“Constitutional Scholar” Follies
Lance on Nov 09 2007 at 8:16 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Glenn Greenwald's Carnival of Fisking, Lance's Page, Law
Noted constitutional scholar, conspiracy theorist, sock puppet and all around frustrated guy, Glenn Greenwald, has a melt down over the spinelessness of the Democratic majority. Not to disagree with him, I agree they are spineless, but this little diatribe is profoundly silly.
First of all, if the Democrats had a spine Mukasey would have been confirmed by a much larger margin. Many Democrats only voted against him to appease the likes of our little ragged piece of footwear, much like the last spineless attempt to appease the net-roots by impeaching Cheney. Let me quote Bilby to refresh your memory:
Okay, so to get things started Steny Hoyer introduced a resolution to table (kill) the resolution. At first it looked as if the motion to table would pass handily, with all the Republicans and enough Democrats voting that way. Then the Republicans got sneaky. A bunch of them decided to change their votes to stop the motion, thereby giving Kucinich, and presumably the rest of the Democrats who voted his way, what they wanted; for the matter to be debated. The vote ended up 251-162 against tabling the resolution. Yay! The moonbats should have then been ecstatic! Finally the House would debate impeaching Cheney for allegedly lying us into war. But no. A short time later another motion was introduced by the Dems to send the resolution back to committee, which as mentioned is almost as good as killing it. Guess what happened? 81 of the Democrats who voted against tabling the resolution when they were pretty sure they would be on the losing side turned around and voted for sending it to the Judiciary Committee. Ouch! They wanted to make it appear they were all for bringing impeachment up for debate (and appeasing the nutroots), but when it looked like it would really happen they ran to stop it!
The key is they didn’t want to try and impeach Cheney, they just wanted to have it off the table, but their vote on record so the netroots would be appeased. A point Greenwald can’t seem to get his mind around is that the positions he champions are not as popular as he has convinced themselves they are. The same thing with Mukasey. Voting against him plays well with he and his clique, but not so well, or even noticed, by the rest of the country.
More pathetically, our constitutional expert is all confused about the whole 60 vote majority requirement in the first place:
The so-called “60-vote requirement” applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no “60-vote requirement” when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President’s demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and “registered their displeasure.”
McQ dances on the sock puppet’s hamper:
Of course. Or it could have something to do with regular legislative business in the Senate requiring 60 votes and judiciary committee nominations, by agreement, not requiring them. How soon we forget all the talk about the “nuclear option”, the “gang of 14″ and the difference between a judicial filibuster and a legislative one.
Heh, well, I guess Mr. Greenwald won’t be putting that post as a link on his resume. Read the rest of McQ’s post if this didn’t remind you of how the senate works.
Andrew Sullivan takes him seriously, Alex/Thoreau seems to miss the point as well. Sadly, as Bilby notes, Marty Lederman even ran with it, though he certainly should have known better. I think he woke up pretty quick to his lack of judgment in paying attention to a sock rather than thinking about it for himself and just plain old pulled the post. Not that that is how such misgivings should be handled, but it is certainly preferable than Greenwald’s course, which will be to ignore it because his fans will not care, or come up with a weaselly explanation. Marty however, is an expert on constitutional law, a good mind, and possessed of a good bit of integrity, so no way is he going to keep something like that up. I think a simple ‘hey, quick post, not enough coffee, ignore anything to do with that issue I wrote” would suffice, but I get it. A warning about the dangers of even experts following the lead of a paranoid puppet made from old socks would probably be a service to his readers, but we cannot all take up that cross.
Update: Buck Naked Politics, The Booman Tribune, and Cernig miss the flaw in Greenwald’s analysis as well. Michael here at A Second Hand Conjecture is rather scathing.
Sphere: Related Content15 Responses to ““Constitutional Scholar” Follies”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Actually, Greg Sargent reports that Reid had two possible reasons for not allowing a filibuster — both of them different from both your and Greenwald’s reasons: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/reid_allowed_vote_on_mukasey_in_exchange_for_military_funding_bill.php .
As for Greenwald’s positions being not very popular with “the rest of the country”: I wouldn’t be too confident of that, given that Nov. 3 CNN poll showing 58-40 opposition to waterboarding “suspected terrorists”, and the Sept. 12 Rasmussen poll showing 64-16 support for the idea that a search warrant should be required for the government to obtain customer lists from Internet providers. It would appear that the American people are not quite as ready to sell out fundamental civil rights to the Committee of Public Safety as Bush’s small clump of remaining supporters thinks.
Bruce,
Thanks for the comment. Those may be considerations about why they didn’t chuck the rules they had set up, but that was the agreement. The question Greenwald asked was where was the 60 vote requirement? The answer is that it doesn’t exist in these cases. If he had made an impassioned argument that this was the time to junk the thing that would have made some sense. His piece was just silly.
On the polls, Greenwald keeps making that argument as well, but I think he is misreading what the polls are saying. The Democrats may be spineless, but they are a bit more in touch with their constituents than Greenwald is, who is just hoping wishing things are so will make them so. Just like the misreading of the “ending the war immediately is what the public wants” polls, the Democrats knew that there would be a political price to pay for doing that.
I would have answered the same way as the majority on both of those polls. Granted, I am not a Bush supporter, so that may taint the relevance, but I wouldn’t feel like voting to confirm Mukasey would conflict with either of those poll answers either.
In fact, let us look at the first question. For the sake of argument, assume we are talking about someone who was not only in favor of waterboarding KSM, but enthusiastically so. Let us assume he also doesn’t think it is torture, the insensitive clod. In fact, let us just say that he would feel actions which almost anyone would consider torture are fine to use on ole KSM. You know, electric shocks to testicles, whatever was felt was necessary. That person could easily answer the question no as well. He would quite reasonably (if not legally on the mark as to what suspected can mean) reply, KSM wasn’t a “suspected terrorist.” Which in common parlance he was not. He was a terrorist, and a terrorist mastermind, the most evil sort of person we can imagine. A murderer of children, a head sawer, the whole nine yards.
What that question shows is that people don’t want people who really are just suspects, waterboarded to force confessions, etc. What should disturb you, and disturb me, is that 40% of the electorate does think that is okay. Though I suspect many of them are probably considering the case of KSM, not suspected johnny jihadist swept up in a raid on a safehouse in Kandahar. At least we should hope so, or this whole controversy will have cost our nation deeply when it comes to the humane treatment of potential enemies. A consequence that I have pointed out is quite likely if we do not do a better job of acknowledging the real ethical dilemmas around this and just prance around preening our morally superior selves. Once you tell people that even considering waterboarding or other techniques in the case of a KSM shows what a moral cretin your are, that it isn’t even worth considering if it saves thousands of lives (which of course is an issue in and of itself) you can be pretty much sure that a great many people will just chuck the whole discussion. My impression is a lot of people have. They have tuned us out.
I suggest that if you want an answer to how the public really feels on this, ask if they are happy KSM was waterboarded. Make sure in the question they know who he is, why he was interrogated, and throw in that he underwent the treatment for all of 2 minutes (I know, maybe the reports are lies, but for now, let us see what happens) I bet that 40 number becomes at least a 60 in short order.
As for the other poll, of course. You would have gotten the same response from Glenn Reynolds, Roger Simon, Jonah Goldberg and probably Hugh Hewitt, myself and most of the known universe. I am being serious Bruce, do you really believe that is the kind of issue that separates most people? I mean that with some surprise, because while I expect conspiracy theorists like Greenwald to argue that those who disagree with him believe things they don’t, I would hope that doesn’t describe you. I am tempted to just shrug it off as a bit of rhetorical excess, which we are all guilty of at times, but I will let you answer for yourself.
Oh, and about Sargent’s analysis. I think a key element that supports my thesis is that even had they chucked the agreement and filibustered, the Republicans would likely have broken it. That should tell you the politics of this are not what GG thinks they are.
Why, I wonder, do you find it necessary to call names in presenting your arguments against Greenwald (no more a “sock puppet” than any of us, including you and I, who take a position that favors one side or another)? An ad hominem argument is intrinsically fallacious and—by revealing your lack of detachment—causes me to doubt the rest of your argument. Like my colleague at Buck Naked Politics (who is not a Democrat or a liberal, by the way), I—admittedly a Democrat—have an open mind. I can’t tell how much of your analysis is persuasive because you fill it up with insults to Greenwald (who is often, though not always, right) which immediately puts me off.
As a Democrat, I will be the first to criticize the Mukasey confirmation, though not for the reasons you cite. Reviewing his history as a jurist, I find that he does seem to endorse Bush’s dangerous “unitary executive” theory. I don’t care for Bush’s expansion of executive power and I don’t think you’ll care for it either if it falls to Hillary Clinton to wield it. I find it significant that Mukasey was unable to take a stand on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture or whether the president is prevented from ordering. To me, this indicates that he is of a piece with other Bush Administration officials—see Sara Taylor’s testimony—who are taking their oath to the president rather than the constitution.
If, as I discuss in the above-linked post, the confirmation resulted from back-room negotations, it was not an instance of “spinelessness” but of something much, much worse.
I am fully prepared to criticize the current crop of Democratic incumbents as not so much spineless but so cautious about losing their seats that they won’t take a stand that their constituents support. Which is as pathetic as the apologists for the Republicans who let Bush ride roughshod over the constitution.
Actually that is logically false. I can give you the citations on why if you wish.
For the most part I do not engage in ad hominems however, so the claim that I “must” do that is also false. I make an exception for GG (and his closest associates) who does little but mount ad hominem arguments by the way.
I am well aware of that, the link wasn’t intended to be partisan, just show who has commented.
That is plainly not true. I have never done anything along the lines of GG in that regard. I would humbly suggest it is unlikely you have either, but you know better than me on that.
I am not a supporter of that theory either. I am not aware of many people who are, so we should probably take it up with Yoo. As for Mukasey, I haven’t seen that evidence persuasively argued (Greenwald’s evidence is as typical, tendentious and without context.) Not that it matters since I haven’t called for his confirmation, or for it to be opposed. That isn’t what the post is about.
The second sentence does not follow from the first. That is not evidence, it is an assumption you are predisposed to make.
Cautious yes, and for good reason. It is likely a net loser, despite your contention that their constituents support it.
I guess that is supposed to be me, but my argument isn’t that he doesn’t, just no more than others. Of course, that may be because I believe many things to be unconstitutional that you do not. I don’t see Bush as any worse than Clinton, and a good bit better than Roosevelt. The world hasn’t ended because the former two were in power, I don’t expect it will now. GG, and maybe you, can’t stand to admit that. Instead he engages in the most vicious of smears, filled with distortion, lies, and the galling habit of insisting he knows what people mean when they say somethingbetter than they do. All to justify his paranoid conspiracy theories.
I am still waiting for him to apologize for just one of the many people he has called liars who it turned out later, were not. As his good friend Mona says, he never, ever admits he is wrong. She feels his strengths outweigh that fault. I think the things she consider strengths are faults as well. Fanatics usually do consider strident and mendacious, or as she says, “take no prisoners,” rhetoric as a strength. Pardon me for finding his mendacity offensive. It was not meant as a reflection on you or co-bloggers, as I said, the link was non-partisan. I don’t expect people to catch his nonsense on every issue, though certainly he should have.
Come on. As Kevin Drum said yesterday: ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012470.php ): “We’ve got an attorney general who acts like a refugee from a Communist reeducation camp, dutifully reciting party-line nonsense dictated by his superiors even though he plainly doesn’t believe a word of it. What a shameful episode.”
As for the circumstances under which torture of POWs should be allowed or not allowed: well, that’s the kicker, isn’t it? Just what ARE those circumstances, and why should one man by himself — at any point in the chain of command — be allowed to define them? But that, of course, is just what this administration is stubbornly holding out for. If we are EVER going to allow torture, we damn well need something like the FISA Court to state when it’s permissible — specifically, unanimous or near-unanimous permission by multiple judges not all of whom were appointed by the same man. (And we had better officially call it what it is — a “Permissible Torture Court” — rather than resorting to any comforting euphemisms.) But, as I say, the Bushites are frantically trying to dodge that possibility — and Mukasey showed he’s willing to cooperate with them, using arguments so obviously facetious as to be ludicrous.
Oh, and as for no conservatives favoring the government being able to obtain lists of ISP customers without a warrant: take that up with the Administration, which is enthusiastically in favor of it — and of continuing it. (And as for your sarcastic reference to those “insensitive clods” who believe waterboarding is torture: I presume you’re including the US military, which has always officially labeled it as such whether they’ve been trying Japanese officers for using it in WW II, or US soldiers for using it in the Aguinaldo Rebellsion and in Vietnam. I’ve always thought that a large part of this administration’s appalling military fumbling has been due to the fact that Bush and Cheney both carefully dodged wartime service, and so have no idea what military life and procedures are really like.)
Thank you for replying to my email. I agree with the preceding and—while deferring to your greater knowledge of logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks (I’m just going by what I learned studying it in college)—simply assert once more that name-calling undercuts the effectiveness of your arguments unless, of course, you have no interest in persuading people who think differently from you. It’s fine to call names if your only interest is in preaching to the choir. If you want to persuade people who disagree with you, you aren’t going to get there by referring to someone whose views they may share (or sometimes share) as a sock puppet.
For example, while I could see you have an interesting point of view, and wanted to try to understand it, I was immediately so indignant that you tagged Greenwald a “sock puppet” (whatever you mean by it) that I couldn’t really give you a fair hearing. I was curious about the alleged “flaw” in his argument, but his being a sock puppet or not isn’t really germane.
Perhaps the fallacy in the ad hominem argument is in assuming that after you’ve attacked the person, you’re still going to be able to get a fair hearing from people who might have a regard for him.
This is a point I often find myself making to bloggers from both the right and the left. I am sure I’ve been guilty of it myself. I’m just telling you how it affected me with respect to your argument.
Otherwise, I’m inclined not to carry on arguing, since this is your website and you let me have my say.
Well, well, well. We are definitely stepping up in the world when Bruce Moomaw deigns to grace us with his comments. And, Bruce, I mean that in all sincerity; I’m thrilled at the prospect of disagreeing with you on anything we post here at ASHC since you’ve always challenged my thinking. I’ve disagreed with you on many “Assymetrical Information” threads, but I’ve always admired your ability to argue the substance of the matter. I hope you frequent us more often.
As for damozel’s comments re ad hominem, you are right to be skeptical, but you are wrong to be dismissive. Lance’s vitriol is earned by Greenwald and his minions. It is not gratuitous on Lance’s part.
Regarding the post at hand, I think I was too hasty in chalking up the Democrat’s failure to filibuster Mukasey’s nomination as a latent effect of the “Gang of 14.” While that MAY have been part of the reason, that particular agreement is no longer in effect as far as I can tell.
That being said, however, Greenwald’s mock confusion at how such an event could transpire is mere kabuki theater meant to rile the masses. He knows good and well that the Dems couldn’t afford to filibuster a nominee approved by a committee that they control, among many other reasons. Greenwald is trying to turn the event into something that it is not. If he can’t think of any reason why Mukasey’s nomination wasn’t filibustered, then he has no reason to be opining on such matters. Agreed?
Bruce,
I think you miss the point of my levity. I am saying that about those who consider waterboarding torture, and still think it is just fine. I was trying to point out that even those who are just fine with torture as a general principal in the case of a KSM, might still claim they oppose torture for mere “suspects.”
I am generally a fan, if one who often disagrees, of Kevin (a daily read, and one of the first few blogs on my blogroll) but that is a bit much based on the evidence we have. Hopefully he is wrong.
Who are you arguing with here? I haven’t brought that up at all. I am not sure what it has to do with my post, or my comments. As a matter of fact, I agree with you, though I am not sure that I would agree anyone has a right to torture even so. Have you confused me with someone else?
I didn’t see it that way, but once again, hopefully you are wrong.
Uh, once again, who are you arguing with? I said I was opposed to that policy, that most people I could think of were opposed to it, I even listed some people. It seems implicit in that point that the administration is overstepping its bounds there, or of course there would be nothing to which we would be opposed. I am trying to be polite, but I just don’t get it.
That may be true, though it isn’t as if we have had a surplus of people with significant military experience running in recent years. I assume the three months Kerry spent doesn’t count? If it does, then I’ll include Bush’s National Guard experience. Neither is all that relevant.
Damozel,
I am sorry you can’t look past the sock puppet point. If that bothers you, please pursue the links and read them instead of me. He will continue to be referred to as a sock puppet when I speak of him. If you are not aware of what a sock puppet is, the dishonesty he demonstrated in that little episode or the absolute disgusting tactic of blaming it on his boyfriend, who he was quite willing to throw under the bus, then please visit our special category devoted to the man. There is a reason we, and many, many others mock him, and that incident is illustrative of why. Sock puppetry may be a venial sin, but it is illustrative of what he is all about. I mock, but I certainly could not mock him, and instead just write intemperate screeds about his abusive and dishonest rhetoric. Personally that would be like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. It makes the unpleasant task of examining his posts more bearable to lighten the mood a bit.
In essence he is a venial narcissist, and truth, common decency, or basic civility have no place in his world, which he will proudly justify. He is on a mission, and reaching the goal is all that matters. If I thought it would make a difference I would relate the lies, distortions and misrepresentations he has made, but I feel it would likely be a lot of effort with little effect.
As for continuing the discussion, please do so. As I said, GG and essentially one other person are the extent of my ad hominems, and neither of them is a Democrat, so you should feel pretty safe. It is a long and sorry story that brought me to my present feelings for he, and his closest associates who I initially gave every opportunity to see if they could engage in honest and civil discussion. That turned out to be a fruitless endeavor. In fact, it is the extreme incivility, backed by out and out dishonesty in his incivility, that explains our problem with the man.
I welcome and enjoy spirited and civil debate. We actually pride ourselves on the generally reasonable tone, even when the disagreements are quite vigorous. Nor are all the commenters or bloggers here of like mind on issues. Though even our resident anti-war crank and BDS sufferer (Sorry Josh, I couldn’t resist a good natured jab, especially given GG calling you “pro-war”, I still find that gives me the giggles) is not a fan of Greenwald. So please go ahead and discuss. It is our blog, but we enjoy our guests. Have all the say you wish.
Me: “As Kevin Drum said yesterday: ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012470.php ): ‘We’ve got an attorney general who acts like a refugee from a Communist reeducation camp, dutifully reciting party-line nonsense dictated by his superiors even though he plainly doesn’t believe a word of it. What a shameful episode.’
You: “I am generally a fan, if one who often disagrees, of Kevin (a daily read, and one of the first few blogs on my blogroll) but that is a bit much based on the evidence we have. Hopefully he is wrong.”
“Hope” doesn’t enter into it — the evidence was already excruciatingly obvious. Mukasey’s first statement about waterboarding was that he didn’t know whether or not it was torture because “I haven’t studied the technique”, which was decidedly peculiar coming from someone who’s about to become AG and who knew damn well for a long time that that was one of the first issues he’d have to cope with. After the Judicary Committee Dems called him on that absurdity in their letter, he STILL refused to say whether he thought it was torture on the grounds that he hadn’t read the DoJ’s “classified memos” on the subject — but he would certainly read them AFTER he had already been confirmed, really and truly, honest to goodness. He had already spouted that same line about the recently uncovered Bradbury DoJ memos on the subject of torture — to which the obvious retort is the one at “Through the Looking Glass” and elsewhere ( http://thelookingglass.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-have-new-nominee-for-attorney.html ):
” ‘Mr. Mukasey declined to discuss recent news reports that the Justice Department, after rescinding the original opinion on harsh interrogation techniques, produced two secret legal opinions in 2005 that authorized similar techniques in terrorism cases. He said he could not comment on the later memorandums because he had not read them; he said he intended to review them early in his tenure at the Justice Department.’
“Now, if the Democratic Congressional leadership wanted to make at least a token gesture of actual concern for the issue, to demonstrate that they were willing to do more about it than just blow hot air, then they would be perfectly within their rights to ask him to review the damn things now, and come back when he’s prepared to answer questions about them.”
As for Lance’s own attitude toward torture, I’m more confused than ever. Does he support it or not? Does he think waterboarding is torture or not? If he does, then why the hell is he tremendously more indignant about Greenwald than about Mukasey? And how do you define which terrorism “suspects” can be tortured and which ones can’t — and how much they can be tortured?
Actually, it’s quite easy to see what the Bush/Cheney Administration’s real reasoning behind its fan dance is: they want the power to torture suspects in at least some cases, while still being able to avoid “officially” admitting to the world Moslem community that we are doing so because this would infuriate the latter still further. If so, they’re on still another of their strategic fool’s errands: the rest of the world already knows damn well what we’re doing.
Let us address the quotes you have gathered first. Despite all the verbiage, none of that justifies the point of contention, which is that he supports the administrations views of executive power. Nor does it show that he will consider waterboarding torture, or any of the other things that are being brought up about Mukasey which supposedly make him unfit. He wouldn’t be my choice, but he has in the past been considered an opponent of Yoo’s legal theories. Or to quote Scott Horton, there were reasons he was considered a good choices by many liberals before the attempt to discredit him:
Now maybe you consider Scott a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but he has generally been considered a good liberal. There are many good reasons for Mukasey to not answer the questions in the way you wish him to, and I will not argue them here.
I will also point out that I don’t find the questions unfair, though hypocritical considering that the Democrats themselves are not ruling torture (and they mean torture generally, not just waterboarding) out of bounds for them or their nominee. Still, they are fair questions contra Bush’s assertions otherwise. Orin Kerr says it well:
Just as I am not exercised at the thought of his confirmation, I don’t think his particular defeat is a great tragedy, other than I think having someone of his quality in office after the circus of Gonzales is a priority if we are going to get these issues dealt with. It is long past time.
That being said, while him not giving an answer is reasonable, I understand opposing him for not giving them, especially given the way this administration operates. Once again, Orin:
I find that hard to argue with.
That being said, his lack of an answer does not mean that people have a genuine basis for deciding what that means about his theories. The reasons why he is a good candidate still exist, despite that frustration. It isn’t his fault the administrations prior conduct makes people feel they need to ask questions that as a lawyer he doesn’t feel it is appropriate for him to answer. I think the Democrats are fortunate he was confirmed, as he is likely to be far less amenable to the views which have set the administration adrift than other likely nominees. He will enforce the law. At minimum I would suspect that Levin’s understanding of the law regarding interrogation is likely to be revived. It will not please GG, but it will keep a defunct program from metastasizing. So yeah, I think Kevin is being hysterical, but hysteria is in great supply these days.
I am not sure why you are confused. There is no reason for you to have any opinion or knowledge of my views on the subject, so I am not sure what you are confused about. My views on Mukasey, torture, waterboarding, etc. are irrelevant to the post. The post is about the childish and false view of the politics around his confirmation, or the issues he cares about generally. My views could cover the entire range of opinion on all those topics and not effect the post one way or the other.
While it is true that I am more exercised about GG than Mukasey, which also does not matter to the post, how does this post even prove I am?
I think the problem is you have come to this discussion with the template that says people must have certain views if they argue against someone such as GG’s argument. It is likely, but it is not necessary. The reason it is likely is that most people argue based on just that. If one is opposed to waterboarding GG is not to be disparaged no matter how ridiculous, dishonest, cruel, mean spirited or other flaws his argument exist. If one is a conservative one just brushes by what a nasty piece of work Ann Coulter is. Many libertarians are doing that with both Greenwald and his allies sch as Mona at High Clearing. Well, I can’t stand any of them. If GG’s political views are as claimed (hard to say for sure since he hides most evidence of what they are) then I agree with him on most things, many more than Ann Coulter or Ed Morrisey. Morrisey however is far more honest, humane, and civil. He also has a better grasp of politics. I may disagree with him, but I am not exercised by him or find his analysis of things childish or crude like Coulter or Greenwald. The same goes for Mukasey.
As for what exercises me on policy, you are right; this isn’t at the top of my list. I fear all kinds of things more than this defunct, limited program. Our civil liberties are under threat form all kinds of things, the largest threats in my opinion lie elsewhere. For example, take our right to free speech. It is now under continued assault through the revival of the fairness doctrine as well as further empowering the FEC through the rubric of campaign finance reform. Have you mentioned that in this debate? No. I guess that means you don’t care about the first amendment?
Of course if I was analyzing that conclusion I would leap to your defense. The post isn’t about free speech, maybe you care about those issues as well, but you think they are less momentous than I do, and the issue of waterboarding is more important. It could be that you care about the first amendment but view these issues differently than I do. None of which justifies (kind of like Greenwald) to claim you want to impose some kind of variation of a fascist or communist regime of speech restrictions upon us, that it is the prelude to death squads, etc. I can just think you are wrong. GG however assumes all who disagree, or even just weigh the various issues differently, as proof you are part of some right wing cabal, or naïve in not recognizing that cabal’s existence. Intellectually it owes its debt to the John Birchers, rhetorically to Ann Coulter’s “Treason.” To merely feel some things are less important, or even question his characterization of things is to show that your equivocation is just a way to hide your real, and evil, agenda.
All good questions and some of the best reasons to end, or severely limit, coercive techniques regardless of whether we consider them torture or not.
No, that isn’t right. The administration wants to be able to do what it feels is necessary to defend us from terrorists. You can disagree with those choices, but that is the motivation. They know that much of the Muslim world thinks we are doing awful things regardless. It isn’t something they have ever needed evidence to assume. Thus they felt that way prior to Bush’s election as well.
I have allowed you to distract from the real subject of this post, Greenwald’s analysis. In Greenwalds alternate universe the mean, thuggish Republicans, especially Bush, are rolling the Democrats on these issues because they lack spine. I am of the opinion Democrats are no less mean, thuggish, unprincipled or more devoted to our constitution, or civil liberties. I think they are driven by a combination of things. First of all they know their constituents. First let us start with a poll that asks the question about torture in a more exact form.
The question they ask is this: “Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?”
Here is the result:
Never Justified: 29%
Rarely Justified: 25%
Sometimes Justified: 31%
Often Justified: 12%
Unsure: 3%
To put it starkly, less than a third agrees with GG’s take on what their values are. It is even worse for his view, because many people who do not consider the coercive tactics the Bush administration used torture probably replied it was never justified. Ostensibly, and you are welcome to view it as disingenuous if you wish, our Commander in Chief would be one of them. At minimum he would feel he falls under the rarely justified category. I think that alone answers the question of why Democrats act the way they do. If they lack spine, it is in standing up to their constituents.
It is more than that however. All of the major candidates for President allow that torture and coercion could be justified, even Obama. So in reality, while they may have issues with various aspects of the policy, they are telling us that they would likely have done at least as much. Certainly Al “go grab his ass” Gore and Bill Clinton have demonstrated they would ignore International law when it comes to such difficult choices. If all these people had had KSM in their hands in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I have no doubt that they would have decided something along those lines was necessary to ensure that there were no other plots. That may be a wrong choice, or a bad one, but they have told us that yes, when faced with a master terrorist with potential knowledge of upcoming plots they would resort to it. That is the real political reality GG wishes to ignore, obscure, or is too immersed in his conspiracy theories to recognize. I think it is a bit of all three.
So, despite his caterwauling, he will not get his impeachment, or his way on waterboarding, or torture, because as of now they are political losers. They will posture, just like with impeachment and this nomination, but they will not allow their vote to mean anything at this point.
The likely best outcome the Democrats will get, along with Republicans, is a policy with more oversight, more formalized, or a regime somewhat along the lines Dershowitz advocates. Even if they win the battle, which I doubt they will truly engage, they will have a set of laws they know will be ignored if the pressure is on again. The next 9/11 type incident will result in something similar, regardless of the law, or which party is in power. That however is just my opinion, the actual views and motivations of the Democrats in this instance are rather more plain and simple. The issue is a loser.
By the way Bruce, amongst all of our little discussion I noticed what is probably some good advice given what I have said, on how to keep torture, or its near cousins, from becoming more widespread, from someone you might respect:
Here, here!
It seems implicit in that point that the administration is overstepping its bounds there, or of course there would be nothing to which we would be opposed. I am trying to be polite, but I just don’t get it.
You don’t get it because you’re in denial about it. Anyone and everyone who is actually bothered by stuff the administration is doing comes here, reads your stuff, and gets the impression that you’re totally okay with it.
There is a reason for this.
It’s because you spend 95% of your time mocking the opponents of executive overreach and minimizing its overall significance, and south of 5% finding your way to actually stating that you don’t agree. Here, you eventually clarified in comments that you think Bush is overstepping his bounds: otherwise I’d have no idea how you felt. What I hear you most often say is not: “Bush’s expanded executive power is bad for the country. Someone should stop it.” You mostly wave it away and make excuses for it.
I know what ASHC opposed to: pork, leftists, attempts to wind down the war. “Expanded executive power” wouldn’t make the top fifty priorities.
And you’re still better than most of your genre
You know that? How?
Wrong, but even if that was reflected in our blogging it wouldn’t prove your case. My priorities are not reflected in my blogging. I am actually very concerned about a number of things but just haven’t blogged much about them. The reasons are many. So no, you don’t get to infer what you want based on that kind of thing, not if you want to understand people’s beliefs.
This site covers almost identical stuff… That’s strange…