New Rule: A Dictionary In Every President's Pocket
“’This government does not torture people,’” Mr. Bush said. “’You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations.’”
Later in the same New York Times article:
“One 2005 secret opinion gave the Justice Department’s most authoritative legal approval to the harshest agency techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
The second opinion declared that under some circumstances, such techniques were not “cruel, inhuman or degrading,” a category of treatment that Congress banned in December 2005.”
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
Well, The New York Times is a bit more articulate in the second quote than Bill Clinton was, in the third quote; but, I kind of long for the days of “what is is.”
Wouldn’t you be happier if the biggest national controversy was whether a blow job was sex and if you’d had either in the past, it might be ok to answer no to a question about either that you could lamely interpret to be asking about the present?
W doesn’t trouble himself with blow jobs, sex and tense. He just redefines words. What do torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading mean? What ever we say they mean. We don’t torture people because what we do isn’t torture because we redefined the word. We aren’t allowed to see the “opinions” referred to in the second quote. According to Dana Perino we can’t see them because they contain “confidential legal advice.”
So we are left with “we don’t torture.” No one that knows what we do is going to tell us what they do; but, be assured that it isn’t torture.
Here’s my problem with this stupidity; and, my more liberal/commie/pinko readers than even I am, may part ways with me here. Torture has been around for a long time. It may well have its place in war. But, given W’s track record, I don’t trust him, or the people that work for him, as far as I can throw him/them to make an objective decision on its use. Absent my absolute lack of confidence in W and his judgment, I'd rather an administration that flat said, we aren't talking about that.
Go back and do a search on previous posts about torture and Guantanamo on this blog. W, to use a legal phrase, skews to the over, rather than the, under inclusive view of extreme treatment of terrorism suspects. (If someone is really interested in what that means, try Google. If that doesn’t work, read a constitutional law or philosophy textbook. As a last resort, come back and insist that I do a law post. Trust me though, it's boring.) Were I to slide him the use of cruelty, inhumanity, degradation, or God forbid, torture, he'd fuck it up like he does most other things.
Though I don't agree, I think I rather he say, "People, we are in a war, wars are not nice things, the enemy does a lot of bad things and it's my job to stop them. How I'm going about it isn't something I'm going to talk about."
472 days to go, if I counted right.
13 comments:
It always comes down to this...why would you give any person more power, when they have proven, demonstrably, that they can't use the power that they already have responsibly?
I agree that the problem here is one of trust.
Dave.... why didn't W say what you stated in your last paragraph?
That would have been much easier to explain, and far more easier for the general public (like myself) to swallow.
Was it too true to actually state that way?
Torture is a huge thing and isn't clearly defined. Just reading this comment could be categorized as torture...
Of course there was torture at the Bay, but to what extent?
Not to sound like a complete hillbilly - why not torture the detainees? Did it work? According the CIA (and why are they working here domestically) they 'gained valuable intel'.... blah blah blah.
I loved the summation of your post.
Frankly, I believe that any country engaged in any type of warfare most likely ignores the Geneva Convention and isn't that supposed to be the Holy Grail of how to go about the business of waging war in a humane manner? A bit of an incongruity there, don't 'cha think? I dunno -I'm certainly no West Point or Naval Acad. grad who has studied over the ways to wage warfare - just my very uneducated opinion on something I consider to be rather ludicrous.
If I understood you post correctly though Dave, I think I'm still behind you, beside you, with you, on your theories even though you had me virtually crosseyed and my head spinning as I was beginning to think this was the start of some insurance contract or some such legal document. (I hate trying to decipher anything in the legal language because I generally get totally lost after the first "party of the first" type statement.)
But why do we have to split hairs over the meaning of torture? Oh, I know ultimately we do have to define it so we know what type of torture is allowed because it really "isn't" torture and what type isn't allowed because it really IS torture but really, shouldn't a simple definition from Webster's be adequate?
And yes, I think the same holds true when discussing if a blow job does or does not constitute having sex too. A ridiculous argument if ever I saw one but one that an old friend of mine pointed out to me usually follows according to whether a man is asked that question or a woman. My friend, a man, says men will always believe a blow job doesn't really constitute sex whereas women will say it does. I don't know if that is really true, if it has been proven by scientific method, but I'm actually inclined to agree with his theory there. And I think too women tend to take a more simplistic approach to the word "torture" too and Webster's definition would suffice for me. Guess now I'll have to go dig out a dictionary and see what the hell that definition actually is won't I?
And now I've probably got you guys asking "what the hell did SHE just say?" too.
Jeni is the greatest, isn't she?
I agree that the current administration should stop defining words as they see fit. But I feel torture's not a bad thing when it helps protect me from terrorist plans.
Will I agree with this stmt if I'm accused of being a terrorist because the administration decides to change the definition of the word? Probably not.
After seeing Saddam Hussein lynched after a sham of a trial, I just don't trust Bush to behave like a decent human being.
I don't think he really sees torture as an effective means to gather information, I think he just gets an erection from exerting power over people.
Jeni's friend is wrong, though. Not all men define a blow job as "not sex." And not all women define it as "sex."
For my money, as a veteran, I can say that sometimes you really do have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. But what gets me is the cavalier attitude associated with breaking some of these eggs. And a sort of acceptance that omelettes are the only sort of nourishment that will suffice.
We have and have had alternatives to our course of action.
I do not and will not ever believe in proactive defense, as it is likely (in my opinion) that the actions that we "prevent" may not have actually happened.
Want an illustration of the concept I'm going after here? See Minority Report. Although that was about violent crime, substitute war and terrorism for murder and the scenario starts to play out.
Sorry for the length here, but the concept just crystalized and I needed to get it down in writing before is was absorbed back into the ether of my other stupid ideas.
At times like this, I always say "I'm glad I'm canadian" and move on.
Unfortunatly, we've been fighting right along with you and that brings it closer to home...
It's thanksgiving in Canada this weekend, and after reading your post, it proves to have moved me even more than it would have otherwise.
Bob, hence my problem with politicians, I don't much trust them.
Ryan, most of the Guantanamo detainees were, and are hapless shlubs. Our military has pretty much admitted that it had no business busing them to our part of Cuba. The only reason they are still there is there isn't anywhere to send them.
Jeni, torture may well be one of those "I know it when I see it" sort of things. And again, there are times that it may be what needs to be done. But this parsing that W and his boys and girls seem to love, gets us nowhere.
Debo, I think you are saying what I am saying in a bit different way. Coupled with Bob, I just don't trust our Government to act responsibly.
Thomas, I go more with he just isn't smart. Yeah, there's some cowboy there, that got us into the mess we are in. Now, he doesn't have a clue which way to turn, and he's too macho to admit that turning won't get us anywhere, unless the turn is 180 degrees.
Pos, George is a one recipe cook. Though the egg requires a poach to get the meal where it needs to be, he only knows to crack it, light a hot fire, and keep burning until the egg is useless for any purpose.
And finally, Michelle, at this late date in our fiasco, I really don't understand you guys and Britain hanging with us. We appreciate the loyalty, if that is the right word; but, I'd actually like to see you and our other allies pull out, saying loudly, "enough is enough."
Happy Thanksgiving to my Canadian friends. Which is better stuffing/dressing or pumpkin pie?
I just wrote a great comment and Google ate it! ;)
This administration is on a mission. Had they simply said "I am not going to talk about that" the public might have been fine with the answer for a short period of time. But there are too many secrets. The truth would have surfaced as it has and continues to do so. Trust would be what it is today if not less.
W is great at blurring and redefining terms. He did this with torture, with terrorism, and various others - like success (which he has yet to fully define). He is also great at changing the reasons behind his actions. He is currently shifting gears on the situation in Iraq, preparing us for an attack against Iran.
Dave - I'd say it's a close race between stuffing or pumpkin pie. (i am making both today)
The lack of clarity on the torture thing makes me want to slap some heads. If I did, would that be "assault" or "not torture". I guess that would depend on whether or not I did it to a "detainee", no?
Americans are supposed to be the good guys. We should do the right thing, and the honorable thing. Even if that makes it harder to win.
Clearly, stuffing.
I have NEVER liked pumpkin pies. Like Turkeys, they should be carved. Unlike turkeys, they shouldn't be eaten.
At least, not by me.
Two threads for this comment.
First, Bob, it's all the whipped cream/Cool Whip (or is it Kool Whip?). And the best part of Thanksgiving Day is the evening: Turkey sandwiches with mayo and a bit of salt and pepper, heated dressing with gravy and then a slice of whipped cream with pie.
Second, thanks for stopping by Exception. As to the public catching on to a stonewall by the Government, I actually think that's what's happened. Bush said not much, but when leaks, leaked, he was so lame about what was or wasn't being done that people started laughing at him and he redefined and redefined torture and success. "I didn't do it. If I did it, it isn't what you think. Maybe it is, but it isn't illegal, there's an opinion that you aren't allowed to see."
Fermi, I'd like to think we're the good guys but I'm not sure we are.
Post a Comment