Here's What's Left

I wonder if that means that they can take their own cells apart?

By the way, has anyone seen a video of the President's press conference (on which I wrote below)?  Did the President really say

It seemed like to me they [Amnesty International] based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth.

or is it a transcribing error?  Seriously, did he really say "disassemble" instead of "dissemble?"  Heather tells me that "dissemble" was one of google's "words of the day" today.  She thinks that maybe he read it, and thought he'd use his vocab word in a sentence!  Trying to set a good example for our young 'uns, and all.  What with the no leaving of the children behind and the blaven.

Still though, she thinks that it sounds like he needs some remedial presidenting lessons.  I'd have to agree.

-- Michael

More liars and cowards

I see President Bush is getting into the game now:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently, Amnesty International said you have established "a new gulag" of prisons around the world [ed.: that's actually not what Amnesty International said at all], beyond the reach of the law and decency. I'd like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that that is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves with the United States government in the past -- and what the strategic impact is that in many places of the world, the United States these days, under your leadership, is no longer seen as the good guy.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know -- yes, sir.

You know what the best part of that answer is?  "It just is."  "It was an absurd report.  It just is."

The report, which you've probably all seen by now, is 300-plus pages as printed.  It contains numerous and copiously documented accounts of abuse.  Perhaps they're all true; perhaps some were fabricated by detainees.  But they cannot all be, because the stories are too similar; some were related by lawyers of the detainees, and some by the FBI itself.  What does President Bush say to Amnesty International's careful, painstaking work?

It was an absurd report.  It just is.

If there is a better metaphor for the current political climate I don't know what it is.  With no evidence or attempted articulation of anything at all, the President asserts, in the face of a mountain of evidence, that he is right and they are wrong.

Let's be very clear about this.  The president didn't criticize Amnesty International's choice of words (the "gulag" thing; and in fact, this was just one person, not the organization), as many of our right-wing friends have done.  He didn't say that their comparison was "absurd," that their words were inappropriate or ill thought-out.  No, it's the report itself that is absurd. 

I feel like I say this a lot; but I think the admin has crossed a line here.  Even a cursory glance at the report will reveal to any reasonable, unreasonable, or semi-conscious person that it is not "absurd."  Maybe you don't agree with its conclusions.  Maybe you think that not every detainee is telling the truth.  Maybe you even think that most of it is flawed (though, to think that, you'd have to have really thought about it and carefully weighed all the evidence).  But it is not "absurd." 

Only a person that is attempting an intentional and malicious deception, a person of deep cynicism about his audience, who is counting on the people who are listening to him to be so brain dead that they can't think beyond a talking point at a press conference, could make such a statement. 

For President Bush to deny reports by his own FBI about the human rights abuses engaged in under the banner of his "freedom is on the march" wars is moral cowardice and hypocrisy of the highest (lowest?) order. 

-- Michael

Why you shouldn't use the Hitler argument

Because Dick Cheney can go around saying that you're lying when you're not.  It's not just Dick Cheney.  Amesty International has been widely criticized for using the word "gulag" (which I'm taking as basically the same as the "Hitler argument;" I wrote about the Hilter argument here) in relation to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. 

Here, for example, is an excerpt from a critical John Podhoretz piece:

So let's do a few comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag - the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s.

     Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

     Number of prisoners in the Gulag: 25 million, according to peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

     Number of camps at Gitmo: 1.

     Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

     Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

     Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets.

Now, of course if you thought that Amesty International merely made a blanket comparison, you might think that the Podhoretz's response has some merit.  But here's what Amnesty International actually said:

"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Khan writes. "Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process."

Which, of course, is correct.  The admin has been trying to entrench the practice of arbitrary indefinite detention.  Which Stalin did too.  So that one point of comparison is correct.  The other points of comparison, like killing millions of your own countrymen and providing slave labor, of course, are not correct. 

Now, of course, that's not the comparison that Amnesty International was trying to make.  But because they used the word "gulag," the story is about the word "gulag" and not about the arbitrary indefinite detention.

So I blame Amnesty International in this case for not foreseeing the consequences of their poor choice of words, despite the basic accurateness of their perception.  They should have known that the admin would take any chance it can get to deflect attention from the substance of the report.  They should be more careful in the future, for the very sake of the causes they advance.  Because of their choice of words, their report will have less impact and less credibility than it otherwise should.  And I think we can all learn a lesson from that.

(But Dick Cheney is still a liar.)

-- Michael

A liar and a coward

Vice President Cheney on Larry King Live:

KING: Amnesty International condemns the United States. How do you react?

D. CHENEY: I don't take them seriously[.]

KING: Not at all?

D. CHENEY: No. I -- frankly, I was offended by it. I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world. Think about what we did in World War I, World War II, throughout the Cold War. Just in this administration, we've liberated 50 million people from the Taliban in Afghanistan and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, two terribly oppressive regimes that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.

KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.

D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.

We've also been able to derive significant amounts of intelligence from them that helped us understand better the organization and the adversary we face and helped us gather the kind of information that makes it possible for us to defend the United States against further attacks. And what we're doing down there has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately. I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently.

Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and been released by to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.

This is outrageous.  The Vice President of the United States saying on national television that allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay are false.  They are are not.  He is, quite simply, a liar. 

Indeed, Amnesty International's report contains numerous allegations by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (scroll down to section 12 for starters), and I suppose, if, like the Vice President of the United States, you're not inclined to trust brown people, you might not believe a word of what any of the large number of them said.  Surely, though, you would be less inclined to disbelieve your own Federal Bureau of Investigation:

An FBI document from December 2004, originally classified as secret for 25 years, included the following prior observations by FBI agents:[...]

Guantanamo Bay
A detainee’s mouth was duct taped for chanting from the Koran…military employee who applied the duct tape found it amusing;
A detainee being isolated for substantial periods of time;
Agents heard of detainees being subjected to considerable pain and very aggressive techniques during interrogations;
Agents aware of detainees being threatened…by dogs;
Agents have seen documentary evidence that a detainee was told that his family had been taken into custody and would be moved to Morocco for interrogation if he did not begin to talk.

That FBI agent must a bleeding-heart liberal, right Mr. Vice-President?  Probably this one too:

An FBI memorandum dated 14 July 2004 stated the following about the treatment of a Guantánamo detainee:

"In September or October of 2002 FBI agents observed that a canine was used in an aggressive manner to intimidate detainee #63 and, in November 2002, FBI agents observed Detainee #63 after he had been subject to intense isolation for over three months. During that time period, #63 was totally isolated (with the exception of occasional interrogations) in a cell that was always flooded with light. By late November, the detainee was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma."(329)

The Vice President says that he doesn't take Amensty International seriously.  Well, it's hard to take the Vice President seriously if he is so willing to lie about undisputed facts. 

But what I find really outrageous about the Vice President's statement is its cowardice. 

Many on the right have defended the harsh interrogation practices that the US has used in the "war on terror;" they downplay the practices as no worse than a fraternity hazing or claim it is a necessary evil.  This viewpoint, while repellent, is at least intellectually consistent and courageous in its stupidity.  In order to downplay the significance of prisoner abuse, the abuse must be conceded to exist.  There is no such consistency or courage in Vice President Cheney.  He is unwilling to face the reality of the situation for which he is, in part, responsible.  It is morally bankrupt.

-- Michael

What did the compromise illustrate?

Ron Brownstein offers an interesting, if slightly oversimplified, take on the filibuster compromise:

What gives? One explanation may be that the deal challenges the dominant political strategy among Republicans, while upholding both of the approaches contending for dominance among Democrats.

Especially since Bush's reelection, Democrats have been divided on electoral strategy. One camp believes the key to revival is courting centrist swing voters (a la Bill Clinton's "third way"). The second says the party must emulate Bush and focus on mobilizing its base by stressing unity.

In different ways, the judicial deal is at least tolerable to both camps. Third-way types applaud it for promoting bipartisan compromise. The party-unity group likes it because it kept Senate Democrats unified against the filibuster ban.

By contrast, the deal threatens the ruling political paradigm among Republicans. Since 2001, energizing the conservative base, even at the price of straining relations with more centrist voters, has been the core of Bush's legislative and political strategy.

That approach has generated undeniable benefits for him. The massive turnout from the GOP base was the largest factor in Bush's reelection. His strength in culturally conservative areas has helped Republicans solidify their dominance of congressional seats in GOP-leaning "red" states.

But last week's deal reflected a fear among some of its GOP participants that the White House had pushed that polarizing approach to the point of dangerously alienating moderate voters.

Brownstein's take on the competing stategies of the Dems is a little simple-minded, but he's right about his basic point: the nucular compromise does offer something to more than one school of thought among Dem strategists.  But let's try to be more clear about this:

When Brownstein says that "[o]ne camp believes the key to revival is courting centrist swing voters," I don't really know what he's talking about.  Which camp?  Is there anyone in the Democratic party who doesn't think this?  It seems like the only obvious solution to the current political climate, in which the Bush admin has increasingly alienated moderates and even principled conservatives.

Similarly, Brownstein's statement that "[t]he second [camp] says the party must emulate Bush and focus on mobilizing its base by stressing unity" strikes me as noticeably incomplete.  Unless there's something up some sleeves that none of us know about, Dems have been made stronger by their recent show of unity on Social Security.  Despite some initial wavering by Josh Marshall's faint-hearted faction, party unity in protecting Social Security has served Dems well, including compromisers Mark Pryor, Mary Landieu, and Ben Nelson. 

I would rephrase Brownstein's argument to say that the compromise shows, if anything, that two differing strategic goals of Democratic thinkers aren't mutually exclusive, and have recently worked together well: given that the republicans control the agenda so forceful and so unapologetically, it's easy for Dems to both present a unified front and appeal to these mythical centrists at the same time.  Not there aren't problems within the Dem caucus, but before we deal with those, let's make sure we keep the larger tactical framework in mind.  This is gift that a second Bush term has given us: when republicans really think they're allowed to get whatever they want, it's much easier for Dems to look reasonable without really trying. 

-- Michael

Memorial Day

Wish I had something eloquent to say, but I don't.  In lieu of that, how about something sincere:

Thanks guys.

-- Michael

Supreme Court Strategery

The AP had stories yesterday and Saturday about a possible upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Read 'em if you want.  There's nothing too surprising there.  The only thing that caught my attention was this, from the Sunday article:

Liberals hope Bush will fill his first vacancy with a centrist, a consensus candidate, instead of one who would please right-wing Republicans who were instrumental in the president's re-election. But they acknowledge that may be wishful thinking.

Bush has shown he is willing to stick by his nominees. When Senate Democrats denied votes on 10 of his picks for the federal bench, the president did not back down. Instead, he sent the same group of conservatives back to the Senate. That set the stage for the recent showdown over the filibuster a political maneuver the Democrats used to stall the votes through protracted debate.

"On every occasion the president has chosen confrontation rather than consultation and consensus so we assume it's going to be confrontation one more time or four more times, depending on what happens," said Ralph Neas, director of the People for the American Way. The liberal group has worked to block several of President Bush's appointments to the courts.

"Liberals hope Bush will fill his first vacancy with a centrist."  Why do we hope this? 

Let me make a possibly unpopular suggestion.  Hear me out.  Rehnquist is somewhere to the right of the Tsar Alexander III.  If Bush nominated a centrist, that would be a major victory for us.  It would actually be a net gain for our side.  If Bush nominated a Scalia-clone, we'd be right where we are now. 

What are the chances that Bush will nominate a centrist?  Approximately 0. 

What were the terms of the recent nucular compromise?  Democrats can still filibuster, in the case of "extraordinary circumstances," which, of course, we all know, means whatever republicans want it to mean. 

When will we not have to worry about the nucular option any more?  When we regain some seats in the Senate in 2006. 

Given all of this, maybe we shouldn't give the new chief justice a difficult confirmation battle, since he'll likely be no different than the current one.  Maybe we should save our guns for the confirmation battle that would make a difference in the ideological make-up of the court.

Here are two possible scenarios:

Situation #1: Bush nominates J. Michael Luttig, widely thought of as super-conservative but intelligent.  Dems don't give him too hard a time.  He's confirmed 80-20.  Lots of talk about bipartisan unity.  Harry Reid talks endlessly about how reasonable we Dems are. 

Next year, Sandra Day O'Connor steps down.  Bush tries to nominate Janice Rogers Brown to her seat.  Since O'Connor is a relative (on the Rehnquist court at least) moderate, getting another staunch conservative on the court would be a major loss.  Dems complain loudly about how good our faith was with on the last nominee.  We met the President half way.  We could have filibustered but we didn't.  Look how hard we tried to be fair.  We were sure that President Bush would try to show his good faith as well.  We were wrong, and unfortunately, we can't let the President nominate a crazy wingnut to the bench.

Public opinion favors the Dems, because they look reasonable and willing to compromise.  Bush looks like a wingnut.  Rogers Brown's nomination is defeated.

Situation #2: Bush nominates J. Michael Luttig.  Dems filibuster.  Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine change their minds about the nucular option.  The nucular option squeaks by 51-49.  Luttig is confirmed, even with Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter voting against him.

When O'Connor retires the next year, Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown.  Dems, despite complaining loudly and whining on TV every night, are unable to block Rogers Brown's confirmation because their right to filibuster has been taken away.  The hardcore conservatives gain a seat on the Supreme Court.

I know, I know.  I don't like it anymore than you do.  This may not be a sound strategy, and if you don't think it is, tell me why.  But it's certainly something that we all should think carefully about.

-- Michael

Newspeak watch: doubleplus unmishandled

Abuse:
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abused; abus·ing
1 : to put to a wrong or improper use <abuse a privilege>
2 obsolete : DECEIVE
3 : to use so as to injure or damage : MALTREAT
4 : to attack in words : REVILE

Mishandle:
Function: transitive verb
1 : to treat roughly : MALTREAT
2 : to deal with or manage wrongly or ignorantly

Will this be the latest tortured semantic distinction by the Pentagon?

VOA news says: Pentagon Officials Says No Credible Evidence of Koran Abuse.  The article states:

The commander of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said a military investigation has found no evidence that U.S. guards or interrogators ever flushed the Muslim holy book, the Koran, down a toilet.  But Brigadier General Jay Hood identified five incidents in which the Koran was "mishandled" by military personnel at the facility.

So the VOA, despite Merriam Webster, is making a distinction between "abuse" ("to use so as to injure or damage") and "mishandle" ("to treat roughly"), both of which list "maltreat" as synonyms. 

ABC News, not seeming like they want to engage in VOA's hairsplitting, says: Five Cases of Koran 'Mishandling' Found.  The AP story reads:

Investigators have confirmed five cases in which military personnel mishandled the Qurans of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, but they have found no "credible evidence" that a holy book was flushed in a toilet.

While The Australian isn't buying into the distinction at all, saying: Koran 'abused but not flushed.'  The Agence France Presse story reads:

Investigators have found at least five instances in which guards and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, mishandled the Koran but no "credible evidence" that the Muslim holy book was flushed in a toilet, the US commander at the naval base said yesterday.

Good thing for the Pentagon and the Bush administration that English has more words than nearly all other languages.  Larry DiRita didn't tell a lie so much as he issued a prevarication.  Or perhaps a fabrication.  He didn't tell a lie, but it was certainly a falsehood.  A mendacity, if you will.  A whopper, an untruth, but certainly not a lie.

-- Michael

Lying Liar

Kevin Drum says, correctly, that it's time for Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita to go, because of this little exchange:

Q: Larry, just to be clear....Are you saying that none of those allegations were credible?....Have any of them been investigated, and were any substantiated?

MR. DI RITA: ....When a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we've not seen specific, credible allegations.

Which, of course, is an inarguable lie.  In fact, the Pentagon had seen specific credible allegations, and it now concedes that Koran abuse occurred. 

There are only two little things that I want to bring up:

1) DiRita, even though he clearly lied to reporters, will not be fired.  I'm sure he won't even apologize.  I'm curious, though, will there be enough media attention to this lie to cause the administration to give some sort of excuses for him?  If so, what will those excuses be?  Seems like he's trapped to me, but I've learned never to underestimate republican wiggling abilities.

2) Isn't a blatant and inarguable lie by a government official enough to warrant a little mainstream media attention?  I know, I know, they lie all the time, but they always hide behind the "we thought the WMD were there" trope.  I don't see how that's possible here.  DiRita must have known about the credible, specific allegations.  And he obviously lied in a classic sense: with malice and intent to decieve.  If for no other reason, you'd think the mainstream media would want to report on it because it directly concerns them.  If they don't get the info, they don't have anything to report on.  Surely shaming the Pentagon into telling the truth all the time is something in which they have a vested interested.

-- Michael

No More Nazis analogies II

Since I wrote about this topic the other day, I wanna take issue with what Jon Chait says about how Nazi anaologies should be part of American political discourse:

But why should Nazi analogies be verboten? If we thought about it sensibly, we'd realize that Nazi analogies have their place. If anything, our public discourse could use more Nazi analogies.

The main complaint against Hitler analogies in American political discourse is that they're inherently hysterical, comparing run-of-the-mill conservatives or liberals with the most evil force in human history. And of course, it's crazy to compare one's political opponents to Nazis, unless they happen to be genocidal totalitarians, a category that's fortunately very small in American politics.

But when Nazis are invoked, it's often not to make a moral comparison but to establish a logical principle. That's the main mistake made by those who decry Nazi allusions. They ignore, or fail to grasp, the distinction between comparing someone to Hitler and using a historical analogy that draws on the Nazi era.

Yeah, right.  If you're trying to establish a logical principle, establish a logical principle.  You don't need Nazis to do that.  If you think republicans are stifling dissent, say so.  If you think that's a bad thing, goes against everything that the US Constitution says and could lead us to some seriously fucked up places, say so.  If you think the Dems blocking judicial nominees is unprecedented and unconstitutional, say so (even though you'd be wrong if you said so).