush before he left Sarasota.
Bush Is Briefed as the Hijackings Begin
After his jog, Bush showered, then sat down for his daily intelligence briefing around 8 a.m. “The President’s briefing appears to have included some reference to the heightened terrorist risk reported throughout the summer, but contained nothing specific, severe or imminent enough to necessitate a call to [National Security Advisor] Condoleezza Rice.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01]
While Bush was being briefed, the planes that would be hijacked began taking off. American Airlines Flight 11 was first, leaving Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:59 a.m. The others soon followed, except for United Flight 93, scheduled to leave at 8:01, but which was delayed on the runway for about 40 minutes. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01] (For more information on the four flights, see Flight 11, Flight 175, Flight 77, Flight 93.)
At approximately 8:13, Flight 11 was instructed by air traffic controllers at the FAA’s Boston Center, in Nashua, New Hampshire, to climb to 35,000 feet. The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic control manager Glenn Michael said, “we considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking.” [AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added] According to FAA regulations, that was the correct decision: “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft.” [FAA Air Traffic Control Regulations, Chapter 10, Section 2-5 ]
Air traffic controller Matt McCluskey stands in the Boston tower where the Flight 11 hijack was first detected. [AP]
If air traffic controllers believed Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13, NORAD should have been informed immediately, so military planes could be scrambled to investigate. However, NORAD and the FAA both claimed NORAD was not informed until 8:40—27 minutes later. [NORAD, 9/18/01, AP, 8/12/02, AP, 8/19/02, Newsday, 9/10/02; one NORAD employee said it took place at 8:31, ABC News, 9/11/02] Indeed, before contacting NORAD, Boston air traffic controllers watched Flight 11 make an unexpected 100-degree turn and head south toward New York City [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/01], told other controllers of the hijacking at 8:25 [Guardian, 10/17/01], continued to hear highly suspicious dialogue from the cockpit (such as, “Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don’t try to make any stupid moves” ) [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01], and even asked the pilots of Flight 175 to scan the skies for the errant plane. [Guardian, 10/17/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01]
Is NORAD’s claim credible? If so, the air traffic controllers (including Mr. Michael) should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date, however, there has been no word of any person being disciplined at any institution at any level for what happened on 9/11.
If NORAD’s claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time frame outlined in FAA regulations that Flight 11 may have been hijacked, that would mean NORAD did absolutely nothing for almost thirty minuteswhile a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished.
According to phone calls made by fight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, the hijackers had stabbed and killed at least one passenger and two flight attendants by about 8:21. [ABC News, 7/18/02, Boston Globe, 11/23/01, AP, 10/5/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] (One hijacker may have been riding in the cockpit and begun the hijacking earlier.) After 8:21, both women apparently remained on the phone with American Airlines’ headquarters for 25 minutes, until their plane crashed into the World Trade Center’s North Tower. [ABC News, 7/18/02, AP, 10/5/01] These calls make NORAD’s supposed ignorance of a crisis even more dubious.
Bush’s motorcade arrives at Booker Elementary. [A still from Booker video]
Bush Leaves for Booker Elementary
Around the same time the Flight 11 hijackers were stabbing passenger Daniel Lewin—at 8:20 a.m.—Bush’s briefing ended and he said good-bye to the Colony’s general manager. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The first event on Bush’s schedule was what is known as a “soft event” – a photo-op with children at Emma Booker Elementary School—promoting his proposed education bill. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/11/01] After spending about 20 minutes with the children, Bush was scheduled to give a short press conference at about 9:30. [White House, 9/7/01, Federal News Service, 9/10/01]
Accounts of when Bush’s motorcade left for the school vary from 8:30 to 8:39. [8:30, Washington Post, 1/27/02, 8:35, Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01, 8:39, Washington Times, 10/7/02] One account has the Bush party leave the Colony suite at 8:30 and drive away at 8:39. Whenever he left, the motorcade traveled quickly: “The police shut down traffic in both directions, leaving roads utterly deserted for Bush’s long motorcade, which barreled along at 40 mph, running red lights with impunity.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 37-38] At 40 mph, it would take about 14 minutes to travel the nine-mile distance to the school. Several accounts say the journey took about 20 minutes [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B), MSNBC, 10/29/02], which means that Bush arrived shortly before 9:00. [8:46, ABC News, 9/11/02, 8:55, Washington Times, 10/7/02, 8:55, Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01, “just before 9:00,”Telegraph, 12/16/01, “shortly before 9:00,”Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02, “just before 9:00,”New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), 9:00, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02]
When Did Bush First Learn of the Attacks?
Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However, this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.
In this map, the yellow star is roughly where Bush’s motorcade is when Flight 11 crashes at 8:46, and the orange star is where he is when told about the crash a few minutes later. [Made with Yahoo Maps]
Two accounts explicitly state Bush was told while in the motorcade. “The President was on Highway 301, just north of Main Street ... [when] he received the news that a plane had crashed in New York City.” [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] (See adjacent map for the location where he is told.) Another account states, “Bush was driving to the school in a motorcade when the phone rang. An airline accident appeared to have happened. He pressed on with his visit.” [Observer, 9/16/01]
The first media reports of Flight 11’s crash into the World Trade Center began around 8:48, two minutes after the crash happened. [New York Times, 9/15/01] CNN broke into its regular programming at that time [CNN, 9/11/01], though other networks, such as ABC, took a few more minutes to begin reporting. [ABC, 9/14/02] So within minutes, millions were aware of the story, yet Bush supposedly remained unaware for about another ten minutes.
Claims of Bush’s ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his motorcade were immediately told of the attack. For instance, Kia Baskerville, a CBS News producer traveling with Bush that morning, received a message about a plane crash “as the presidential motorcade headed to President Bush’s first event.” Baskerville said, “Fifteen minutes later I was standing in a second grade classroom [waiting for Bush’s entrance]”—which means she got the news at about 8:47—right as the story was first being reported. [CBS, 8/19/02] A news photographer in the motorcade overheard a radio transmission that Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would be needed on arrival at the school to discuss reports of some sort of crash. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01] Another account notes Fleischer got the news that the crash had occurred “just minutes before,” but notes that Bush was not in the same car as Fleischer. [CBS, 11/1/02] Senior presidential communications officer Thomas Herman said, “Just as we were arriving at the school, I received a notification from our operations center than [sic] an airliner had struck one of the towers....” [Marist College Magazine, Fall 2002]
Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet was told of the crash a few minutes after it happened. A messenger gave him the news as he was eating breakfast with former Senator David Boren in a Washington restaurant three blocks from the White House. Boren says Tenet was told that the World Trade Center had been attacked by an airplane: “I was struck by the fact that [the messenger] used the word attacked.” An aide then handed a cell phone to Tenet, and Tenet made some calls, showing that at least some at the highest levels of the Bush administration were talking about an attack at this time. Tenet then said to Boren, “You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.” [ABC, 9/14/02]
Some people at the school also heard of the news before Bush arrived. Around 8:50, Tampa Bay’s Channel 8 reporter Jackie Barron was on the phone with her mother, who mentioned the first news reports. At almost the same time, Brian Goff, a Fox reporter from Tampa, heard the same thing on his cell phone. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Associated Press reporter Sonia Ross was also told of the crash by phone from a colleague. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] Florida Congressman Dan Miller, waiting in front of the school as part of the official greeting party, was told by an aide about the crash at 8:55, before Bush arrived. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01]
Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled “at all the phones and electronic equipment.” [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush’s “chief political strategist,” who presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek, 10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.
White House Situation Room Director Deborah Loewer.
Another Warning
If Bush wasn’t told while in his limousine, he certainly was told immediately after he got out of it. US Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the director of the White House Situation Room, was traveling in the motorcade when she received a message from an assistant back in Washington about the first crash. Loewer said that as soon as the car arrived at Booker, she ran quickly over to Bush. “It’s a very good thing the Secret Service knows who I am,” Loewer later said. She told Bush that an aircraft had “impacted the World Trade Center. This is all we know.” [Catholic Telegraph, 12/7/01, AP, 11/26/01]
Meanwhile, More Hijackings
Flight 77’s intended and actual routes. [USA Today] Note the strange loop off course about halfway along the route to the west, which was the first sign the plane was hijacked. Such a large diversion is extremely uncommon, and should have triggered an immediate fighter response.
Even though Flight 175 left about the same time as Flight 11, it appears to have been hijacked much later. At 8:41, its pilot was still talking to ground control [New York Times, 10/16/01], but at 8:42 it sharply veered off course, and a flight controller noted that its transponder had been turned off and communication cut. [Boston Globe, 11/23/01, New York Times, 10/16/01] One minute later, at 8:43, NORAD was notified the plane had been hijacked. [NORAD, 9/18/01] The hijackers turned the transponder back on but used a different signal code. This allowed flight controllers to “easily” track the plane as it flew toward New York City. [Washington Post, 9/17/01] At about 8:46, Flight 77 began to go severely off course. According to regulations, a fighter is required to be dispatched if a plane strays from its official course by more than two miles or 15 degrees [MSNBC, 9/12/01]. As the adjacent map shows, Flight 77 returned to its proper course for a time, but its last radio contact occurred at 8:50. [Guardian, 10/17/01] Supposedly, NORAD was not officially notified that Flight 77 has been hijacked until 9:24 [NORAD, 9/18/01], but the New York Times reported that by around 8:50, military officials at the Pentagon were already discussing what to do about Flight 77. [New York Times, 9/15/01] Note the difference in notification times: 27 minutes for Flight 11, 1 minute for Flight 175 and 38 minutes for Flight 77.
Flight 93 wasn’t hijacked until about 9:16, but by about 8:50, it was clear that at least three planes had been hijacked. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, said, “The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was ...” [Meet the Press, 9/16/01] Cheney never finished his sentence (interesting in itself—did he say too much?), but it seems safe to say that his next word would have been “hit.” Cheney’s statement makes it clear the Secret Service knew the extent of the situation well before 9:00 am.
An Accident?
Intelligence agencies were suffering “warning fatigue” from so many warnings of an al-Qaeda attack [Independent, 9/7/02], some specifically mentioning the use of hijacked airplanes as missiles (see this essay). Bush himself was given an intelligence briefing a month earlier entitled “Bin Laden to Strike in US,” and it contained a warning from the British government that the US should expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02] So with the clear knowledge that three planes had been hijacked, with one of them already crashed into the World Trade Center, who would have possibly assumed that Flight 11’s crash was an accident? Yet that is precisely what the official story claims. There are a number of different “official” accounts, but all of them stress that Bush wasn’t told until after he arrived inside the school (contrary to the account of Captain Loewer) and that it was assumed to be an accident (contradicting Tenet being told that it was an attack).
Karl Rove [Reuters], Andrew Card [AP], and Dan Bartlett.
In some accounts, “President Bush had emerged from his car and was shaking hands with local officials standing outside the school when Chief of Staff Andrew Card sidled up to him with the news.” [CBS, 11/1/02] Bush later recalled that it was Card who first notified him: “‘Here’s what you’re going to be doing; you’re going to meet so-and-so, such-and-such.’ Then Andy Card said, ‘By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center.’ ” [Washington Times, 10/7/02] At a press conference later that day, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer also claimed it was Andy Card who first informed him, “as the President finished shaking hands in a hallway of school officials.” [Knoxville News Sentinel, 9/11/01]
In other accounts, it was advisor Karl Rove who first told Bush. According to photographer Eric Draper, who was standing nearby, Rove rushed up, took Bush aside in a corridor inside the school and said the cause of the crash was unclear. Bush replied, “What a horrible accident!” Bush also suggested the pilot may have had a heart attack. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, says he was there when Bush was told: “ [Bush] being a former pilot, had kind of the same reaction, going, was it bad weather? And I said no, apparently not.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] A reporter who was standing nearby later said, “From the demeanor of the President, grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a while to sink in.” [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] One account explicitly says that Rove told Bush the World Trade Center had been hit by a large commercial airliner. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] However, Bush later remembered Rove saying it appeared to be an accident involving a small, twin-engine plane. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, MSNBC, 9/02]
In yet another account, Blake Gottesman, Bush’s personal assistant, while giving the president some final instructions as they walked to the school, remarked, “Andy Card says, ‘By the way, an aircraft flew into the World Trade Center.’ ” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 41-42]
Condoleezza Rice. [AP]
Told Again, Yet Still Clueless
Booker principal Gwen Tose-Rigell was waiting for Bush outside the school. “The limousine stops and the president comes out. He walks toward me. I’m standing there in a lineup; there are about five people. He walks over and says he has to make a phone call, and he’ll be right back.” [MSNBC, 09/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01] The phone call was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. From a room with secure communications, Rice updated Bush on the situation. [Christian Science Monitor, 9/17/01, Time, 9/12/01] The fact that Bush immediately said he had to make an important call strongly suggests he was told about the situation while in the motorcade. But some accounts have Andrew Card saying to Bush as he gets out of his limousine, “Mr. President, you really need to take this phone call,” thereby implying that Card knows what’s going on, but Bush doesn’t. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)]
As National Security Advisor, Rice had to have had as much information as anyone. By the time she spoke to Bush, she must have known that three planes had been hijacked and that the country was under attack. We know very little about the conversation—only that Rice later claimed, “ [Bush] said, what a terrible, it sounds like a terrible accident. Keep me informed.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] One reporter noted: “Bush did not appear preoccupied [after the phone call] … There was no sign that Rice had just told [him] about the first attack [on the World Trade Center].” [Cox News, 9/12/01 (B)] Tose-Rigell was then summoned to a room to talk with Bush: “He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we’re going to go ahead and go on, we’re going on to do the reading thing anyway.” [AP, 8/19/02 (D)]
One local reporter notes that at this point, “He could and arguably should have left Emma E. Booker Elementary School immediately, gotten onto Air Force One and left Sarasota without a moment’s delay ... But he didn’t.” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/12/01 (B)] The only possible excuse is that Bush was completely clueless as to what was happening. Sure enough, at a press conference on the evening of 9/11, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked by a reporter, “And then this morning, when Andy Card told him about the first accident, was Andy Card or Condi Rice or any of those aware of the hijackings? What did they know when they—-” Fleischer cut in and replied, “No, at that point they were not.” [Knoxville News Sentinel, 9/11/01] So supposedly, 15 minutes after the first crash, none of Bush’s aides, not even Rice back in Washington, DC, knew a thing about the hijackings that had been reported to NORAD 20 minutes earlier? This simply is not plausible.
Booker Elementary School. [MSNBC]
Bush’s Confused Recollection
Bush’s own recollection of the first crash only complicates the picture. Less than two months after the attacks, Bush made the preposterous claim that he had watched the first attack as it happened on live television. This is the seventh different account of how Bush learned about the first crash (in his limousine, from Loewer, from Card, from Rove, from Gottesman, from Rice, from television). On December 4, 2001, Bush was asked: “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?” Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it.” [White House, 12/4/01]
There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush didn’t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] The Boston Herald later noted, “Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit—which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.” [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] Bush’s recollection has many precise details. Is he simply confused? It’s doubly strange why his advisors didn’t correct him or—at the very least—stop him from repeating the same story only four weeks later. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] On January 5, 2002, Bush stated: “Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff – well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane...” [White House, 1/5/02]
Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked—not even once—to explain these statements. His memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that evening. In his speech to the nation that evening, Bush said: “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government’s emergency response plans.” [White House, 9/11/01] It’s not known what these emergency plans were, because neither Bush nor anyone in his administration mentioned this immediate response again. Implementing “emergency response plans” seems to completely contradict Bush’s “by the way” recollection of a small airplane accident.
Bush meets teacher Sandra Kay Daniels. [A still from Booker video]
Inside the Classroom and the Second Plane Crash
Shortly after his call with National Security Advisor Rice, Bush entered Sandra Kay Daniels’s second-grade class for a photo-op to promote Bush’s education policies. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] The event was to begin precisely at 9:00, but the call pushed it back to about 9:03. [Washington Times, 10/8/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Numerous reporters who were traveling with the president, as well as members of the local media, watched from the back of the room. [AP, 8/19/02 (D)] Altogether there were about 150 people in the room, only 16 of them students. Bush was introduced to the children and then posed for a number of pictures. Daniels then led the students through some reading exercises (video footage shows this lasted about three minutes). [Salon, 9/12/01 (B)] Bush later related what he was thinking at the time: “I was concentrating on the program at this point, thinking about what I was going to say [about the plane crash]. Obviously, I felt it was an accident. I was concerned about it, but there were no alarm bells.” [Washington Times, 10/7/02]
At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. News of this traveled extremely rapidly. In fact, some of Bush’s Secret Service agents watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, in the same room as Bush but not near him, immediately received the news on his pager. [CBS, 9/11/02] Other pagers were going off as well.
Andrew Card tells Bush the second tower has been hit. [White House via AP] See a video of Bush’s reaction here: [ABC, 9/14/02]
Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Card whispered to Bush: “A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] Another account has Card saying: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Accounts vary as to when Card gave Bush the news. Some say 9:05 [Salon 9/11/01, New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Albuquerque Tribune, 9/10/02], and some say 9:07. [Washington Post, 9/11/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] ABC News reporter Ann Compton, who was in the room, said she was surprised by the interruption and “wrote [the time] down in my reporter’s notebook, by my watch, 9:07 a.m.” [ABC News, 9/11/02]
The Reaction—Or Lack of One
Another picture of Andrew Card telling Bush the second tower has been hit. [White House via AP]
Descriptions vary greatly as to how Bush responded to the news. It is said he “blanched” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10/1/02], “the color drained from the president’s face” [AP, 9/12/01 (D)], he “wore a bemused smile” [Orlando Sentinel, 9/12/01], “because visibly tense and serious” [Time, 9/12/01], and so on. Watch the video and draw your own conclusions (the 11-minute video can be viewed at the Center for Cooperative Research, Buzzflash, Global Free Press, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or Liberty DYNU). Bush later recalled his own reaction: “I am very aware of the cameras. I’m trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I’m sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children’s story and I realize I’m the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 11/1/02] Asked again what he thought after he heard the news, Bush said, “We’re at war and somebody has dared attack us and we’re going to do something about it. I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us … [I]t became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed.” [CBS, 9/11/02]
So what did the Commander in Chief do with the knowledge that the United States was under attack?
He did nothing.
Bush did not say one word. He did not ask Card any questions. He did not give any orders. He did not know who (or which country) was attacking, whether there would be more attacks, what military plans had been taken, what military actions should be taken—indeed, he knew virtually nothing about what was going on outside the room. He just sat there. Bush later recalled: “There was no time for discussion or anything.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 83-84] Even stranger, as one newspaper put it, although the nation was under terrorist attack, “for some reason, Secret Service agents [did] not bustle him away.” [Globe and Mail, 9/12/01]
Military pilots must have “permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down.” [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight 175 later noted that it wouldn’t have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02]
Bush not long after being told of the second plane crash. [A still from Booker video]
Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush’s phone immediately said to Balkwill, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave.
Meanwhile, Secret Service agents burst into Vice President Cheney’s White House office. They carried him under his arms—nearly lifting him off the ground—and propelled him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. Accounts of when this happened vary greatly, from 9:06 [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01] to after 9:30. [CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Cheney’s own account is vague and contradictory. [Meet the Press, 9/16/01] The one eyewitness account, by White House photographer David Bohrer, said it happened just after 9:00. [ABC, 9/14/02 (B)] It’s easy to see why the White House would have wanted this event placed at a later time (after Bush’s initial statement to the nation rather than after the second crash) to avoid the obvious question: if Cheney was immediately evacuated, why wasn’t Bush?
The Photo-Op Goes On
After Card told Bush about the second plane and quickly left, the classroom was silent for about 30 seconds or so. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02] The children were about to take turns reading from a story called The Pet Goat. [AFP, 9/7/02] Bush picked up the book and began to read with the children. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02] In unison, the children read out loud, “The—Pet—Goat. A—girl—got—a—pet—goat. But—the—goat—did—some—things—that—made—the—girl’s—dad—mad.” Bush mostly listened, but occasionally asked the children a few questions to encourage them. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] At one point he said, “Really good readers, whew! ... These must be sixth-graders!” [Time, 9/12/01]
Who was really in control? Certainly not Bush. In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer caught Bush’s eye and held up a pad of paper for him to see, with “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET” written on it in big block letters. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] Some person or people had overruled the security who wanted Bush evacuated immediately, even as Vice President Cheney was taken from his White House office to a safe location. Bush’s security overruled Bush on security matters later in the day on Air Force One, but who overruled them that morning?
Bush with his Pet Goat book in Sandra Kay Daniels’s elementary school classroom. [Eric Draper]
When Did Bush Leave the Classroom?
Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom after being told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B), Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also doesn’t tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained “for eight or nine minutes”—sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card’s arrival is uncertain. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02]
When Bush finally did leave, he didn’t act like a man in a hurry. In fact, he was described as “openly stretching out the moment.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 89] When the lesson was over, Bush said to the children: “Hoo! These are great readers. Very impressive! Thank you all so much for showing me your reading skills. I bet they practice too. Don’t you? Reading more than they watch TV? Anybody do that? Read more than you watch TV? [Hands go up] Oh that’s great! Very good. Very important to practice! Thanks for having me. Very impressed.” [Transcribed from Booker video, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 89-90] Bush still continued to talk, advising the children to stay in school and be good citizens. [Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)] One student asked Bush a question, and he gave a quick response on his education policy. [New York Post, 9/12/02]
The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon’s book as an “inside account of the Bush administration’s reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle.” [Publisher’s Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon’s conservative perspective makes his account of Bush’s behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children “as if he didn’t have a care in the world” and “in the most relaxed manner imaginable.” White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, “Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please.” A reporter then asked, “Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...,” But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET,” Bush responded, “I’ll talk about it later.” But still the president did not leave. “He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered until the press was gone.” [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]
Think about that: rather than rush out of the room at the first chance, Bush actually stayed until after all the dozens of reporters had left! Having just been told of a Pearl Harbor-type attack on US soil, Bush was indeed “openly stretching out the moment.” But he still wasn’t done. Bush then turned to principal Tose-Rigell, who was waiting to take him to the library for his speech on education. He explained to her about the terror attacks and why he had to leave. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90] Finally, he went to an empty classroom next door where his staff was based. [ABC News, 9/11/02] Given that Bush’s program was supposed to end at 9:20, he left the classroom only a couple of minutes earlier than planned, if even that. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01]
Why Stay?
The reason given why Bush didn’t leave as soon as Card told him the news is: “Without all the facts at hand, George Bush had no intention of upsetting the schoolchildren who had come to read for him.” [MSNBC, 10/29/02] Advisor Karl Rove said, “The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn’t want to alarm the children.” [ABC, 9/11/02] This excuse is patently absurd, given the security risks and importance of Bush being informed and making decisions as Commander in Chief. Nor was the drill coming to a close: one drill had ended and another was about to begin—it was a perfect time to simply say, “Excuse me” and leave the room. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is only 3½ miles away; in fact, Booker was chosen as the location for the photo-op partly because of its proximity to the airport. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/12/02] Hijackers could have crashed a plane into Bush’s publicized location and his security would have been completely helpless to stop it. Remember, Bush’s schedule had been announced on September 7 and two of the 9/11 hijackers came to Sarasota that same day. [White House, 9/7/01, Longboat Observer, 11/21/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Furthermore, the Secret Service was aware of the strange request for an interview a few hours earlier and the previous night’s report of a person in town who had made violent threats against Bush.
Indeed, a few days after 9/11, Sarasota’s main newspaper reported, “Sarasota barely skirted its own disaster. As it turns out, terrorists targeted the president and Air Force One on Tuesday, maybe even while they were on the ground in Sarasota and certainly not long after. The Secret Service learned of the threat just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary.” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01]
Bush in a holding room before giving his speech. Communications director Dan Bartlett points to the TV, and the clock reads 9:25. [White House]
Bush Lingers On
Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice, and preparing a speech. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Incredibly, even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked (eventually 11 planes would be suspected) [CBS, 9/11/02], Bush was allowed to make his remarks at 9:30—exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. [Federal News Service, 9/10/01, see the transcript of his speech here] Why hasn’t Bush’s security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable decision to stay at the school? And why didn’t Bush’s concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?
President Bush speaks at 9:29 in the library of Booker Elementary School. [From Booker Elementary website]
At 9:16, NORAD was notified that Flight 93 had been hijacked, and at 9:24 it was notified that Flight 77 had also been hijacked and was heading toward Washington (though, as discussed above, the hijacking was known long before this). [NORAD, 9/18/01] No media report has suggested that the possible shooting down of hijacked airplanes was discussed at this time, however. It appears the discussion was not broached until after 9:55. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, CBS, 9/11/02] At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. [Time, 9/14/01, USA Today, 8/13/02] Additionally, no evidence has appeared suggesting Bush had a role in ordering any fighters into the skies.
Finally, to the Airport
Bush talks on a cell phone on the way to the Sarasota airport. Andrew Card is in front of him. [AP]
By 9:35, Bush’s motorcade was ready to take him to the Sarasota airport where Air Force One was waiting. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] At 9:37, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Bush was informed as his motorcade got near the airport. (Apparently Bush could be reached by phone in his limousine at this time.) [Washington Times, 10/8/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01] The motorcade arrived around 9:43 and pulled up close to Air Force One. Security conducted an extra-thorough search of all the baggage for the other passengers, delaying takeoff until 9:55. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02 (B)]
A year later, Chief of Staff Andrew Card recalled that, “As we were heading to Air Force One... [we] learned, what turned out to be a mistake, but we learned that the Air Force One package could in fact be a target.” [MSNBC, 9/9/02] This echoes the report mentioned above that “terrorists targeted the president and Air Force One... maybe even while they were on the ground in Sarasota ...” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/16/01] This only increases the strangeness that Bush wasn’t immediately evacuated at 9:03 as some of his security had recommended.
Dogs thoroughly check luggage underneath Air Force One. [AP]
Bush spoke by telephone to Cheney as the motorcade raced to the airport. [St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Supposedly, during this call Bush issued an order to ground all flights within the country. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The FAA did shut down the nationwide air traffic system at around 9:45. [MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Newsday, 9/10/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01] But other reports state that it was FAA administrator Ben Sliney who made the decision without consulting anyone. [USA Today, 8/13/02, USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)] For some time it was claimed that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta had made the decision, but it was later revealed that Mineta didn’t even know of the order until 15 minutes later. Apparently, “FAA officials had begged [the reporter] to maintain the fiction.” [Slate, 4/2/02] The idea that Bush made the decision is even less plausible. In fact, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Bush had by this point made even one decision relevant to his security or that of the country.
Where is the security covering Bush as he leaves Sarasota? Is a good public relations photo more important than security, minutes after the Secret Service was told Bush could be attacked as he left Sarasota? [AP]
Air Force One Takes Off Without Fighter Escort
Air Force One took off at either 9:55 or 9:57 a.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02, AP, 9/12/01] Communications Director Dan Bartlett remembered, “It was like a rocket. For a good ten minutes, the plane was going almost straight up.” [CBS, 9/11/02]
But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush’s security people said, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground from terrorist attack even before he left the school. In Florida, there were two bases said to have fighters on 24-hour alert, capable of getting airborne in approximately five minutes. Homestead Air Station, 185 miles from Sarasota, and Tyndall Air Station, 235 miles from Sarasota; both had the highest readiness status on 9/11. Presumably, as happened at other bases across the country, just after 9:03, base commanders throughout Florida would have immediately begun preparations to get their fighters ready. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Fighters left bases on the same alert status and traveled similar distances to reach Washington, DC, well before 10:00, so why were the fighters delayed in Florida? [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]
Military planes should have been over Sarasota by the time Bush left Booker at 9:35 a.m. Yet, as will be described below, more than one hour after Air Force One took off, there were still no fighters protecting it!
Air Force One departs Sarasota. [AP]
An administration official claimed, “The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But without fighter cover this makes little sense, because the sky was arguably more dangerous than the ground. At the time, there were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the US [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)], including about half of the planes in the region of Florida where Bush was. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/7/02] Recall, too, that the Secret Service learned of a threat to Bush and Air Force One “just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary.” Karl Rove, also on Air Force One, confirmed that a dangerous threat was known before the plane took off: “They also made it clear they wanted to get us up quickly, and they wanted to get us to a high altitude, because there had been a specific threat made to Air Force One.... A declaration that Air Force One was a target, and said in a way that they called it credible.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]
Cheney, right and sitting, talks to Bush. Condoleezza Rice, center and sitting, and others, look on. [White House]
Shoot Down Authorized—Too Late
Once he was airborne, Bush talked to Cheney again and Cheney recommended that Bush “order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked.” [CBS, 9/11/02] “I said, ‘You bet,’ ” Bush later recalled. “We had a little discussion, but not much.” [Newsday, 9/23/01, USA Today, 9/16/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] However, even though only Bush had the authority to order a passenger plane shot down [CNN, 10/26/99], the order was apparently given before Bush discussed it with Cheney. One flight commander recalled, “After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not ‘might be’ ; they were coming.” A call from someone in the White House declared the Washington area “a free-fire zone,” meaning, according to one of the responding fighter pilots, “we were given authority to use force, if the situation required it.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]
Extraordinary times can demand extraordinary measures, so having someone other than Bush give this order could be understandable. But Bush was available and talking to people like Cheney after 9:30 a.m. Around this time, officials feared that as many as 11 airliners had been hijacked [CBS, 9/11/02], so why weren’t Bush and Cheney even considering this course of action until about 10:00 a.m.? Was Bush being kept out of the loop in reality, or only in the media reports?
Is the lateness of this discussion merely political spin to reduce speculation that Flight 93 had been shot down? Flight 93 was still in the air after the Bush authorization, and fighters were given orders to shoot it down if necessary. [ABC News, 9/11/02] NORAD knew at 9:16 a.m. that Flight 93 was hijacked [NORAD, 9/18/01], but supposedly fighters weren’t scrambled until minutes before it crashed at 10:06 a.m.
Going Nowhere as Threats Increase
Shortly after takeoff, Cheney apparently informed Bush of “a credible threat” to Air Force One. [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] US Representative Adam Putnam “had barely settled into his seat on Air Force One ... when he got the news that terrorists apparently had set their sights on the plane.” [Orlando Sentinel, 9/14/01] The Secret Service had received an anonymous call: “Air Force One is next.” The caller allegedly knew the agency’s code words relating to Air Force One procedures. Pilot Colonel Mark Tillman was told of the threat and he asked that an armed guard be stationed at the cockpit door. The Associated Press reported that the threat came “within the same hour” as the Pentagon crash (i.e., before 10:00 a.m., roughly when the plane took off). [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] Details suggest this threat was not the same as the earlier one, but it’s hard to know for sure.
In his comments at Booker, Bush said he was immediately flying back to Washington, but soon after takeoff, he, Cheney and the Secret Service began arguing whether it was safe to fly back to the capital. [Telegraph, 12/16/01] Andrew Card told Bush, “We’ve got to let the dust settle before we go back.” [St. Petersburg Times, 9/8/02] The plane apparently stayed over Sarasota until the argument was settled. Accounts differ, but until about 10:35 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02 (B), Washington Post, 1/27/02], Air Force One “appeared to be going nowhere. The journalists on board – all of whom were barred from communicating with their offices – sensed that the plane was flying in big, slow circles.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01]
Cheney apparently called Bush again at 10:32 a.m., and told him of another threat to Air Force One. Within minutes, the argument was over, and the plane turned away from Washington and flew to Louisiana instead. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Bush recalled: “I wanted to come back to Washington, but the circumstances were such that it was just impossible for the Secret Service or the national security team to clear the way for Air Force One to come back.” [CBS, 9/11/02] Given that the rocket-like takeoff was due to a threat, this must have been another threat, possibly even a third threat.
Colonel Mark Tillman in the cockpit of Air Force One. [CBS]
Around 10:55 a.m., there was yet another threat to Air Force One. The pilot, Colonel Mark Tillman, said he was warned that a suspect airliner was dead ahead. “Coming out of Sarasota there was one call that said there was an airliner off our nose that they did not have contact with.” Tillman took evasive action, pulling his plane even higher above normal traffic. [CBS, 9/11/02 (B)] Reporters on board noticed the rise in elevation. [Dallas Morning News, 8/28/02, Salon, 9/12/01] The report was apparently a false alarm, but it shows the folly of having Bush fly without a fighter escort.
Were There Threats to Air Force One?
The threat or threats to Air Force One were announced on September 12, after mounting criticism that Bush was out of sight in Louisiana and Nebraska during most of the day and did not return to Washington until 10 hours after the attacks. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said there was “real and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were targets.” [White House, 9/12/01] On September 13, New York Times columnist William Safire wrote—and Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove confirmed—that there was an “inside” threat that “may have broken the secret codes [showing a knowledge of presidential procedures].” [New York Times, 9/13/01] Had terrorists hacked their way into sensitive White House computers? Was there a mole in the White House?
No. It turned out the entire story was made up. [Washington Post, 9/27/01] The press expressed considerable skepticism about the story. For instance, one Florida newspaper thought Fleischer’s disclosure was “an apparent effort to explain why the president was flown to Air Force bases” before returning to Washington. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/13/01] When asked on September 15 about the “credible evidence,” Fleischer said, “we exhausted that topic about two days ago.” [White House, 9/15/01] On September 26, CBS News reported: “Finally, there is this postscript to the puzzle of how someone presumed to be a terrorist was able to call in a threat against Air Force One using a secret code name for the president’s plane. Well, as it turns out, that simply never happened. Sources say White House staffers apparently misunderstood comments made by their security detail.” [CBS, 9/26/01] One former official who served in George Bush Sr.’s administration told Human Events Online, which bills itself as “the national conservative weekly,” that he was “deeply disappointed by [Bush’s] zigzagging across the country.” [Human Events Online, 9/17/01] At the end of the month, Slate magazine awarded its “Whopper of the Week” to Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Dick Cheney. [Slate, 9/28/01]
No one knew exactly where the bogus story originated from, but “what can be safely said is that it served the White House’s immediate purposes, even though it was completely untrue.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] What were those purposes? A well-informed, anonymous Washington official said, “It did two things for [Cheney]. It reinforced his argument that the President should stay out of town, and it gave George W. an excellent reason for doing so.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] When Bush was asked in May 2002 why he had flown to two Air Force bases before returning to Washington, Bush said, “I was trying to get out of harm’s way.” [White House, 5/21/02]
The most obviously bogus threat—the mole knowing secret codes—came from Cheney in a pivotal moment in his argument with Bush over where Bush should go. But were the other threats, for instance, the one made before Air Force One even took off, or the airline suspected of crashing into Air Force One, also bogus?
The approximate route of Bush’s journey on Air Force One is shown in yellow. Keep in mind the plane flew in circles somewhere over Florida for about 40 minutes before heading west. Why did the first planes scrambled to defend the plane come from Ellington, Texas, and not any of the three likely Florida bases?
When Does the Fighter Escort Finally Arrive?
Much like the time when Bush left the Booker classroom, the time when fighters finally reached Air Force One is rarely mentioned, and when it is, the facts are highly debatable. According to one account, around 10:00 a.m. Air Force One was “joined by an escort of F-16 fighters from a base near Jacksonville, Florida.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But one month later, it was reported that in Cheney’s 10:32 phone call, he told Bush that it would take another 40 to 90 minutes [as late as noon] to get protective fighters up to escort Air Force One. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Another account said, “Air Force One headed toward Jacksonville [at 10:41] to meet jets scrambled to give the presidential jet its own air cover,” but it isn’t said when the plane actually met up with the fighters. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B)] We know that when Air Force One took evasive action around 10:55, there was no fighter escort. NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold later said, “We scrambled available airplanes from Tyndall [note this is near Tallahassee, not Jacksonville, Florida] and then from Ellington in Houston, Texas,” but he doesn’t say when. [Code One Magazine, 1/02] In another account, the first two F-16s to arrive are piloted by Shane Brotherton and Randy Roberts, from the Texas Air National Guard, not from any Florida base. [CBS, 9/11/02] All that’s known for sure is that by 11:30 there were six fighters protecting Air Force One. [Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/01]
President Bush (center, stooped down) and staff look out the windows of Air Force One to see their newly arrived fighter escorts. [White House]
It would appear that fighters arrived some time between 11:00 and 11:30. These fighters were supposed to be on 24-hour alert, ready to get into the air in about five minutes. If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen. Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a comparable distance [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02], the fighters should have reached Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00.
This clearly goes beyond mere incompetence, yet no newspaper article has ever raised the issue. Was Cheney able to prevent the fighters from reaching Air Force One, perhaps to convince Bush not to return to Washington? If so, why? Did Cheney assume (or know) that Bush was in no real danger? Like so many other questions surrounding 9/11, we do not know.
Barksdale Air Force Base
Air Force One at Barksdale Air Force Base. [AP]
Air Force One landed at Barksdale Air Force base near Shreveport, Louisiana at about 11:45 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] “The official reason for landing at Barksdale was that Bush felt it necessary to make a further statement, but it isn’t unreasonable to assume that – as there was no agreement as to what the President’s movements should be it was felt he might as well be on the ground as in the air.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] Ironically, the landing came only a short time after Bush’s plane was finally protected by fighters.
There was quite a difference in the protection afforded Bush at Barksdale and what was in Sarasota. Bush was left unprotected at a known location in Sarasota for nearly 30 minutes. At Barksdale, a location that was at the time unknown, Congressman Dan Miller “was amazed at the armored equipment and soldiers with automatic weapons that immediately surrounded the plane.” [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Bush was driven to base headquarters in a Humvee escorted by armed outriders. Reporters and others remained under strict orders not to give out their location. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]
Bush walking inside Barksdale Air Force Base. [White House]
Bush was taken to a secret and secure place on the base. [Louisiana Life, Autumn 2002] Shortly after 12:30 p.m., Bush taped a short speech, which he wrote on a napkin. [Louisiana Life, Autumn 2002, Salon, 9/12/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The tape was broadcast on television at around 1:20 p.m. [Salon 9/11/01] He also “spent the next hour and a half talking on the phone,” again arguing with Cheney and others over where he should go next. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] The Secret Service felt the situation in Washington was still unsafe. [CBS, 9/11/02] Bush told Karl Rove: “I want to go back home as soon as possible.” Rove answered: “Our people are saying it’s unstable still.” [AP, 9/13/01 (D)] Bush was told he could get to the US Strategic Command center in Offutt, Nebraska, quicker than he could fly to Washington, so he agreed to go to Nebraska. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, AP, 9/13/01 (D)]
Just after 1:00 p.m., Bush supposedly “received an intelligence report from the base commander that a high-speed object was headed for his ranch in Crawford, Texas.” It turned out to be another false alarm. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p.117] This may well be another bogus report designed to explain why Bush didn’t return to Washington at this time, since US airspace was declared clear except for some military and emergency flights at 12:16 p.m. [USA Today, 8/12/02 (C)] By 12:30, the FAA reported that only about 50 of these flights were still flying in US airspace, and none were reporting problems [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01], so how could an unknown plane have been headed toward Bush’s ranch 30 minutes after that?
Offutt Air Force Base
Air Force One left Barksdale for Offutt Air Force Base around 1:30 p.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Salon, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/11/01, MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01] The Air Force One entourage was pared down to a few essential staffers such as Ari Fleischer, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Gordon Johndroe [White House, 9/11/01], plus about five reporters. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] During the flight, Bush remained in “continuous contact” with the White House Situation Room and Vice President Cheney. [CNN, 9/11/01 (B)]
Air Force One landed at Offutt shortly before 3:00 p.m. [Washington Post, 9/11/01] At 3:06, Bush passed through security to the US Strategic Command Underground Command Center [Salon, 9/11/01, CBS, 9/11/02] and was taken into an underground bunker designed to withstand a nuclear blast. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]
Bush, center, with Andrew Card to his left, takes part in a video conference from inside Offutt Air Force Base. [White House]
There, he held a teleconference call with Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, CIA Director Tenet, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and others. [ABC News, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The meeting lasted about an hour. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, Salon, 9/11/01, AP, 8/19/02] Rice recalled that during the meeting, Tenet told Bush, “Sir, I believe it’s al-Qaeda. We’re doing the assessment but it looks like, it feels like, it smells like al-Qaeda.” [CBS, 9/11/02]
By this time, people were anticipating and expecting another reassuring public statement from Bush. [Orlando Sentinel, 9/12/01] The White House staff was preparing for Bush to address the nation from the Offutt bunker, but Bush decided instead to return to Washington. [CBS, 9/11/02]
As a side note, Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world, was hosting an unpublicized charity benefit inside the high security Offutt military base at 8:00 a.m. With him were business leaders and several executives from the World Trade Center, including Anne Tatlock of Fiduciary Trust Co. International, who likely would have died had it not been for the meeting. [San Francisco Business Times, 2/1/02] They watched a lot of the television coverage that morning, but it’s unknown if any of these people were still at Offutt by the time Bush arrived in the afternoon.
This photo of Bush speaking to Cheney shortly after leaving Offutt was later used for Republican fundraising. [White House]
Back in Washington
Air Force One left Offutt around 4:30 p.m. [MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01] and landed at Andrews Air Force Base at 6:34 p.m., escorted by two F-15 fighters and one F-16. [CNN, 9/11/01] Bush then took the Marine One helicopter to the White House [Salon 9/11/01], arriving shortly before 7:00 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, AP, 8/19/02]
Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02]
Bush addresses the nation. [White House]
Around 9:00 p.m., Bush met with his full National Security Council, followed roughly half an hour later by a meeting with a smaller group of key advisors. Bush and his advisors had already decided bin Laden was behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet told Bush that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan were essentially one and the same. [Washington Post, 1/27/02]
Before going to sleep around 11:30 p.m., Bush wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.... We think it’s Osama bin Laden.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02]
Rewriting History
The many accounts of what happened to Bush on 9/11 are riddled with disinformation of false threats, omitted details, fudged timing, and more. But around September 11, 2002, the heavily publicized first anniversary of the attacks, there was an obvious attempt to further rewrite the story.
Chief of Staff Andrew Card claimed that after he told Bush about the second World Trade Center crash, “it was only a matter of seconds” before Bush “excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left” the classroom. Card also stated that Bush “quickly excused himself to a holding room.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] In a different account, Card said, “Not that many seconds later the president excused himself from the classroom.” [MSNBC, 9/9/02] The Booker school video shows these statements are lies—unless “a matter of seconds” means over 700 seconds!
Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left. “He said, ‘Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.’ ... Looking at his face, you knew something was wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left.” Daniels also said, “I knew something was up when President Bush didn’t pick up the book and participate in the lesson.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow along after being told of the second plane. [Video: Center for Cooperative Research, Buzzflash, Global Free Press, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or Liberty DYNU]
The New York Post reported, “A federal agent rushed into the room to inform the president of the United States. President Bush had been presiding over [Daniels’s] reading class last 9/11, when a Secret Service agent interrupted the lesson and asked, ‘Where can we get to a television?’ ” Daniels then claimed that Bush left the class even before the second crash: “The president bolted right out of here and told me: ‘Take over.’ ” When the second crash occurred, she claims her students were watching TV in a nearby media room. [New York Post, 9/12/02] This article is riddled with errors. As mentioned previously, the Secret Service was already watching the second plane crash live on television in an adjacent room at 9:03—long before this supposedly happened. Nor did Bush “bolt” out of the room; in fact, even pro-Bush author Bill Sammon called Bush “the dawdler in chief” for taking so long to leave the room. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]
Bush shows a CBS reporter around Air Force One as part of his 9/11 anniversary interview. [AP/CBS]
Bush himself took part in the historical revisionism. In an extensive video interview shown on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he again repeated his bizarre belief that he was watching television when the first crash took place. CBS also revived the false story that terrorists had broken Air Force One’s secret codes, even though it was CBS who debunked that same story nearly a year earlier. [CBS, 9/11/02]
Vital Questions Remain Unanswered
Needless to say, in the anniversary hoopla, Bush and other leaders were described as “resolute,”“brave,”“strong,” and so forth. Even the minor level of media criticism just after 9/11 that led to several reporters losing their jobs was absent. The topic of Bush’s behavior on 9/11 has been barely mentioned in the media since.
There are many questions that deserve answers. So many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. Simply by reading the mainstream media reports, we can see that mere incompetence doesn’t explain what happened to Bush on that day. For instance, it makes no sense that Bush would listen to a story about a goat long after being told the US was under attack, and even after the Secret Service decided to immediately evacuate him from the school. It defies explanation that Air Force One’s fighter escort took two hours to appear. And it is mind-boggling that there are seven different versions of how Bush learned about the first crash.
It’s doubtful that the Independent Commission investigation will look critically at what Bush did on 9/11 and why he did it. Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut. Only a few relatives of the 9/11 attacks have been able to raise these issues publicly. For instance, Kristen Breitweiser told Phil Donahue: “It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn’t the Secret Service whisk [Bush] out of that school? ... [H]e is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.” [Donahue, 8/13/02] But so far, few have listened to their concerns.
Because the media has failed in its role to ask these questions, much less attempt to answer them, it is now the responsibility of ordinary Americans—of you, of me, and the people we know—to gather the information, look for answers, and sound the alarm.
So Glenn's argument boils down to this:
ReplyDelete1. Rich Lowry said that it was rude for students to jeer at a Republican at a graduation speech.
2. But in other contexts, other Republicans (not Lowry) have criticized the voting records, and impugned the patriotism, of certain Democrats.
3. Therefore, somebody is being hypocritical, or something.
Count me unimpressed. Get a clue: If you want to whine about hypocrisy, find an example of the same person (here, Lowry) taking inconsistent positions. Is that too much to ask?
Nick says:
ReplyDelete(1)You have still failed to address the original point: that Hayden, in the hearings to determine his suitability as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America, failed to positively affirm that he would follow the legislatively prescribed sanction against behavior that violates our nation's conscience as being immoral. This is unacceptable.
Actually what he said was, that he wanted to discuss it in a closed session. Why he wants to do that exactly I don't know, but if I were in his position, I wouldn't want to publically infer that the US will pamper prisoners.
(2)....
.... Somehow, a prohibition against inflicting "...severe physical or mental pain..." adds up to an appositive analogy in your view. This is just wrong. Laws against venality, cruelty, and immorality are not the same thing as a bill of rights.
Of course it is. Let's go down just the list ....
* Freedom of religion, in Gitmo they have korans, signs pointing toward Mecca, kosher meals. Sounds pretty religious to me.
* Trial by jury. Moussaoui got his. fortunately no bail.
* Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. You forgot "degrading" which covers an awful lot of territory.
As I understand it, prisoners will not be coerced in any way about anything. The only deprivation they will suffer is not killing Americans. Their biggest threat may be Cubans trying to get into "Club Gitmo". On the whole, that's not a message I would want to send the rest of the world. But apparently that's OK by you.
(4)Your argument about the langauge in the US reservation to the UN Convention is an absolutely classic straw man argument: ...That alone is enough for some to holler torture ... {Emphasis mine}
In the absence of experience one has to envision hypothetical situations that could be a problem.
While you declare that offering Chablis to OBL is an absurd proposition as torture, this was cited by an inmate at Abu Ghraib....
"He said the military policeman made him eat pork and drink alcohol, violating his religion, and made him insult the Islamic faith."
Not so far fetched after all is it? Well that's what happens when prisoners have to be treated better than say....
a Republican speaking at a college.
"The only deprivation they will suffer is not killing Americans."
ReplyDeleteGee, it sounds like a nice weekend getaway.
Except for the lack of privacy, the lack of rights of choice in regards to anything having to do with your daily life, your lack of rights of freedom of speech, congregation, occupation, family visitation, education, leisure activity, travel, and food, it sounds like a weekend at my place.
Wanna come over?
I am not devious enough to know what would constitute effective interrogation techniques. But US law enforcement agencies manage to extract information from prisoners and felons on a somewhat regular basis without subjecting them to morally heinous conditions and treatment.
I am certain they would sometimes find it expedient to not have those limitations placed on their behavior.
Sometimes I would find it expedient to have all of the money in my local bank in my pocket. Should I go and take it?
If I were being threatened by terrorists unless I took it, should I take it?
The situation can provide some mitigating circumstances, it does not excuse the inexcusable.
TORTURE IS WRONG.
I would be a lot more proud of our country if we tried to uphold some of those family values than I am now with us trying to justify tearing them down out of fear.
If this makes me a pussy, pussy I'll be.
I regard it as of paramount importance for this country to live up to its stated ideals of liberty and justice for all. That does not stop at our borders, or with different colored skin, or with the advent of armed conflict. Where possible, all people should be treated with a modicum of dignity and repect. This is our humanity.
Those people who are going to be executed - OSB, for example, God willing - should be executed with a modicum of dignity and respect. This is what it means to live in a nation ruled by laws, not men.
I asked for a credible source in regards to the US declaration on the UN Torture Convention being interpreted so as to mean that the language included therein proscribed the "...offering of an alcoholic beverage..." (your original words). You respond with a link to a story about Abu Ghraib, and a prisoner who testified that he was forced to eat pork and drink alcohol in direct violation of his Muslim faith.
Yeah, I think that's what Graner went to prison for. It wasn't the death threats, or the urinating on the prisoners, or the forced masturbation, or the beatings, or the dogs, or the generally medieval behavior he encouraged, condoned, and participated in. We could have dealt with all that. But Pork!!?? And Alcohol??!! Lock that bastard up!
One inmate's claim that, amidst all this other insanity, he was also forced to violate his religion by eating and drinking prescribed substances is a far cry from somehow validating the claim that a UN and US sanctioned prohibition against the use of chemicals as an interrogatory technique could somehow be interpreted to mean that offering somone alcohol would be torturous.
Your arguments are specious, and, I think, fatuous.
jeez I'm wordy today.
ReplyDeleteThose who condone torture should be forced to undergo the same exact torture, in the same amounts, as they have no problems wanting inflicted on others
ReplyDeleteOnly cowards order, carry out and endorse torture
Since Hayden wouldn't give an explicit condemnation of torture, then take that as a yes, that the Administration is still condoning and ordering torture
And just how far is this Administration willing to go in terms of torture, having children raped and beaten in front of their parents, murdering children in front of their parents?
This speculation is no more idle than shooters imaginative labeling of documents against torture as an "al-Qaeda bill of rights", and Lowry's whining about the response to McCain's speech.
My goodness, someone break out the smelling salts for the easily swooning shooter & Lowry, as anyone willing to give up their rights in the names of tracking down an enemy the President already let escape are the most easily led of sheeple
You want to give up your rights, fine, have at it, but I do NOT choose to give up my Constitutional rights, and certainly not on behalf of a President who somehow thinks he has the right to violate the same Constitution he's sworn to uphold, and a coward who has the arrogance to call himself a "War President"
This President is clearly incapable of the maturity and intelligence needed to do the job with the competence and effectiveness it deserves, an observation completely borne out by his desire to stay on vacation for an additional three days after Katrina hit
When strong & decisive leadership was called for, the President froze while New Orleans drowned and people died
New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast still look as they did immediately after Katrina struck, an indicator of Dear Leader's true mindset, and a complete repudiation of his wearisome blather about how he's keeping the public safe
He's the President, but instead, he loses not a bit of sleep over the destruction his inaction has helped aggravate
And yet, in spite of W's clear indifference to the suffering of US Citizens, there are still those willing to let him rape the Constitution on a daily basis, sneering at any criticism of the clearly incompetent hack masquerading as President
Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the US public is no longer taken in by President Jr's dog & pony show, and with his own party deserting him more & more, his power grabs are taking place at just the time they're least likely to stick
W's clear blundering and the incapability of his own Administration to stay on point-as Glenn pointed out with the differing views on his stance about English as the national language-do not bode well for rallying the public to his side or carrying out any kind of effective agenda for the rest of his term
At this point, King George III would be an improvement over President George II
As for using language to convey thoughts clearly, I cite the first post on this thread:
ReplyDeleteWe're screwed, barring an unforeseen citizen uprising.
That writing could not be more concise and it could not describe the current situation more accurately.
Very depressing.
Not so far fetched after all is it? Well that's what happens when prisoners have to be treated better than say....
ReplyDeletea Republican speaking at a college.
By all means. Serve the fat, weasely pig some pork. Hell, give him a pork pie facial.
You won't have to force McCain to masturbate, either. That's all Republicans do, jack off in public. Themselves and the audience alike.
ReplyDeleteJean Roge has demonstrated she knows how to act like a Patriot. Her fascinating account of the events leading up to speech can be found on a guest blog post of hers on Huffington Post.
ReplyDeleteBelow is the speech she gave at her commencement at the New School when she spoke before the invited guest John McCain gave his own speech there.
Here's my commencement speech:
If all the world were peaceful now and forever more,
Peaceful at the surface and peaceful at the core,
All the joy within my heart would be so free to soar,
And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.
Don't know where we're going but I know we're going far.
We can change the universe by being who we are,
And we're living on a living planet, circling a living star.
Welcome everyone on this beautiful afternoon to the commencement ceremony for the New School class of 2006. That was an excerpt of a song I learned as a child called "Living Planet" by Jay Mankita. I chose to begin my address this way because, as always, but especially now, we are living in a time of violence, of war, of injustice. I am thinking of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in Darfur, in Sri Lanka, in Mogadishu, in Israel/Palestine, right here in the U.S., and many, many other places around the world. And my deepest wish on this day--on all days--is for peace, justice, and true freedom for all people. The song says, "We can change the universe by being who we are," and I believe that it really is just that simple.
Right now, I'm going to be who I am and digress from my previously prepared remarks. I am disappointed that I have to abandon the things I had wanted to speak about, but I feel that it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the fact that this ceremony has become something other than the celebratory gathering that it was intended to be due to all the media attention surrounding John Mc Cain's presence here today, and the student and faculty outrage generated by his invitation to speak here. The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded. Not only this, but his invitation was a top-down decision that did not take into account the desires and interests of the student body on an occasion that is supposed to honor us above all, and to commemorate our achievements.
What is interesting and bizarre about this whole situation is that Senator Mc Cain has stated that he will be giving the same speech at all three universities where he has been invited to speak recently, of which ours is the last; those being Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Columbia University, and finally here at the New School. For this reason I have unusual foresight concerning the themes of his address today. Based on the speech he gave at the other institutions, Senator Mc Cain will tell us today that dissent and disagreement are our "civic and moral obligation" in times of crisis. I consider this a time of crisis and I feel obligated to speak. Senator Mc Cain will also tell us about his cocky self-assuredness in his youth, which prevented him from hearing the ideas of others. In so doing, he will imply that those of us who are young are too naïve to have valid opinions and open ears. I am young, and although I don't profess to possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that preemptive war is dangerous and wrong, that George Bush's agenda in Iraq is not worth the many lives lost. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, Senator Mc Cain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, "have nothing to fear from each other." I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet. Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace. We have nothing to fear from people who are different from us, from people who live in other countries, even from the people who run our government--and this we should have learned from our educations here. We can speak truth to power, we can allow our humanity always to come before our nationality, we can refuse to let fear invade our lives and to goad us on to destroy the lives of others. These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part. I speak today, even through my nervousness, out of a need to honor those voices that came before me, and I hope that we graduates can all strive to do the same.
So how do you get people to accept the idea of sleeping with Uncle Sam, aka the NSA microphone under your bed?
ReplyDeleteSee this article explaining how think tanks move ideas from whiteboard to policy:
Change can happen by accident, true: but it is just as often the product of deliberation and intent, and it does all of us well to understand the mechanisms by which it occurs.
Glenn, your analysis often focuses on the role and tactics of the "right wing" pundits, journalists, and online blogs.
ReplyDeleteYou sift through various statements and point out the inaccuracies, lies, hypocrisy and the blind unprincipled support of this Administration which you have argued, and I agree, is characteristic of the majority of that community.
I think you do that brilliantly.
I ask you: could you do a little analysis of the "left wing" online community?
Or is there nothing with which you disagree?
I myself am still in a state of shock about the recent statements made by Patrick Fitzgerald.
My gosh, isn't it obvious that 9/11 didn't take away our civil liberties. The Patriot Act did. Before the Patriot Act, the loss of our civil liberties was hardly detectable.
The Patriot Act is far worse than the confirmation of Gen. Hayden will be.
It replaces the Consitution with a Manuel For Totalitarianism and a Recipe For The Demise Of The Fourth Amendment.
Yet nowhere in the "left wing" online community have I seen a single discussion of these alarming, outrageous statements of "their hero" Patrick Fitzgerald.
I have concluded he is a "hero" only because they hate Bush, Libby and Rove and would like them to be held accountable.
I would like to see them held accountable for their assault against America values and the Constitution also.
That is because I object so vehemently to their policies.
But with the online progressive community it appears to be primarily political and not driven by any real principles.
Why haven't you addressed these statements by Patrick Fitzgerald and the progessive left's failure to comment on them?
Are you saying you agree with these comments?
Do you not want to criticize the progressive community?
I know that cannot be so because I know the kind of person you are and I know that your integrity is inviolate.
So what is it? I ask because I am befuddled about this point and simply cannot understand what is going on.
Thanks, Glenn!
Chicago would become the largest of 200 U.S. cities to oppose civil liberties "abuses" invoked by the USA Patriot Act under a resolution advanced by a City Council committee Thursday over the objections of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"Repealing the Patriot Act would put that wall back up, which is a danger both to all of our safety and all of our civil liberties," Fitzgerald said.
That statement could have been made by George Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld and probably was.
I see no major difference between Patrick Fitzgerald and the other three and I see zero contribution to the fight for civil liberties and to the fight to save the Constitution by Fitzgerald.
Why do the progressives hate the first three and praise Fitzgerald, a "hero" who has come out in support of the Patriot Act on the grounds that it protects our civil liberties and is necessary to keep us "safe"?
"Safe" from what? The Fourth Amendment?
That is exactly the kind of thinking that has brought us where we are.
When people say the Democrats do not really believe in anything, it appears they are not just whistling Dixie.
Do the people on this blog not "oppose civil liberties "abuses" invoked by the USA Patriot Act"?
What the heck is going on?
janinsanfran said...
ReplyDeleteThis Administration doesn't do law. It does raw power. And I see no reason to believe that any subsequent one, even a Democratic one, is going to cede the asserted power to do whatever it likes in the name of the sacred "national security."
We're screwed, barring an unforeseen citizen uprising.
Take from this what you will. I'd say it's fairly obvious and it's safe to say it probably includes rubbing McCain the non-war hero, or any other member of the enemy's face in a mud pie any opportunity you get.
The Theory, Practice, & Influence of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience
6) Finally, I should note what specific meanings Thoreau does not give his action, what meanings he leaves open. He does not associate it either with a secular or a religious perspective; though he alludes to the New Testament as a document of political use, he draws authority not from it but from "conscience." Not, though, from individual, arbitrary conscience, from Emersonian whim. Let Emerson act on whim, let Garrison and company fulminate as intensely against the sabbath as against slavery; like King and Gandhi, Thoreau presents his action in relation to practices condemned by a broad consensus: slavery, the Mexican War, the Jim Crow Laws, the South African Black Act. That is why one reproach made against Thoreau's program, namely, that it gives too much liberty to the individual conscience, is invalid; Thoreau might in theory give the conscience too much liberty, but the action he describes is directed against things condemned not only by his conscience but also by his community.
[52] Most importantly, Thoreau does not associate his action with a position on violence. Tolstoy and Gandhi and King have of course associated Thoreau's essay with a rejection of violence. An anonymous member of the Danish resistance learned a different lesson from it:
"Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" stood for me, and for my first leader in the resistance movement, as a shining light with which we could examine the policy of complete passivity which our government had ordered for the whole Danish population. . . . I lent Thoreau's books to friends, told them about him, and our circle grew. Railroads, bridges, and factories that worked for the Germans were blown up.(24)"
And though they contradict each other, both readings of Thoreau are right.
It's not like sitting quietly and doing nothing is going to make the right wing blowhards STFU. A screwdriver and some paint on the hard copies, and a few hits on the delete keys of a few computers and a certain troll's law practice enters a new phase.
So what is it? I ask because I am befuddled about this point and simply cannot understand what is going on.
ReplyDeleteNo shit, Sherlock!
From shooter242 at 8:04PM:
ReplyDelete"I'm sure you'll understand if I don't consider what you've seen, if anything, as definitive. Considering that the entire Justice and FBI bureaucracies were held over from Clinton, I'm not too impressed with that argument about Ashcroft."
I agree, thanks to the prevaracations and idiocy of the current Congressional leadership, no definitive examination of the attacks have been conducted, making for an environment of supposition.
You're point about how the 'entire' of the bureaucracies of Justice and the FBI were 'Clinton holdovers' is, fundamentally, irrelevant and the implication more than slightly insulting to them. Professional civil servants, the caricature so popular amongst libertarians and pundits notwithstanding, are dedicated professionals who do their work regardless of who or what sits in the White House.
By contrast, Ashcroft's fetish over 'cultural' issues and supposed crimes (pronography in New Orleans being the more prominant example) and consequential deprioritization, if not outright ignoring warnings about Bin Laden and terrorism set the tone for investigations by Justice and the FBI. Small wonder then so many bureaucratic 'hoops' were erected lest the AG find cause to further sideline serious agents.
Your point about the difficulties already in place is well-argued and taken. What is needed however is less hand-wringing and more serious cooperation between agencies. Five years on and we're still not seeing that, thanks in large measure to the White House and this brain-dead Administration.
You conclude with:
"If you're going to be insulting, at least try to be original."
You mean like you were when you stated I, a resident of NYC who was present at the attacks, didn't understand the nature or intentions of the enemy?
Someone should really unload his weapon *before* he does something worse damage to himself than shoot both his feet off.
Pooter.. "If you're going to be insulting, at least try to be original."
ReplyDeleteThe truth is never an insult. In your case, the truth will always be novel and original, if you ever had the opportunity to state it.
nick says:
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are specious, and, I think, fatuous.
But you are having a grand old time doing the superiority dance.
This kind of debate is what makes this blog interesting. The folks here are in the main intelligent, informed, and in your case entertaining. Smiles during this kind of discourse are always welcome.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, let's review what actualy happened.
Nothing.
Hayden said he wanted to discuss the matter in closed session, which apparently is insufficient for some here. Which brings us to official torture policy. Bush and Rumsfeld have said we don't torture, Yet that isn't enough. Graner and English have been convicted and that isn't enough. McCain has an amendment specifying in detail what policy shall be....that isn't enough.
For all we know there may be a procedural reason for wanting to go into closed session on the subject. The thing is that we don't know, yet all and sundry are ready to hang Hayden, Bush, and Rumsfeld, for suspicion. Just like the NSA non-event. It's things like this that make Democrats look hinky. It's things like this that make the act of offering Chablis to OBL a potential torture. Sure it's not what you had in mind, but it's certainly enough to set off somebody on your side with absurd allegations.
Interestingly, that absurdity is an indicator of how well things are going. Nobody is going to complain about kosher meals or mistreatment of a Koran while their fingernails are pulled off.
As somebody famously said, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now, like it or not we are pretty damn good.
My model jail system for Al Qaeda would something along the lines of that in Maricopa county run by the famous Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Inmates live in tents, work chain gangs, wear pink underwear, see only educational TV and are fed on 45 cents a day.
It will be interesting to see if anyone here declares that inhumane and torture. Heh.
So many words yet so little to say... What's with all the excessive posting today?
ReplyDelete"For all we know there may be a procedural reason for wanting to go into closed session on the subject."
ReplyDeleteNO.
As a matter of fact, FUCK NO.
I haven't seen it yet, but my father was telling me about the episode of "Lose Your Enthusiasm" where a Holocaust Survivor and a former cast member of the TV show "Survivor" are having a conversation about exactly what it is that had been "survived." The TV survivor mentions something about not having a bathroom, and the Holocaust survivor kind of realizes that they are talking about apples and oranges - "BATHROOMS??!! BATHROOMS??!!" (Kind of like Ozzy Osbourne doing the "Bubbles? Bubbles? I'm the Prince of Fucking Darkness! ... Bubbles!!")
So ...
PROCEDURAL??!! PROCEDURAL??!! Procedural, my ass.
There can be no conceivable "procedural" reason for the US Government to actively apply a policy of torture.
By the same token, there can be no "procedural," "secret," "super-secret sensitive national security depends upon it" reason that a specific question about a specific form of torture would not be able to be answered in an open forum. Should he later wish to qualify or amend an answer about his policies regarding his agents, their behaviors, or assorted and sundry miscellania (admittedly maybe still of great import) in private session, I don't think I have a problem with that.
But the primary message and purpose of these hearings is NOT to worry about whether or not we are sending the wrong message to al qaeda and other terrorist threats, it is to answer to the American people with respect to their concerns over their designated primary intelligence agency and its policies and behaviors. If that sends the wrong message to al qaeda, well, fuck them. These hearings are not for them, and I don't intend to pander to them by perverting our political and legal processes just because they are listening in.
These hearings are not the forum, time, nor place, to send a message to terrorists.
If, at the present time, you can't answer this question - "Is "waterboarding" an acceptable interrogation technique?" - positively, affirmatively, quickly, openly, and without reservation with a "no," then you are the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time for this job.
Geoffrey Stone points out in a commentary today that it is not only the Republican-controlled Congress that is failing in their duties of oversight of the President – but the American people themselves.
ReplyDeleteHe has written a book on the subject and notes that “throughout history, Americans have silently approved serious, sometimes grievous abuses of civil liberties, only later to bemoan their failure to act responsibly.”
After giving several examples of this phenomenon, he says, “After every one of these episodes, the public came to acknowledge its error and promised not to repeat the mistake.”
Quite obviously we are in the process of repeating this mistake failing to learn from our past or think seriously about our freedoms.
Stone concludes with a well-timed warning:
If we are careless about our freedoms, we risk losing them not only for ourselves, but for our children. As the great judge Learned Hand once warned, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
We have been looking to the courts and Congress to save us from a lawless president, but that is not enough, we need to look a little deeper into the American psyche itself – and explore just how we’ve reached this point once again.
Sadly, our trolls’ weltanschauung provides a perfect case study of this phenomenon, and just how careless they are with our freedoms.
How is this for "procedure:"
ReplyDelete: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
Respecting the Salon piece ... the guy is going to be confirmed. The possibility of a dissenting block of senators is the only thing we are talking about here realistically. Send a message respecting what is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteIt's comparable to the Alito nomination: why not support him? He's competent etc. (to those who thought Miers was not), and if you oppose him, Bush will just pick some other loser, and maybe less restrained at that, since he knows Democrats won't support anyone he picks. See also, CJ Roberts.
So, let's work within the system, etc. I'm unsure why Joe suddenly thinks this is feasible in this case. It's like saying we should still support Colin Powell, since sure, he helped a cruel war based on lies to be carried forth, but he did supply real professionalism and dissenting views.
The "just following orders" defense also rankles. It also doesn't work across the board. He is being nominated as CIA director. He refuses in open session to oppose waterboarding. Okkk.
I'd add that when Ackerman of the New Republic takes a less "conservative" view than Joe Conanson, it is a tad surprising.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYou are on target with your hypocrisy skewer today...
1) To be fair, Gonzales and Snow were probably referring to different things by the term "national language." Gonzales is probably thinking legally about whether government programs will only be provided in English. The Senate resolution does not call for that. Snow is thinking politically and is merely restating the President's support for the toothless Senate resolution boosting English as our de facto national language.
However, the amendment itself is pathetic and hypocritical.
2) I love it when both sides wave the bloody shirt for their veterans and then savage the other party's veterans.
Once again, being a combat veteran may entitle you to a certain level of respect for what you did as a veteran. However, it does not protect you from justified criticism of your current positions or lying.
McCain probably designed his speech to set off the surrender monkey contingent at the college so he can burnish his credentials as the gallant war hero supporting our troops overseas. Given the knee jerk abuse of the surrender monkeys and response of the NR, looks like McCain played them both like fiddles.
You gotta love politics.
EWO:
ReplyDeleteDo the people on this blog not "oppose civil liberties "abuses" invoked by the USA Patriot Act"?
The Patriot act was passed by Congress and signed by the President and is thus the law of the land. None of these statments are true about the NSA/Survellance program which is a primary focus of this blog.
As I've said before, the main focus of my concern isn't the loss of privacy and civil liberties entailed by these programs, it is the loss of control over the executive branch of government which will result if their current interpretation of Article 2 gains any traction. If that happens then we will have become indistinguishable from dictatorships the world over.
So, does the U.S. look “pretty damn good” to the rest of the world regarding our treatment of our ‘terrorist suspects’?
ReplyDeleteOur European allies seem to have a different opinion and our CIA’s techniques of transporting suspects to “secret prisons” located in countries known for their human rights abuses has caused outrage not compliments.
Uzbekistan is one such place, where we in 2002 we gave 500 million dollars and until 2005 the CIA regarded the information received in their torture prisons “operationally useful.”
Craig Murray , a former British ambassador, recently made a few comments about the techniques being used. He described one of the many photos which came across his desk:
Inside were pictures a mother had taken of her son's mutilated corpse. The young man, a political prisoner accused of having ties to radical Islam, had been tortured, beaten and immersed in boiling water……
These agencies were routinely getting the information through sadistic torture, by which I mean the smashing of knees and elbows, electrocution, pulling of fingernails and toenails, the mutilation of genitals and very commonly the rape of family members in front of the person [whom] they wanted to sign. If you torture people, they will sign anything.
When I challenged the American officials about the intelligence being false, they told me that it was "operationally useful," but at no point did anyone ever say to me that the information didn't come from torture or that the information was true.
When asked if he thought the U.S. was still transporting suspects to countries where they can be interrogated using torture, he replied:
I have no reason at all to think the policy has changed. But [the CIA is] being much more careful about touching down in Europe with prisoners onboard, because of all the fuss in Europe and the investigations going on.
Now let me see, our trolls and the “Club Gitmo” crowd are far more upset with the leak that we were transporting people to be tortured than the torture itself; and, in their very sick minds, they cannot distinguish the difference between being offered a glass of Chablis in a “resort” and being boiled to death, electrocuted, your genitals mutilated or having your family members raped in front you.
I’m afraid someone that far gone is beyond hope - beyond humanity – yet, they call themselves Americans and consider themselves, for having such views, “patriots.”
Bart...Once again, being a combat veteran may entitle you to a certain level of respect for what you did as a veteran
ReplyDeletePerhaps it does among the members of your own unit when you get together. Depending on your unit, of course. I'm sure the Tiger Force reunions are a hoot, but I'm not sure how many people show up for those. The rest of the time you are just another nobody, and that's the current VA's position, not mine.
Cooter...But you are having a grand old time doing the superiority dance.
ReplyDeleteBetter trolls, please.
nick says:
ReplyDeletea Holocaust Survivor and a former cast member of the TV show "Survivor" are having a conversation about exactly what it is that had been "survived." The TV survivor mentions something about not having a bathroom, and the Holocaust survivor kind of realizes that they are talking about apples and oranges -
I was thinking something similar. Here we have a prisoner in fear of his life, and these people...
" These agencies were routinely getting the information through sadistic torture, by which I mean the smashing of knees and elbows, electrocution, pulling of fingernails and toenails, the mutilation of genitals and very commonly the rape of family members in front of the person [whom] they wanted to sign. If you torture people, they will sign anything."
...who were actually injured, maimed, or killed. Apples and Oranges.
Not to worry though, waterboarding has been outlawed and as unbelievable as it might seem, that may be exactly what Hayden would say in closed session. Shall I put you down for providing the rope to hang Hayden vigilante style, anyway?
UofChicago Law School constitution professor Geoffrey Stone writes:
ReplyDeleteWith the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that this [Congress' refusal to pass in 1917 a law that would proescute press "leaks"] was a remarkable and pivotal victory for American freedom. As it turned out, there was not a single instance during World War I, and not a single instance thereafter, in which the press’s publication of a “legitimate but newsworthy” government secret seriously harmed the national interest. The lesson of this experience is that the best course for the United States is to refrain from threatening to criminally punish the press for publishing “legitimate but newsworthy” government secrets. Although one can imagine hypothetical circumstances in which such a publication might seriously harm the national security, 215 years of experience has demonstrated that such legislation is unnecessary, and would do more harm than good.
As the Members of Congress understood in 1917, for the United States government to wield the power to prosecute the press for such disclosures would give government officials a dangerous lever with which to intimidate and threaten the press. To grant government officials such power would seriously jeopardize the ability and willingness of the press to expose to public scrutiny what should be exposed and would undermine the press’s vital role in our constitutional system. In 1917, Congress made a wise and courageous judgment. Nothing that has happened in the intervening nine decades warrants a different judgment today.
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know that [the CIA won't engage in waterboarding], rather than the entire world, but the issue of waterboarding seems to be only part of the deal.
There's an interesting implication here. "The world" theoretically already knows that we won't engage in waterboarding, since we've already passed a law (and signed treaties, etc.) banning that activity.
But in shooter242's mind, passing a law is apparently not a binding commitment and doesn't truly send a clear message to "the world" that we won't do this. Otherwise, he wouldn't be worried about "the world" hearing Hayden's thoughts on waterboarding.
shooter242, perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on this: in your opinion, does the McCain Amendment already indicate to "the world" that we will not engage in waterboarding?
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI still haven't seen any commentary on how the "wall" chilled investigation to the point where Moussaoui's laptop could not be opened before 9/11
and then in a later post said:
While the "wall" wasn't prominent in the Moussaoui matter
shooter242, which is it? Was this "wall" hindering the investigation of Moussaoui, or wasn't it?
shooter 242 said:
ReplyDeleteAs for Moussaoui, here is the memo from Collen Rowley about the trials and tribulations
involved. Just to demonstrate the hoops needed to be jumped....
"3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was..."
Their initial thought was WRONG. Say it with me, shooter242: the agents were under a mistaken impression about the standards they needed to meet. It was a mistake of people, not laws.
shooter242 said:
Meanwhile FBI headquarters had a fresh memories of this.....
" The bureau's reluctance to press new applications for national security search warrants"
Their reluctance was, again, WRONG. Say it with me, shooter242: the agents were under a mistaken impression about the standards they needed to meet. It was a mistake of people, not laws.
cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteUofChicago Law School constitution professor Geoffrey Stone writes:
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that this [Congress' refusal to pass in 1917 a law that would proescute press "leaks"] was a remarkable and pivotal victory for American freedom. As it turned out, there was not a single instance during World War I, and not a single instance thereafter, in which the press’s publication of a “legitimate but newsworthy” government secret seriously harmed the national interest. The lesson of this experience is that the best course for the United States is to refrain from threatening to criminally punish the press for publishing “legitimate but newsworthy” government secrets. Although one can imagine hypothetical circumstances in which such a publication might seriously harm the national security, 215 years of experience has demonstrated that such legislation is unnecessary, and would do more harm than good.
Professor Stone is comparing apples and oranges.
The proposed "press censorship" amendment to the Espionage Act would have made it unlawful to publish any information which the President had declared to be "of such character that it is or might be useful to the enemy." This provision is far broader than the general prohibition applying to all persons making it unlawful to make public classified materials.
Consequently, the argument that Congress intended to except the press from the narrower classified material provisions of the Espionage Act merely because it declined to enact a much broader provision allowing the President from publishing anything which might be of use to the enemy is weak to say the least.
The secondary argument that press disclosures of classified materials have never harmed the national interest is not just weak, it is empirically false.
When Novak blew Plame's cover at the CIA, he never claimed that her work was already public information. In that case, how is not blowing the cover of an agent not harmful to the nation interest?
When Risen and the NYT disclosed the existence of the NSA program intercepting al Qaeda telephone calls into the nation, their source admitted that two terrorist ops that he knew of had been busted by the program and the WP reported that around 10 targets for who probable cause was present were identified by the program each year. How is informing the enemy of this program not harmful to the national interest?
USA Today informed al Qaeda which telecoms were not providing telephone records to CIA for the purpose of data mining to identify al Qaeda agents. How is in not harmful to the national security to inform al Qaeda which telephone companies to use to avoid detection?
Zack said...
ReplyDeleteOur European allies seem to have a different opinion and our CIA’s techniques of transporting suspects to “secret prisons” located in countries known for their human rights abuses has caused outrage not compliments.
Not so fast there, bub...
"(AP) EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana told a special European Parliament committee Tuesday he had no information that CIA agents interrogated al Qaeda suspects at clandestine prisons in Europe and operated secret flights over European territory."
"EU terrorism chief (Gijs de Vries )denies existence of CIA prisons amid strong criticism
Then we have the matter of the former ambassador's status as professional Bush Basher......
" Murray, 47, visited Chicago during a recent college speaking tour with other members of the Bush Crimes Commission, a group that seeks to document, through outside experts, what it believes are crimes committed by the Bush administration."
After being drummed out of the service.....
"The veteran diplomat left the foreign service in 2004 and has written an as-yet unpublished memoir he titles "Murder in Samarkand" about his time as ambassador to the Central Asian nation. During his tumultuous tenure, he openly criticized the human rights practices of his host country, met with government critics and was charged by his own government with trading sex for visas and 17 other infractions. (All were dismissed except for two minor charges.)"
And is currently making unfounded allegations while promoting his new book. Where have we heard that before?
The young man, a political prisoner accused of having ties to radical Islam, had been tortured, beaten and immersed in boiling water.
"And," Murray recently told an audience at the University of Chicago, "when that guy was boiled to death, you paid to heat the water." He was referring to the $500 million in U.S. aid given to the Uzbeks in 2002.
this is exactly like say that because we sent money to the Palestinians, we paid for their suicide bombs. Tsk.
Zack reiterates:
Now let me see, our trolls and the “Club Gitmo” crowd are far more upset with the leak that we were transporting people to be tortured than the torture itself; and, in their very sick minds, they cannot distinguish the difference between being offered a glass of Chablis in a “resort” and being boiled to death, electrocuted, your genitals mutilated or having your family members raped in front you.
Give this man an Oscar. What a performance. Bravo.
This is emotionalism at it's finest, touching one and all with it's implication that every conservative is a closet Torquemada. And liberals wonder why nobody listens to them, and worse won't give them a majority. Let me say for the record that Conservatives are not in favor of torture. Interestingly, it's liberals that seem to be most creative in that area, especially when speaking about Bush. Speaking of which.... your post sir, is a load of bushwa.
Al Qaeda isn't aware that we keep track of phone calls?
ReplyDeleteSurely, "national security" is a unified term. For instance, freedom of speech allegedly advances it even if in some way it might cause some harms (hate speech, promotion of erroneous info, etc.). I reckon the USA Today piece is of this calibier.
But, how exactly does requiring judicial oversight threaten national security overall? People are convicted based on legal searches. So, yes, searches are useful. But, a false choice is being offered here.
As to "This provision is far broader than the general prohibition applying to all persons making it unlawful to make public classified materials." The President has the classifying power though (with some exceptions and controls, yes).
Thus, I'm unclear just how different the two things are, bottom line.
Dahr Jamail has published more photos, previosly unpublished, from Abu Ghraib.
ReplyDeleteshooter242 said:
ReplyDelete...but if I were in [Hayden's] position, I wouldn't want to publically infer that the US will pamper prisoners.
shooter242, how do you consider the answer "No" to the question "Will you engage in waterboarding?" to be an inference that the US will pamper prisoners?
Isn't waterboarding against the law? Why is publicly and under oath declaring to obey the law an inference that one will pamper prisoners?
cfaller96 said...
ReplyDeleteshooter242, perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on this: in your opinion, does the McCain Amendment already indicate to "the world" that we will not engage in waterboarding?
Yes, but as I write elsewhere, that won't be sufficient. OTOH we know that a law was passed to outlaw illegal immigration some years ago. How's that one working?
Actually, all this consternation about the rights of prisoners will likely reduce the number of prisoners taken, saving us all time, money, and moral wear and tear. If a prisoner's usefulness is limited to taking up space what good is he?
Yes, I am just yanking your chain.
cfaller96 asks shooter: shooter242, perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on this: in your opinion, does the McCain Amendment already indicate to "the world" that we will not engage in waterboarding?
ReplyDeleteReally, shooter, I'd like to know the same thing. It is a *LAW* that this nation does not torture, including waterboarding. I want to know if the nominee to head our CIA thinks this *LAW* applies to him, and whether he will follow it. I want the world to know, too. It is important to me, as an American, that the world believe we stand for civilized values that make us better than the things we fight against.
Why don't you want to know?
that the world believe we stand for civilized values that make us better than the things we fight against
ReplyDeleteUnfortunatly, we already blew that chance. Now we just have to figure out how to minimize the damage.
4/20/04 Buffalo, President Bush speaking:
ReplyDelete"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
bart said:
this is one of those statements that is factually correct but is misleading
bart, did President Bush lie when he made this statement? Please tell me what was (as you claim) factually correct about this statement.
I find it interesting that you issue a challenge to this community to "prove" that President Bush lied, yet you have been unable to explain how this 4/20/04 statement was not a lie.
You issued the challenge, so it's up to you to defend this statement. How is his 4/20/04 statement not a lie?
cfaller96 asks:
ReplyDeleteshooter242, perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on this: in your opinion, does the McCain Amendment already indicate to "the world" that we will not engage in waterboarding?
shooter242 responds:
Yes...
Then why are concerned with "the world" finding out what Hayden has to say about waterboarding?
recall your initial post:
I'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know [if the nominated CIA Director intends to engage in waterboarding], rather than the entire world...
If you think we've already sent the message, then what's the big deal about demanding our future CIA director reiterate that message under oath?
Shooter -
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us to official torture policy. Bush and Rumsfeld have said we don't torture, Yet that isn't enough.
and yet, in the same post, you quote from a story in which a British intelligence agent brings horrifying testimony about US SANCTIONED AND SUPPORTED TORTURE, committed right around the same time that Bush was paying lip service to the UN Sanctions against torture that I quoted above.
And if you don't think there are secret CIA prisons, that's fine, too. I'd be happy to see some sort of investigation, oversight, communication, diplomacy, smoke signals, anything that seemed at all credible. And that is really my problem, I suppose, and the one that seems to be shared by most people who read this blog, and the one that you don't seem to understand.
This administration HAS NO CREDIBILITY. There is no room for weaseling here. Any wiggle room was spent on WMDs we "know" are there, wiretaps that require a warrant, "no one could have predicted the levees would fail," suspicious (at best) voting irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and a thousand other "inconsistencies," which word I'll use in the interests of politeness.
I, as an American citizen, DEMAND a clear and forthright and unequivocal public statement from the head of the CIA that he will follow legislatively proscribed prohibitions against torturous behavior.
He doesn't have to listen to me, but there are a lot of "me"s out here. And it is our right to demand such a statement from a public servant.
I and I will be heard.
I have no intention of lynching anyone, btw. Please stop with the hyperbole and misdirection.
I am glad that you find me entertaining, and if I can make you smile, that is not a bad thing. But if I have not been able to convince you in an argument I hold to be of fundamental importance to the American character, than being liked or considered entertaining is very empty and shallow, and completely not worth it.
PS - your defense of waterboarding by essentially pointing out that there are far worse things that humans have done (are doing, will do) to each other sucks.
The fact that I have never had a burning fire poker in my eye doesn't make an electrode on my testicles, or the deprivation of air and fear of death, any less heinous, malicious, or inhuman.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletecfaller says:
ReplyDeleteTheir initial thought was WRONG. Say it with me, shooter242: the agents were under a mistaken impression about the standards they needed to meet. It was a mistake of people, not laws.
I think Communists said something similar about their system as well.
Here's the thing.... all these people involved were LAWYERS! If they can't figure out what the right procedure is, I think there is a very good chance the law isn't written clearly. People can decide about the Gorelick memo here...
Then there is the fear factor. A former NSA guy was describing how information not previously authorized to be collected can get one, an automatic 15 years in Leavenworth. It was in the context I've presented before, where information like a bank robbery not included in the warrant is not allowed to be uttered. And people wonder why the intelligence agencies aren't doing a better job.
Oh and don't forget the law that say if we want people to spy for us, (lying, stealing, and being a traitor), they have to have their resume presented and vetted as a good citizen. See the Torricelli principle. Ironically he retired for ethics problems.
cfaller96 said...
ReplyDelete4/20/04 Buffalo, President Bush speaking:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
bart said: this is one of those statements that is factually correct but is misleading
bart, did President Bush lie when he made this statement? Please tell me what was (as you claim) factually correct about this statement.
Repost my entire reply. I explained it all there in detail.
In short, the President states that when the government is discussing a wiretap, the government has obtained a warrant for that wiretap.
There is nothing factually inaccurate about this statement.
The government only discusses wiretaps used for criminal prosecution and never discusses the wiretaps which are used for foreign intelligence gathering.
The wiretaps introduced as criminal evidence were obtained via warrants.
However, I also observed that this statement is misleading in that some may assume that the President is referring to all wiretaps, whether made public or not.
Given the reportedly massive increase in electronic surveillance against al Qaeda after 9/11, I imagine this statement was intentionally misleading to keep our intelligence gathering under wraps.
If Mr. Bush implied that the US was conducting undisclosed warrantless intelligence gathering of telephone communications, our irresponsible press would have disclosed it to the enemy as the NYT eventually did.
It is sad that we have to treat our own press as potential or actual intelligence agents for the enemy.
The question of totrture continues to raise its ugly head again and again. The Bush admin continues to assert that our troops and others under its pay do not torture. People have mentioned waterboarding as an extreme example of torure allgedly used by US interrogators in questioning supposed terrorists.
ReplyDeleteRecent statements by Hayden appear to say that the US "no longer" uses waterboarding. While I am suspicious of the truth of such statements, I think think the emphasis on physical means of torture misses a much more important question.
This question of what constitutes torture should not limit itself to physical torture. As some people recognize, the psychological means of interrogation and imprisonment used by the US can be much more devastating than physical abuse.
I've written two postings (here and here)about this at my blog. The primary posting links to two articles that cursorily detail the psychological effects that these torture methods have on detainees. As these article suggest, these effects entail much more than simple psychological discomfort. They literally destroy a person's psychological well-being, scarring them for life.
As one article writes:
Why, one might ask, is psychological torture so devastating, inflicting harm that is often more lasting than even the most brutal form of physical abuse? Insights from the treatment of Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet's regime offer a point of entry into this complex question. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers found that victims suffer "a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders." The subject "does not only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate." These findings led him to a revealing question: "What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?"
The effects of such torture methods has been best shown in an episode from Law and Order: Criminal Intent. In effect, this episode shows that an individual's entire sense of who they are can become so fractured under these torture methods that they will kill, whereas before they would not.
cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteLRecent statements by Hayden appear to say that the US "no longer" uses waterboarding.
Too bad. The technique supposedly broke Khalid Sheik Muhammad in less than a half hour before he spilled everything he knew and we started rolling up other al Qaeda cells.
This question of what constitutes torture should not limit itself to physical torture. As some people recognize, the psychological means of interrogation and imprisonment used by the US can be much more devastating than physical abuse....They literally destroy a person's psychological well-being, scarring them for life.
As one article writes:
Why, one might ask, is psychological torture so devastating, inflicting harm that is often more lasting than even the most brutal form of physical abuse? Insights from the treatment of Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet's regime offer a point of entry into this complex question. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers found that victims suffer "a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders." The subject "does not only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate." These findings led him to a revealing question: "What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?"
Exactly why should any of us give a damn whether our interrogation psychologically breaks an al Qaeda terrorist?
I am deadly serious.
Why should we have any mercy whatsoever on an animal who is part of an organization whose stated objective is the murder of a million of our civilians?
Our objective should be to gain information out of these terrorists as quickly and efficiently as possible so long as we do not cross the line into actual torture.
If the result is that they emerge psychologically broken, but still alive, it is more than they deserve or are entitled to under international law.
Our troll, once again demonstrating an amazing capacity for intellectual dishonesty, disputes that the U.S. policy of rendition was controversial in Europe by quoting a CBS News report as well as law article from the University of Pittsburgh.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if anyone bothered to follow these links they will find that they completely contradict our trolls’ assertions –he’s shooting blanks.
"EU terrorism chief (Gijs de Vries )denies existence of CIA prisons amid strong criticism
There’s a reason he only cites the title of this article, it contradicts his point:
De Vries' comments to the committee investigating the CIA allegations [official website] were met with criticism from members of parliament, who cited 50 hours of testimony that it heard from alleged victims of rendition and human rights organizations.
Italian MEP Claudio Fava called de Vries' testimony "completely useless," while Dutch MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg noted "stunning" circumstantial evidence regarding the existence of the prisons…...
And in the CBS report he cites Javier Solana who said that he “had no proof” of CIA prisons or flights.
However, he had quoted the very next sentence, it once again contradicts his point:
EU lawmakers, however, accused him of giving evasive answers to their investigation into reported questionable CIA activities in Europe.
Not only that, his source, Solana admits himself that these allegations are “not a marginal issue” for EU-U.S. relations and he “called on Washington to provide further clarification on terror suspects allegedly held incommunicado.
Europe, contrary to our troll’s prevarications, is very upset with how they believe the U.S. treats our terrorist suspects.
A preliminary report by Europe's official human-rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, has found that the United States may have secretly moved more than 100 terror suspects abroad for interrogation in countries with poor human rights records.
"The real debate is to establish which methods we want to use to combat terrorism. Is it really true that to fight terrorism it is necessary to renounce human rights, to renounce the dignity of the individual, to renounce justice, and all the guarantees that we have built up over the past century?"
The head of the investigating team, Swiss Senator Dick Marty, told the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 23 January that "I believe it is absolutely demonstrated that alleged terrorists or terrorist sympathizers were kidnapped, transported against their will across Europe, detained outside any jurisdiction, deprived of all rights, and sent to countries that, notably, offer no guarantees at all of the respect for fundamental rights."
So much for our trolls’ credibility. And for him to automatically dismiss anyone who has written a book on a subject as no longer credible simply because they’re promoting a book is laughable on its face.
Hypatia writes:
ReplyDeletecfaller96 asks shooter: shooter242, perhaps you could clarify your thoughts on this: in your opinion, does the McCain Amendment already indicate to "the world" that we will not engage in waterboarding?
Really, shooter, I'd like to know the same thing. It is a *LAW* that this nation does not torture, including waterboarding. I want to know if the nominee to head our CIA thinks this *LAW* applies to him, and whether he will follow it.
This is why I say, whatever Hayden says will never be enough to assuage your fears. Bush consulted with the Ranking members of the intelligence committees, but that wasn't enough. The actual (formerly secret) process the NSA Program consisted of was revealed to the world. Is that enough? Will you require every administration official wear video cameras to judge their every move and utterance? Those ranking members certainly weren't trusted.
How about no secrets at all? We can invite all the folks over for a BBQ and let them peruse everything so there is no secret anywhere. How about that?
This is why we live in a Representative Republic not a democracy. I presume whatever Hayden has to say is sensitive. He wants to say whatever in secret and only to our representatives. Is there no scenario that you can envision that would warrant that? Actually I suspect he has something particular that he has to consider. It would be easiest after all, to just go with the flow, and tell people what they want to hear.
In the end though, I have no doubt we will get the answer soon enough. "Leaky" Leahy got the nickname for good reason.
I want the world to know, too. It is important to me, as an American, that the world believe we stand for civilized values that make us better than the things we fight against.
Why don't you want to know?
I don't really care what he says, I'm more interested in what he does. So far, our country has signed on to torture treaties, passed laws, prosecuted "torturers" from Abu Ghraib, and the EU can't find any info about the supposed rendition prisons we are supposed to have. The prisoners at Gitmo are fat and no longer "stressed"
If that isn't good enough, for you and the rest of the world, then why should I believe you'll take Hayden's word as definitive? You (You as in collective you.) won't. You and whoever will just call it a lie and move on to the next charge.
At some point you are going to have to trust the people you voted for. When both parties agree on something as they did with the NSA briefings odds are good that suspicions are misplaced. I assume that Hayden will indeed testify in closed session and that the group he briefs will accept or reject his nomination largely on that testimony. I'm sorry you are feeling left out, but sometimes there are things you are just not entitled to know.
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know [if the nominated CIA Director intends to engage in waterboarding], rather than the entire world...
My questions still stand unanswered, shooter. If you believe the McCain Amendment has already told "the world" that we do not engage in waterboarding, then why are you concerned with "the world" finding out what Hayden has to say about waterboarding? If you think we've already sent the message, then what's the big deal about demanding our future CIA director reiterate that message under oath?
shooter242 said:
At some point you are going to have to trust the people you voted for.
I disagree, and furthermore, what happens when that trust is violated (Abu Ghraib, secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe)? Do you propose we forget it all and go along with the same trust of these officials as we did before?
And, overall, how can you trust someone who declines to publicly swear under oath not to waterboard prisoners?
Refusing to publicly state something under oath is not a lie, but it is an action that is certainly worthy of suspicion. There is no secret that we're not supposed to engage in waterboarding, however thanks to this Administration there is now a perceivable difference between what the law says and what this Administration does.
Because of the difference, the pressure to put on record these officials' positions on waterboarding, renditions, etc. becomes simply rational, not radical. Rant all you want about how "kooky" I am for wanting my CIA director to publicly swear not to waterboard. In my opinion, however, trust has to be earned by public officials, not given by the people. Hayden had a perfect opportunity to simply say "No, I will not authorize waterboarding", but he didn't do that. To me, that is suspicious and worthy of further investigation.
Nick says:
ReplyDeleteand yet, in the same post, you quote from a story in which a British intelligence agent brings horrifying testimony about US SANCTIONED AND SUPPORTED TORTURE,
Sorry, I should have warned you about the fisking to follow regarding that article. By the way, I didn't notice anything in that article about "US SANCTIONED AND SUPPORTED TORTURE". That's an assumption you're making, based on the assumptions he's made. Apparently the CIA got some info from the Uzbecks, but that's a long way from your allegation.
And if you don't think there are secret CIA prisons, that's fine, too. I'd be happy to see some sort of investigation, oversight, communication, diplomacy, smoke signals, anything that seemed at all credible. And that is really my problem, I suppose, and the one that seems to be shared by most people who read this blog, and the one that you don't seem to understand.
Come now, I have it straight from the EU terrorism and policy chiefs. If you don't believe them, there is no one you'll believe. Do you actually think the EU would lie for Bush? If so, the paranoia meter should be going off the scale.
This administration HAS NO CREDIBILITY. There is no room for weaseling here. Any wiggle room was spent on WMDs we "know" are there, wiretaps that require a warrant, "no one could have predicted the levees would fail," suspicious (at best) voting irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and a thousand other "inconsistencies," which word I'll use in the interests of politeness.
LOL. Dragging all the "skeletons" out of the closet? Unfortunately, all your inconsistencies have consistent factual platforms no matter how much mud you guys can sling. Being sore losers doesn't recommend Democrats for office.
I, as an American citizen, DEMAND a clear and forthright and unequivocal public statement from the head of the CIA that he will follow legislatively proscribed prohibitions against torturous behavior.
Write your elected representatives.
PS - your defense of waterboarding by essentially pointing out that there are far worse things that humans have done (are doing, will do) to each other sucks.
The fact that I have never had a burning fire poker in my eye doesn't make an electrode on my testicles, or the deprivation of air and fear of death, any less heinous, malicious, or inhuman.
True enough, but we don't live in a world where singing camp songs will make it all better. It necessary to have people that believe in a perfect world, but as is famously said, the reason you sleep comfortably in your bed at night, is that rough men stand at the ready.
True enough, but we don't live in a world where singing camp songs will make it all better. It necessary to have people that believe in a perfect world, but as is famously said, the reason you sleep comfortably in your bed at night, is that rough men stand at the ready.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaha!
You cheesedick clown! Can you quote some more fictional characters singing the equivalent of campfire songs for us? How about something from Peter Pan, you fairy. You don't know what you are talking about. But I repeat myself.
cfaller says:
ReplyDeleteHayden had a perfect opportunity to simply say "No, I will not authorize waterboarding", but he didn't do that. To me, that is suspicious and worthy of further investigation.
I'm sure it will be. Your problem, is that it may be decided, not to make the results public. Sorry but the Executive branch doesn't answer to cfaller.
Fart and Pooter --
ReplyDeleteSon, we live in a world that has blogs, and those blogs have to be guarded by men with computers. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Waring? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Reynolds and you curse the Keyboarders. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Reynolds’ existence, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that blog. You need me on that blog. We use words like “fisk,” “indeed,” “heh” … We use these words as the backbone to a life spent at home defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the endlessly self-important invective that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a laptop and start to post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
The The rough and ugly truth is that these morons can't tell fiction from fact, and it's "liberal fiction" they don't even comprehend or understand. The "rough man" Orwell referred to was none other than Saddam, whom we took off that wall. Mission Accomplished!
Did George Orwell ever say: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?” Or: “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?”
Not exactly. But he did make comments that were along similar lines. In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: “[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them.” And in his ‘Notes on Nationalism’ (1945) he wrote: “Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Where the rough men crept in is anyone’s guess. It was in everyone's best interests to leave Saddam right where he was. One could make the same argument, as many have, that the multipolar world we have now is far less stable and safe than the bipolar power dynamic we had before the fall of the Soviet Union. They would be correct again.
I'm sure it will be. Your problem, is that it may be decided, not to make the results public. Sorry but the Executive branch doesn't answer to cfaller.
ReplyDeleteActually, it does answer to us. It works for us because we gave the man there his job. And we can fire that man and cause him to lose his job. Even some Monarchies, (which you are conflating with our executive branch) get fired by their subjects (we are not subjects here, it's called the American revolution, look it up). They sometimes lose their heads right after they lose their jobs.
Pooter, you are a moron. Can't you find something less embarassing to do than demonstrate this sad fact here day after day? Like go and play with a loaded gun?
Fart...I am deadly serious.
ReplyDeleteGo clean some loaded firearms.
The entire world would "sleep more peacebly in their beds" if some "rough men" saw to it that Fart and Pooter and their fellow fascist travellers had some "unfortunate accidents cleaning their firearms".
ReplyDeleteshooter astounds with: I'm sure it will be. Your problem, is that it may be decided, not to make the results public. Sorry but the Executive branch doesn't answer to cfaller.
ReplyDeletecfaller I presume is an American citizen, as am I. And I goddam well do expect the Executive branch to answer to me, since I employ it. It is wholly my business whether that branch intends to obey the laws that We the People, through our elected representatives, have passed. And if Hayden won't simply affirm that his CIA will obey the law, he should not be confirmed.
You seem to represent a strain on the right that I do think is legitimately tarred as being proto-fascist. You prefer strong-man theories to the rule of law, and so do not conform to anything like the political scheme bequeathed us by the Founders.
I've tended to vote GOP, when I have voted. People like you, and the Bush crowd, now make it imperative that the GOP be buried until it gets over its statist, authoritarian, lawless, populist ways.
The entire world would "sleep more peacebly in their beds" if some "rough men" saw to it that Fart and Pooter and their fellow fascist travellers had some "unfortunate accidents cleaning their firearms".
ReplyDeleteThese are the folks who cry big crocodile tears about the mental well being of al Qaeda prisoners...
Here is to the "rough men" with their firearms (and I do have them) who give these poor fools the freedom to be deluded in safety.
Wingnuts, fascists and libertarians continue to spiritually baptize the deceased as fellow wingnuts, fascists and libertarians, because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, Orwell, etc.
ReplyDeleteBart... These are the folks who cry big crocodile tears about the mental well being of al Qaeda prisoners...
ReplyDeleteAu contraire, Bart. I don't give a rat's ass or a gerbil's fart about the rights or mental well-being of those poor souls, except in so far as it bears on my own rights and mental and physical well-being. As long as mine are preserved and protected, so shall their's be. Like everything else, you've got it ass backwards.
Shooter:
ReplyDeleteIt necessary to have people that believe in a perfect world, but as is famously said, the reason you sleep comfortably in your bed at night, is that rough men stand at the ready.
I can't decide if I hope that you are quoting from Nathan Jessup or not.
Either way: I am sure that there were many on the Soviet side of the cold war who would have been considered rough men standing at the ready.
Augusto Pinochet - was he a rough man at the ready? How about Milosevic, Hussein, Amin, etc. This is in no way meant to denigrate the millions of men and women who have served the armed forces of this and many other countries with dignity, aplomb, and integrity. I do not care to live, and submit that I do not live, on the basis of a safety that is purchased by the biggest gun. When necessary, it is entirely appropriate for the armed forces of a nation to: defend its borders or the borders of a friendly nation; act in concert with international tribunals to prevent atrocities; and even depose despicable authoritarian scumbags.
But this is not the basis for our system of government. Our freedoms are not purchased at the end of a gun barrell, and do not emanate from the research rooms at Lockheed Martin or McDonnel Douglas. That viewpoint is, IMO, the tail wagging the dog. Just governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. To argue otherwise is a perversion of the ideals upon which this country was founded, and upon which I base my profound sincerity in the pledge of allegiance.
I do not consider it to be blindly idealistic to ask that my government live up to its stated principles.
Not that it matters, but I am also not a democrat, btw. I am, in fact, probably more pissed at Congress than I am at the Administration - as I understand it, checks and balances would probably still work if the damn Congress would just do anything like checking or balancing.
I don't care who is in the White House, but the current administration has no credibility with me and, in case you missed it, with less than half the population. That's credibility, not approval, which is of course, much lower.
We are not the lunatic fringe here. I am not some screaming liberal babbler. Please stop chuckling as our country is going up in flames.
I am mindful of the need for military presence, might, and power. I am very grateful to be living in a land where we are free to elect an incompetent buffoon rather than being forced to submit to the will of a psychopathic dictator or sociopathic mob.
I refuse to submit to policies, practices, and actions which I find not only objectionable but wrong. I question this administration's commitment to that ideal and would like to see it called to account for that.
As much as it is overused ...
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
...
During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.
From that fount of liberal paranoia, President Dwight D. Eisenhower
"hypatia" sez: "It is wholly my business whether that branch intends to obey the laws that We the People, through our elected representatives, have passed."
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right, hypatia. It is every American citizen's business.
I believe that people like shooter--who meekly and obediently trusts his elected leaders to work in secrecy without democratic safeguards--are a far, far greater threat to the future of our republic than OBL could ever dream of being. And, hypatia, despite yours and my vast political differences (and they are vast, I promise you), I believe that people like you--who insist on governmental openness and the rule of law for every American, including our leaders--represent a far greater hope for the future of our republic than any politician past or present.
Keep it up, hypatia.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Furthermore, Bart... when it comes to Democracy and freedom, I happen to think people (Iraqi people) need to fight for and get those things on their own. I am not opposed to assisting them, but who's the conservative here, again? I do think it's important to feed and clothe the hungry and naked, but I draw the line at doing everything for them, including dying for their freedom. You asstound me just like Hypatia is asstounded by Shooter.
ReplyDeleteI will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.
LBJ
Proto-fascist is right. Certainly not conservative. Hypatia's eyes are more WO than I thought.
Bart...I will not send American boys halfway around the world to do a job that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.
ReplyDeleteOh, woopty-doo! This machine is far more dangerous to your ilk than a gun. It never runs out of ammo and doesn't even need to be in tune to kill. Some say it kills quicker if it's not. If small arms alone were enough to prevent tyranny, explain Iraq and most of the ME. guns have always been more prevalent their than automobiles in the west. Small arms are meaningless. They are so pre 9/11.
ditto to Patrick's thoughts on both Shooter and Hypatia
ReplyDeleteMy clipboard malfunctioned. Like small arms often do.
ReplyDeleteBart...Here is to the "rough men" with their firearms (and I do have them) who give these poor fools the freedom to be deluded in safety.
Oh, woopty-doo! This machine is far more dangerous to your ilk than a gun. It never runs out of ammo and doesn't even need to be in tune to kill. Some say it kills quicker if it's not. If small arms alone were enough to prevent tyranny, explain Iraq and most of the ME. guns have always been more prevalent their than automobiles in the west. Small arms are meaningless. They are so pre 9/11.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart... These are the folks who cry big crocodile tears about the mental well being of al Qaeda prisoners...
Au contraire, Bart. I don't give a rat's ass or a gerbil's fart about the rights or mental well-being of those poor souls, except in so far as it bears on my own rights and mental and physical well-being. As long as mine are preserved and protected, so shall their's be. Like everything else, you've got it ass backwards.
As soon as anyone from the military or CIA waterboards you, be sure to let us know.
The lack of rights possessed by an al Qaeda prisoner no more to do with the constitutional rights possessed by you.
More mischief has been done under the law when judges or legislators like you have placed themselves in the position of criminals and now foreign terrorists.
Ass backwards, indeed.
nick says:
ReplyDeleteQuite a bit actually. let's start here.....
We are not the lunatic fringe here. I am not some screaming liberal babbler. Please stop chuckling as our country is going up in flames.
Dragging out the liberal litany of stolen elections, failed levees, WMD's, etc, etc etc tells me that you aren't working on total rationality. Not to say that you are irrational, but it seems that emotionalism has taken over. All over whether Hayden should say a particular thing to your satisfaction.
This may be a topic you want to invest with that much emotionalism, but it makes discussion difficult. What does one say to a person convinced that the country is going up in flames, when the reality is so different?
This is exactly the same pattern from the NSA leaks. For months people called Bush a liar, assumed their conversations were spied upon, and declared that the Constitution was dead.
So now you and and the rest of the mob want to assume that Bush is a serial torturer and demand that Hayden verbally prostrate himself, declare his subservience to the whatever.
Sorry but I can't get all excited about the latest outrage du' jour. If you two want to get worked up into a righteous snit be my guest. I'm going to rely on the process to sort things out. So far it's doing much better than you care to give it credit for.
Dragging out the liberal litany of stolen elections, failed levees, WMD's, etc, etc etc tells me that you aren't working on total rationality
ReplyDeleteYeah, dragging out proven facts is a definite no no for cult members.
The only one not proven is the election story, and for that all we ahve to go on are statistics and evidence, but give it time, it'll be as well proven as the others.
bart said @... 8:28 PM
ReplyDeleteYou have been getting a bit shrill of late, but now you are becoming unintelligible as well. I'd say once more in English (the official language), but that's OK.
Yeah, facts and reality cause real problems for these guys. Reality and facts are just sooo, irrational.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Waterboarding was one fo the Gestapo's favroite "interrogation" techniques.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteMost people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way....
etc. etc. ETC..
DON'T EVER DO THAT AGAIN!
Alberto Gonzales says "no." According to him, Bush opposes such a measure and always has:
ReplyDeleteWell, of course. Why would he want to give official status to a language he abuses so badly?
But Glenn, McCain is a REPUBLICAN war hero. That’s why you can’t boo him.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Dahr Jamail is reporting on US atrocities in Iraq. Dahr links to a video of a US Army Ranger who tells how he and his unit executed suspected terrorists' children.
ReplyDelete"When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL."
Dahr Jamail is reporting on US atrocities in Iraq. Dahr links to a video of a US Army Ranger who tells how he and his unit executed suspected terrorists' children.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: The link to the video is currently broken. Check back to view it--if it hasn't been permanently blocked/removed/etc.
"When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL."
shooter242 said:
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer that the representatives of Americans know [if the nominated CIA Director intends to engage in waterboarding], rather than the entire world...
My questions, once again, still stand unanswered, shooter. If you believe the McCain Amendment has already told "the world" that we do not engage in waterboarding, then why are you concerned with "the world" finding out what Hayden has to say about waterboarding? If you think we've already sent the message, then what's the big deal about demanding our future CIA director reiterate that message under oath?
You responded to another portion of my post, yet you declined to respond to these questions. Why are you avoiding this? What are you afraid of?
President Bush 4/20/04:
ReplyDelete"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
bart said:
In short, the President states that when the government is discussing a wiretap, the government has obtained a warrant for that wiretap.
He's not speaking about a specific wiretap or a specific warrant, bart. He's speaking generally (and he's part of "the government"). But the President has already admitted that generally warrants have not been obtained for all wiretaps, making this general statement untrue.
Or are you claiming that anytime President Bush opens his mouth about "terrorists", he's already gotten warrants for "terrorists"? If that's your claim, then I don't understand and I'd like you to elaborate.
(I would also note that you didn't reiterate your earlier argument that "he wasn't referring to the NSA program", after I pointed out that the NSA is part of "the government". What happened to that claim?)
Bart asserts he doesn't give a rat's ass about whether "Al Qaeda" prisoners are psychologically broken by our interrogation methods, and he therefore forfeits any moral legitimacy. In short, in being willing to accept torture of anyone, he reveals himself to be a brute and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteAs should be obvious to "an officer of the court" who is all too ready to give Li'l Butch the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence, we don't know WHO these prisoners of ours are, and, aside from assertions by the authorities (Butch, Rumsfeld, et al), there has been no finding of fact on the matter. Bart will of course say our Constitutional protections do not apply to foreign nationals, and I reply, well, not legally, perhaps, but as a matter of humanity and in order to insure we are not keeping imprisoned hapless innocents, we owe it TO OURSELVES to determine through appraisal of the evidence whether our captives are Al Qaeda.
That aside, Bart snidely asks of some, "Tell me when YOU have been waterboarded by the CIA?" or some similar tripe, but, again, as a matter of acting humanely, when we brutalize ANYONE, we diminish ourselves and thoroughly fucking demolish ANY claim to moral superiority. (Well, hell, THAT's been blown to bits since our illegal March 2003 invasion of Iraq.)
For all his boasting of being an officer of the court, Bart has demonstrated here repeatedly he truly has no respect at all for the ideals and thinking which underlay our Constitution or our legal system. I'm sure Bart is perfectly in sympathy with Li'l Butch's comments re: "It'd be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship...as long as I'M the dictator!"
Moreover, when we accept and allow the abuse and torture of even demonstrably guilty persons, we open the door to the eventual defining down of such treatment from being "cruel and unusual" to S.O.P.
ReplyDeleteAside from the moral repugnance of abusing captives, it makes much more likely the eventual use of such tactics on American prisoners, both by enemy nations and by our own. In short, it coarsens out own sense of appropriate and humane behavior, and it encourages and excuses brutal treatment by other, supposedly "less enlightened" nations.
shooter242:
ReplyDelete... consider how tough it is to be in law enforcement if info from a criminal warrant uncovers a terror plot and you can't tell anyone about it. Nobody, not your boss, not your partner, not any other agency. Nobody.
You have an overactive imagination being put to no use here. Your "straw man" is just your own personal florid hallucination.
Cheers,