by Charles
In all the years of reading, watching and listening to Nancy Pelosi, I can safely say that we see eye-to-eye on just about nothing. But after we reading this piece yesterday, the streak has ended.
The White House on Tuesday rejected the proposed creation of an independent commission to investigate abuses of detainees held at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Pentagon has launched 10 major investigations into allegations of abuse, and that system was working well.
[…]
Democrats on Capitol Hill have increasingly called for an independent commission to look into detainee abuses. On Tuesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said a commission is crucial to answering questions about the atmosphere that permitted abuses, troop training and the length of detentions at Guantanamo.
"These questions are important because the safety of our country depends on our reputation and how we are viewed, especially in the Muslim world," she said.
It is commendable that ten investigations are underway, but the problem is that they are a patchwork, conducted by various departments and having varying lines of authority. As I wrote here, taking nothing away from the conduct and integrity of those performing the investigations, the US military is investigating the US military and it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Reporting to an independent bipartisan commission removes that appearance and gives the world greater assurance that the issue is being addressed. Putting the disparate investigations under one umbrella (and perhaps adding a few more to fill in the holes) is an effective way clarify the hierarchy. Instead of ten separate reports, they can be folded into one. Once the commission has absorbed the investigations, analyzed the situation and made recommendations, the detainee issue is settled and we can move on.
The 9/11 Commission performed a similar function. Despite political maneuvering, grandstanding (Slippery Dick, for example) and other ins and outs, the 9/11 Commission Report was a positive and constructive contribution. If put together right, a Detainee Commission could accomplish similar results.
(also at Redstate.org)
Charles, I owe you an apology.
I commented that I didn’t believe you actually had reasons for favoring a bipartisan commission on this stuff. But this is a coherent, calm, and clear argument with just such reasons.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your intent on this matter. Thank you for explaining it in a way that makes it clear.
I agree. And thanks for the RedState cross post.
Congress can’t do it. Not this Congress at any rate. And when it comes to an individual independent investigation, between the Republicans fears of The Son of Ken Starr, and Democrats distrust of the administration investigating itself, it’s hard to find any one person whom everyone will trust.
I have been more focused on bills, because quite frankly I think the administration will simply never allow this. As far as I can tell it has much more to hide than in the case of the 9/11 commission, and there is no group pushing for such a commission that the administration is as afraid to anger as the 9/11 families.
But you know, the idea that there’s no chance can be self fulfilling. Some of the Republicans in Congress have said there needs to be a thorough look at this; maybe they’ll actually vote like they mean it, for once. The bills are going nowhere anyway, this call actually has more bipartisan support than the legislation does, and we’re not going to really solve this if we don’t know exactly what’s going on.
Surprise, Surprise.
Maybe you’ll find time to finally write at least one sentence in a post on this subject condemning the torture policies of the Bush administration. Whining about how they refuse to allow an indepedent investigation (again) means little. The whole point of refusing investigations is to keep everything secret. Secrecy is the step-child of deceit, which is the motivation for avoiding an investigation into anything. Connect the dots.
Well, let me also congratulate you, Charles, on sticking to your guns about a comission. While I may doubt that between Congress and the Bush Administration, it’ll actually happen, nor do I think it’s close to enough, but it’s a step in the right direction. So good on you, Charles.
Thanks, Charles. I agree.
Maybe you’ll find time to finally write at least one sentence in a post on this subject condemning the torture policies of the Bush administration. Whining about how they refuse to allow an indepedent investigation (again) means little.
Goodness, I think Bird couldn’t post “2 + 2 = 4” without being castigated for the Bush adminstration’s faith-based budgeting and how he failed to mention that …
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your intent on this matter.
It would be easier to see if it weren’t obscured by cheap shots designed to appeal to the wingnut peanut gallery. The last time Chas referred to Nancy Pelosi, it was to suggest that she was “like a virgin vigorously protecting her maidenhead” (leaving aside that Chas has suggested that abstinence is a good thing, which suggests a certain amount of thoughtlessness at best and at worst, I really don’t want to say) Here, he has to get an elbow in at Richard Clarke (wow, that’s current and the date on the Tacitus post proves it, eh?). At least he wasn’t able to find any pictures.
My apologies for being rather blunt, but I find that my patience with the oscillation between ranting (and yes, I think arguing that hilzoy didn’t carefully consider the information before posting to be a rant) and these posts that look to all the world like a ‘hey, I’m really on the right side’ to be wearing a bit thin. It may be funny for a family sitcom, (Chas in the role of the big brother who bullies the kid brother except when the parents are looking) but in trying to discuss serious points, it is less than helpful.
dmbeaster,
There have been times when (in my opinion, at least) Charles has been guilty of that which you accuse him. This is not one of them.
Charles,
Good post. Any thoughts on how this commission should be structured?
Sheesh. The psychopaths are already out in force over on RS. That’s going to be one ugly thread.
Good post. Any thoughts on how this commission should be structured?
Yes.
There should even numbers of Republican and Democratic politicians, and even numbers of military members and human rights representatives. At least one of the human rights folks should be an ICRC representative.
Sounds like a great, hopefully productive idea.
Unfortunetly, I would think this administration would fight it tooth and nail, just as they faught against having the 911 comission until public opinion made it too politicaly painful to oppose.
With reference to my earlier comments, I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen you post about the abuses committed by the US military without first passionately lambasting someone else for criticizing those abuses. I didn’t think you would ever do it, and I owe you an apology for my disbelief.
I’m (reluctantly) impressed. 😉 Was Fred Phelps really the harbinger of the apocalypse? Now please, try to keep it up.
Of course this White House will never approve a bipartisan commission – there are too many people in this administration, at too high a level, who would – if the commission were allowed to be honest and thorough – find themselves in serious trouble. (It would be embarrassing, to say the least, for Gonzales, and for Bush for appointing Gonzales.) Look at how they dragged their heels and refused to cooperate with the 911 Commission – Bush in especial – and yet no one seriously suspected* them of actual wrongdoing over 9/11. In a situation where it is clear Bush bears a measure of guilt simply for being able to act to stop the abuses and not acting, and where direct responsibility for the abuses has been traced to extremely high levels in the administration (are Cheney’s repeated untruths about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay actual lies or mere BS or just sheer ignorance?) it is impossible that they will ever support a thorough investigation.
Of course, we can be fairly sure President Kerry would have: this is exactly the kind of thing he has been good at and has followed through on, regardless of cost, throughout his political career. More’s the pity he lost.
*Apart from the manufacturers of conspiracy theories. I should say “No one that one can take seriously, seriously suspected them.”
Will crosspost this on my livejournal, as I promised.
Chris in TX:
Charles has written many posts on this subject, but has avoided drawing the conclusion that this horrible problem is somehow the result of Bush administration policies. Maybe that is because drawing that obvious conclusion then requires a rather serious condemnation of the current Republicans in charge. He has been an active participant in the Republican talking point that it is more important to rant about AI or Durbin than to rant about US torture. And that is odious.
Calling for an investigation, and then lamenting it when it (predictably) does not occur is fine if hobgoblin consistency is your goal. And yes, it is nice to see him not head for the hills when the commission concept meets the White House stonewall.
So what.
The real issue here is this stain on our nation arising from deliberate policies by the Bush administration, but somehow all that Charles seems able to do is be shrill about AI and Durbin and call for commissions that he must known will never happen. Sorry. The failure to deal with the issue realistically far outweighs whatever brownie points accrue from being unhappy about not having a commission.
True, Dmbeaster, but this time at least Charles has managed to post about the human rights abuses committed by the Bush administration, and the Bush administration’s opposition to an independent investigation, without lashing out at the Red Cross, or Newsweek, or Amnesty International, or Senator Durbin, or whoever else has most recently criticized the Bush administration’s abuses of human rights.
And I will give him credit for that, and hope he keeps it up.
Charles has written many posts on this subject, but has avoided drawing the conclusion that this horrible problem is somehow the result of Bush administration policies.
Bird is suggesting that a commission be appointed to investigate the truth of the conclusions that dmbeaster merely assumes.
Anti-Bush and anti-torture as I am, the exact chain of influence remains murky. We do not have the facts necessary to firmly conclude that Bush is directly responsible. (I think he’s indirectly responsible by being, at best, indifferent to what’s gone on, but that’s another story.) I don’t think that we on the left or in the center have anything to gain by forgetting the distinction between “inference” and “proof.” I mean, damn, aren’t we the reality-based folks?
A fair commission with full subpoena power (including the power to obtain classified unredacted docs) would be the single best shot at getting the real truth out. Will it happen? Probably not, under this administration. But I’m glad to see Bird calling for it.
Charles: the 9/11 Commission Report was a positive and constructive contribution.
But inadequate and insufficient.
Jesurgislac: And I will give him credit for that, and hope he keeps it up.
Seconded. Credit where credit is due.
Anderson: A fair commission with full subpoena power (including the power to obtain classified unredacted docs) would be the single best shot at getting the real truth out.
I completely agree.
Jes, he didn’t shoot any torture messengers this time, but he did manage to get in a gratuitous shot at earlier messenger Richard Clarke. I suppose he needs to put in a little something for the RedState crowd — though it certainly won’t buy him much protection over there to make up for the reaction to the rest of the post.
Speaking as someone who has been known to be critical of Charles — and has just finished criticizing him on an entirely separate point — I’m not sure it’s really vital to find the one point of disagreement in an otherwise fine post 😉
I think this is only marginally more likely than articles of impeachment, but kudos for endorsing it, and here’s hoping you continue to view it as important.
BTW as compensation for the flak you’ll no doubt get at RedState, here’s a reminder that you can be unreservedly proud of at least some of the people who agree with you about stuff like this. Via this very interesting post over at boomantrib, I see that among the Bush-hating AI-loving ACLU-card-carrying liberal commie queers currently trying to get Rummie into the dock are a former JAG (Rear Admiral John Hutson) and a former Chief Justice of the Army Court of Appeals (Brig Gen James P. Cullen — couldn’t find a proper bio).
KCinDC: but he did manage to get in a gratuitous shot at earlier messenger Richard Clarke
He did? *clicks on link*
Oh. I took it as read that “Slippery Dick” was a reference to Dick Cheney, as the Bush administration were the principle obstructors and grandstanders over the 911 Commission. 😉
Isn’t “Slippery Dick” a violation of some posting rule?
I guess it’s just my own gutterish imagination.
What Jes said.
I will add my voice to those who appreciate the post as being in the spirit of fair criticism of the admininstration.
thanks
My memory of pre-9/11 commission days at tacitus was that the right-wing folks there thought commissions were a waste of time. I’m glad to see that my memory is faulty, at least in the case of Charles.
I just want all three branches of my government functioning with some degree of independence from one another. Enough with the YesSirPresidentBushSir Rubber Stamp Congress. Let’s have some true oversight.
Maybe you’ll find time to finally write at least one sentence in a post on this subject condemning the torture policies of the Bush administration.
I did find the time, dm. Read again the post above and you will find this link.
Alas, another commission. Great for cable news and the headline writers who will insinuate to the world some malfeasance merely from the commission’s existence. But to what ends? I detect some hope that our country’s government will be discredited in some way. Surely those abroad, who oppose our wealth, power and freedom, will be enthused in some manner. Certainly some Gitmo soldiers will go down and some up the chain of command may be made uncomfortable. Is this necessary evil of a detention center a smoking gun? For what? I guess I’m not against the formation of some commission. Why not? Be careful Mr. Bird, the crowd you’ve attracted is hungry and fickle, and not at all interested in truth or justice. I think I can understand your tactics, especially playing the Pelosi card. It’s your ultimate intent I’m struggling to discern. An associate membership card to the Obsidian Clubhouse? It’s your move.
On a somewhat related note, Hesiod makes a good point about how all this torture serves no purpose:
“I pointed out the classic case of Nazi interrogator, Hans Joachim Scharff on my blog over a year ago. [Post archived here]
Scharff was the most effective interrogator the Nazis had. And his technique was to…gasp…treat the prisoners humanely, build up a rapport, and get them to drop their guard!
This is also the interrogation technique tthat was taught as standard practice by the FBI pre-9/11. And it was highly effective in gaining actionable intelligence from one of the Millenium bombers within 6 hours!”
This is something that I have been thinking about. What a missed opportunity. We bring over all these suspected jihadis and confirm all their worst suspicions of the US. If they didn’t hate the US before they went in, they sure do now. Imagine if we had treated them (including the terrorists” humanely, brought in moderate US muslem preachers to talk to them every day. That would have broken their allegence to radical Islam more quickly than throwing Quarans in the toilet. The innoscent ones that we release would have gone back signing out praises.
It would have been the ultimate sabotage of radical Islam. Not that this would have occurred to BushCo.
Wow, forgive all the spelling errors in that last comment (note to self – proofread first)
What I would hope is that, if this commission does, by some miracle, come into existence, Charles would be at the forefront of those criticizing the administration if (I’m tempted to say “when”) it stonewalls the commission like it did the 9/11 one.
Charles,
That sounds fine enough, I guess. What about the powers and jurisdiction of the commission? I believe, and it seems several others here do as well, that the commission has to have subpeona powers in order to accomplish its goal.
What should the commission have authority to view? By this I mean exactly how much will “national security interests” prevent the commission from reviewing documents?
What should the commission investigate? Should it be a broad investigation of all war-on-terror(ism) detainees? Only those held at Gitmo? Should it include a look at our rendition policy?
Charles Bird: … grandstanding [gratuitous slap at Richard Clarke]…
Charles, perhaps you recall Senator Frist’s threat of a perjury charge against Richard Clarke. Would that constitue “grandstanding?” There doesn’t seem to have been any such indictment.
Can you point to any public statement of Richard Clarke’s that has turned out to be false?
I commend you for calling for an investigation. I think you know, though, that the odds of this actually happeneing are vanishingly small.
I detect some hope that our country’s government will be discredited in some way.
Our country’s government has already been discredited, at least insofar as humane treatment of detainees is concerned. The formation of a potent, independent commission with subpoena ability would go a long way towards regaining that lost credibility.
Incidentally, anyone remember that whole intelligence commission? Not the “9/11 Commission. Nothing much came of it, did it? Naturally, this fact can be used to support more or less any argument. Oh, yes, it determined that there were intelligence failures, shocking all. Would a commission on detainees similarly ignore policy failure? No way to know in advance.
However, I am happy to find a post from Charles that I can at least agree upon its face with him, and I am also happy at the almost complete lack of gratuitous shots at distractions; I’m willing to pass on the Pelosi intro as throat-clearing, necessary for Charles to avoid… something or other.
Be careful Mr. Bird, the crowd you’ve attracted is hungry and fickle, and not at all interested in truth or justice.
I don’t think much of some of the folks at RedState, but don’t you think that’s a little harsh, bbm? :*)
The reason no one outside the US trusts the investigations is because the administration works so hard to preserve the policies that allowed them to happen in the first place. Close the legal loopholes that allow detainees to be abused, provide acceptable tribunals, eliminate rendition and rescind the excesses of the Patriot Act and we would not need a commission because we would have taken a clear step back from our edging towards authoritarianism.
Be careful Mr. Bird, the crowd you’ve attracted is hungry and fickle, and not at all interested in truth or justice.
Which crowd, bbm? 😉 Seriously, it’s not about clubhouses. If something catches my interest, I just may write about it. The cards will fall where they will.
What should the commission have authority to view?
It should have the same as was ultimately granted the 9/11 Commission, Chris.
What should the commission investigate?
All manner of detainees, A to ghost to Z, including rendition.
Can you point to any public statement of Richard Clarke’s that has turned out to be false?
I’d rather not replay that, ral, as I don’t have the energy or the inkling. Like I wrote, Dick was slippery.
Charles, attempting to ask this respectfully, are you saying that you believe it is a fair tactic to belittle someone’s honesty and call them names, but when asked to support such words, feel it is fair to simply decline to support your words, rather than withdraw them?
Understanding that so referring to Clarke is not a posting violation, would you have no objection to someone referring to you as “Slippery Chuck,” but when asked to point to any statement from you justifying this usage, their simply explaining that they’d “rather not replay that”?
Surely this is not your idea of how you wish to have people engage in discussion with you, or refer to someone you respect?
CB, it’s going to have to come from the other branch, I’m afraid. As dm posits, there are too many risks to the domestic agenda for the Admin (and the congressional majority, which has sat dumbly by, even after their private showing of AG pictures) to allow anything independent. And unlike 9/11, there won’t be anyone to blame here but the Admin: not Bill Clinton, not George Tenet, not Osama bin Laden. And especially — in my view — not the individual soldiers (and at Gitmo now, sailors) charged with overseeing the prisoners.*
You probably haven’t noticed, but I’m not usually that big a fan of your work. Your posts on this topic, though, are righteous, and I appreciate and salute your willingness to persevere despite slings and arrows from all sides.
* In this latter connection, it seems to me that allowing enlisted personnel to bear the blame for what is really a significant policy failure is going to be deeply corrosive of morale, and seriously unhelpful in long term retention. Not just short run stuff — I think plenty of guys are going to stay in because they don’t want to walk away during a real war — but when you couple the complete contempt for the enlisted man that the current official line on prisoner abuse shows with things like the stop loss policies and cutting veterans benefits, you’ve maybe got a real problem.
Yeah Great, the 9/11 commission figured out everything. How I saw it was an opportunity for Richard Clarke to testify under oath against Condi Rice, also under oath. Personally I look forward to having a pointy-headed academic, pro-war, sexually ambiguous black woman as the next president. My general impression was that the 911 hearings turned into a political battle about this very possibility, but a Gitmo commission wouldn’t be all about politics. right?
Charles: I’d rather not replay that, ral, as I don’t have the energy or the inkling. Like I wrote, Dick was slippery.
So, basically, you know you can’t, but you don’t want to have to update acknowledging you were wrong? Yeah – that is the standard of behavior I’d come to expect from you.
Suggest you either find a statement of Richard Clarke’s you can prove to be false (if your opinion of his honesty is accurate, that should be easy) or withdraw the comment.
Here is an alphabetical list of the cosponsors of this legislation–actually, the author & leadership are listed first, then alphabetical:
DEMOCRATIC (& socialist–hi Bernie!) COSPONSORS
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Ike Skelton, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Rep. Robert Menendez
Rep. James E. Clyburn, Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr.
Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. John P. Murtha, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Rep. John D. Dingell
Rep. David R. Obey, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, Rep. Thomas H. Allen, Rep. Robert E. Andrews, Rep. Joe Baca, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Shelley Berkley, Rep. Howard L. Berman, Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Rep. Timothy H. Bishop, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Rick Boucher, Rep. Robert A. Brady, Rep. Corrine Brown
Rep. Sherrod Brown, Rep. G. K. Butterfield, Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Michael E. Capuano, Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin,
Rep. Dennis A. Cardoza, Rep. Russ Carnahan, Rep. Julia Carson, Rep. Ed Case, Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Jerry F. Costello, Rep. Joseph Crowley, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Rep. Artur Davis, Rep. Danny K. Davis, Rep. Jim Davis, Rep. Susan A. Davis, Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. William D. Delahunt, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Rep. Norman D. Dicks, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, Rep. Michael F. Doyle, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, Rep. Lane Evans, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. Chaka Fattah, Rep. Bob Filner, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez, Rep. Bart Gordon, Rev. (ok, no, it’s Rep.) Al Green, Rep. Gene Green, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Rep. Brian Higgins, Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, Rep. Tim Holden, Rep. Rush D. Holt, Rep. Michael M. Honda, Rep. Darlene Hooley, Rep. Jay Inslee, Rep. Steve Israel, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy
Rep. Dale E. Kildee, Rep. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Rep. Ron Kind, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Rep. James R. Langevin, Rep. Rick Larsen, Rep. John B. Larson, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. Sander M. Levin, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Nita M. Lowey, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Betty McCollum, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. James P. McGovern, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Rep. Doris O. Matsui,
Rep. Martin T. Meehan, Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, Rep. Michael H. Michaud, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, Rep. Dennis Moore, Rep. Gwen Moore, Rep. Jerry Moran, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano, Rep. Richard E. Neal, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Rep. James L. Oberstar, Rep. John W. Olver, Rep. Major R. Owens, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., Rep. Ed Pastor, Rep. Donald M. Payne, Rep. David E. Price, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Rep. Mike Ross, Rep. Steven R. Rothman, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Bernard Sanders, Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, Rep. David Scott, Rep. Robert C. Scott, Rep. José E. Serrano, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Vic Snyder, Rep. Hilda L. Solis, Rep. Fortney Pete Stark, Rep. Ted Strickland, Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Rep. Mike Thompson, Rep. John F. Tierney, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Mark Udall, Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Rep. Nydia M. Velásquez, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Diane E. Watson, Rep. Melvin L. Watt, Rep. Anthony D. Weiner, Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey, Rep. David Wu, Rep. Albert Russell Wynn
DEMOCRATS NOT CO-SPONSORING:
Brian Baird, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Marion Berry,
Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Allen Boyd, Ben Chandler,
Jim Costa, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Geoff Davis, Chet Edwards, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Stephanie Herseth, William Jefferson, Daniel Lipinski, Mike McIntyre, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Charlie Melancon, Brad Miller, Solomon Ortiz, John Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Allyson Schwartz, John Tanner, Charles Taylor, Peter Visclosky.
REPUBLICANS NOT CO-SPONSORING:
um, all of them. Again.
I’ll say this for the GOP: they make transcription easy. I apologize for any Democrats I missed. For some reason the press release doesn’t give a bill number.
Close the legal loopholes that allow detainees to be abused, provide acceptable tribunals, eliminate rendition and rescind the excesses of the Patriot Act and we would not need a commission because we would have taken a clear step back from our edging towards authoritarianism.
This is exactly the point. A commission might be nice to ascertain some more facts and build a more detailed picture of blame, but the real point here is to stop the policy of abuse. It is not that hard to make the changes that will eliminate a lot of the abuse, and the real scandal is that the Bush administration refuses to make those policy changes.
Do we need a commission to tell us that extraordinary rendition, ghost prisoners, indefinite detention in violation of the Geneva Convention, and the various legalities of the torture memos are all bad policies that should be explicitly repudiated? I think not, and therefore the important thing to be doing is to condemn these policies and condemn the Bush administration for refusing to end these policies. I am less concerned about fixing blame for the past abuses than I am about ending the abuses still to come.
P.S. — the torture in Iraq has not stopped; its just been outsourced to the new Iraqi regime.
Not harsh, lj, frank. The liberal end of this iceberg has little interest in moderation. Whenever Charles or Von steps toward the line to peek across, the Sirens lure them toward the comfort of their words. Fortunately they can’t resist posting without at least one shot and reveal their true colors. I’m not even arguing that liberal views are inherently wrong, or even that we don’t share some passions. On the political side, it’s a literal chess game, wrong move and the opposition party will pounce. A TV talker mentioned last night that the Democrats have never stopped campaigning – they never paused to govern.
And I don’t believe Dick is slippery. That would entail some strategic cleverness. He’s a bureaucrat, plain and simple. The entrenched bureaucrats that are rooted in Washington are far more cantankerous than any current political party leader. But will the Obsidian leftists budge an inch. Hell no. I probably appreciate their loyalty far more than they appreciate mine. Blog on!
A TV talker mentioned last night that the Democrats have never stopped campaigning – they never paused to govern.
Odd the talker should say that after the five years of campaigning from the Bush administration, isn’t it? Was it on Fox, by any chance?
I detect some hope that our country’s government will be discredited in some way.
The Bush administration is discredited: it’s a question of whether the other branches of government are also discreditable.
Blogbudsman,
Ummm, yeah. The Democrats are the ones who engage in a permanent campaign. The Democrats put politics before policy. Whatever. Talk about your motes and beams. This “TV talker” wouldn’t have happened to be on Fox news, would they have?
“On the political side, it’s a literal chess game, wrong move and the opposition party will pounce.”
Sure, projection happens. It may be useful to understand that, you, yourself, have no interest whatever in honest discussion, but merely regard words as, as you’ve now said a few times, as part of a game. Noted.
Jes: “The Bush administration is> discredited….”
Yes, there’s no subjectivity involved. It’s all just fact, objectively proven and stated as such. You and Charles Bird share an interesting, if not uncommon, amount in such judgments. I’ve no doubt it would be dull of me to suggest that this is not as persuasive as it might be to those not in one of the relevant echo chambers. But, hey, why persuade when one can be self-satisfied instead?
Possibly it’s arguable that I’m simply being cranky in reading these two things seconds after each other, and reacting so. I’m sure, actually, that it’s arguable. It might even be true. It might even mean I’m wrong.
Gary, you don’t think there’s gamesmanship involved in politics? I didn’t quite catch the rest of your post – couldn’t tell if you were talking to me or just mumbling to yourself. And it’s hard to tell if all the discrediting has led to actual discredit. It’s difficult to sort out all the peripheral motivation to analyze the actual residue. (Now there’s some serious mumbling)
blogbuds:
If playing politics to the exclusion of governance were the sole (or even majority) provenance of Democrats, I’d give such comments a bit more of an ear.
Blogbuds: And it’s hard to tell if all the discrediting has led to actual discredit.
Assuming that you think (for example) that extraordinary rendition, aka “outsourcing torture” is to the discredit of the Bush administration, then yes, Bush & Co are discredited.
Further, as Katherine has pointed out on other threads, Bush could stop documented human rights abuses. He could set up an independent commission to investigate the abuses. He could do a number of things directly and immediately, and he has done none of them, much to his discredit.
It seems to me that the Nigerians (or Zimbabweans — or maybe New Jersians??) who keep sending me emails about how I can get some of the $25 million left in some account are by now discredited.
No wait: I hear that there are still people who fall for the scam, and extend credit.
“I didn’t quite catch the rest of your post – couldn’t tell if you were talking to me or just mumbling to yourself.”
If you can’t hear me, there’s apparently no point in my talking to you. Oh, well.
Jes: “Further, as Katherine has pointed out on other threads, Bush could stop documented human rights abuses.”
It was pointed out many times in the past, along with many similar points, that President G. W. Bush could similarly have ordered his staff to have simply answered all questions by the inquiring prosecutor as to who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to Robert Novak. This was apparently less in his interest than making vague declarations to the press about his desires. But that sort of thing is old news to the White House, particularly to all the resident students of Richard Nixon.
I have come to distrust Republicans who claim to agree with Democrats on partisan issues.
I haven’t read enough of Charles to know if he is playing a PR game, but my Spidey sense was tingling after I read his post.
The treatment of prisoners at Gitmo is an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away, and it puts the Republicans in a position where they come close to defending torture. A bipartisan commission on this subject would give the Republicans enough political cover to stop commenting on the torture allegations. Bush & Co. would also be able to control the investigation because the committee would have to come to them to receive any information, which I am sure is classified or soon will be.
Another benefit from a commission would be the time it takes to conduct the investigation. The public has a short memory and its attention could be drawn to something quite different six or eight months from now. If Bush is lucky Micheal Jackson might kill the runaway bride when the commission’s report is issued.
What Charles is suggesting is a very shrewd political move if you ask me. The fact that Bush and his cronies haven’t done it suggests they have more to gain from blocking a committee than from creating one.
It was pointed out many times in the past, along with many similar points, that President G. W. Bush could similarly have ordered his staff to have simply answered all questions by the inquiring prosecutor as to who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to Robert Novak.
I could be wrong, but I’d swear you just agreed with Jes in one of the strangest, most covert ways I’ve ever seen.
“I could be wrong, but I’d swear you just agreed with Jes in one of the strangest, most covert ways I’ve ever seen.”
I wasn’t trying to be covert. I meant that to agree with Jes, although that wasn’t remotely my primary point. I often agree with Jes. Sometimes I disagree with Jes. That I often wish to, to put it mildly, figuratively rap her with my knuckles for tactics I disagree with doesn’t obviate that. Neither does the fact that I’m dishonest and verbally (at least in writing) incompetent, according to her stated and affirmed view. (And, no, that wasn’t meant to trap anyone who doesn’t understand the distinction between “verbal” and “oral.)
it puts the Republicans in a position where they come close to defending torture
come close? the only way they’ve avoided it is by redefining torture to be whatever it is they haven’t been caught doing yet.
I haven’t read enough of Charles to know if he is playing a PR game, but my Spidey sense was tingling after I read his post.
IOW, mindreading. Perhaps this is justified when figuring out how to react to statements by people in power, but to me it seems out of place when having an online political discussion with a random stranger. This blog is nothing more than a forum for people to bat around political opinions, and the level of sincerity of any given poster or commenter is thus not only extremely difficult to determine but also totally beside the point. IMO, of course.
Charles, attempting to ask this respectfully, are you saying that you believe it is a fair tactic to belittle someone’s honesty and call them names, but when asked to support such words, feel it is fair to simply decline to support your words, rather than withdraw them?
No, Gary. I never said that Clarke’s words were false in the first place, so why get into an issue that I never even brought up? I wrote quite clearly that Richard Clarke’s words were slippery, not false (or at least not technically so). Quote: “Clarke is disguising his partisanship with misleading but technically accurate statements.” I do refer to other links such as Tom Maguire’s here, here and here, Dan Drezner and Rich Lowry. Condi Rice found contradictions in his testimony, and there’s plenty of other contradictions to be found, such as his remembrances of the attempted millenium bombing. Clarke tried to paint a picture using tone, tenor and emphasis that heaped blame on the 8-month old Bush administration and downplayed blame on the 8-year old Clinton administration. Were his statements false? No. Were they misleading? In my view, they were. I’ve always said that both the Clinton and Bush administrations shared responsibility for the intelligence failures and inaction that opened the door for al Qaeda to do what it did. I believe Clarke played partisan politics in his attempt to blame-shift, providing a disservice to the 9/11 Commission in his public testimony.
Although I mostly agree with Charles’ statement above, I think there may be other explanations than partisanship. Not saying there’s nothing ideological at work, here, just that not all ideological disagreements split along party lines.
Thank you for responding in defense of your claim that “Richard Clarke is slippery”.
Charles: Clarke tried to paint a picture using tone, tenor and emphasis that heaped blame on the 8-month old Bush administration
And this made him “slippery”? I’d say that it was the desperate endeavors of the Bush administration to escape blame that was slippery.
If 9/11 had been 9/2, I’d say you had a point. But to argue that after 8 months in power – including a month on vacation that Bush administration ought to be able to lay blame on the previous adminstration, is slipperiness with a vengeance.
But to argue that after 8 months in power – including a month on vacation that Bush administration ought to be able to lay blame on the previous adminstration, is slipperiness with a vengeance.
Oh dear, next you will want investigations as to whether Bush took sick days before three-day weekends!
This blog is nothing more than a forum for people to bat around political opinions, and the level of sincerity of any given poster or commenter is thus not only extremely difficult to determine but also totally beside the point.
I am fairly new to Obsidian Wings so I didn’t realize questioning a person’s motives was out of bounds.
Charles wrote the following on Redstate (the link is above in his original post):
We need to address this issue better. Why? First, because our mistreatment of prisoners/detainees is wrong. Second and less importantly, because it’s bad politics. We’re suffering damage by thousands of small political cuts, seemingly daily. By insufficiently addressing the problem, we are exposed politically and it opens the door to outrageous charges and overexaggerations and dissembling made by our detractors, both domestic and international. The anti-Bush crowd has seized the issue and they’re not going to let go.
I think his own words prove that his suggestion for a bipartisan commission is at least partially politically motivated. That is the point I was trying to make. I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
I’ve been harshly critical of Charles, so I’d like to step up and add my appreciation for the general tone of this post.
However, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think a commission is nearly what we need. This one is restricted to Guantanamo. It is starting off with zero support from Congressional Republicans and opposition from the White House. It is hard to imagine that it will end up as a strong bipartisan investigating body with the powers it will need.
Given that, and given the long gear-up period for a commission, even if an effective one comes into existence, I’d like to see Republicans, including Charles, right now call on Bush to end extraordinary renditions. Bush issued an executive order giving blanket approval for them, though that document has not been made public. Call on him to make it public and issue a second order to rescind the first.
Likewise, every day that goes by without fair hearings for the detainees in Guantanamo deepens the stain on this country. It would be unwise to wait for a commission. Call on Bush to order hearings, with legal representation for the detainees, so that those who are truly criminal can be tried and those who are not can go free.
Finally, I have to take issue with Charles’ sentiment here: Once the commission has absorbed the investigations, analyzed the situation and made recommendations, the detainee issue is settled and we can move on.
No. The detainee issue is not settled until those who have done nothing to warrrant detention are free, those who have committed crimes are tried, and those who have abused detainees are held accountable, as far up the chain of command as responsibility goes.
Most important, and most fundamentally, this issue will not be behind us until this administration explicitly renounces its claim of power to capture and hold persons in secret with no due process indefinitely.
I think you mean “If 9/11 had been 2/11”, Jes. You’ve got to keep up with our quaint American dating habits.
But it’s not restricted to Guantanamo. That’s not what the press release says at any rate.
I agree with the post and the idea, and think it doesn’t have a chance.
I really do wonder about the substantive difference between calling someone who refers to themselves as Richard as Dick to make a derogatory rheoritcal point, and to just calling someone random a dick.
I think this was a good post and the language doesn’t invalidate it (heck, I think the Rude Pundit is the only blogger speaking in language appropriate to the times); I’m just thinking in the abstract.
I am fairly new to Obsidian Wings so I didn’t realize questioning a person’s motives was out of bounds.
It’s not “out of bounds”, it’s just my opinion, although I think the bloglords officially discourage it.
I think his own words prove that his suggestion for a bipartisan commission is at least partially politically motivated.
I think you’re interpreting his statement uncharitably. He said that it’s both bad policy and bad politics — what in that statement suggests that he cares less about the policy than the politics (which is what “politically motivated” implies)? If it’s that he emphasized the latter, bear in mind the audience he was addressing.
DaveC: Oh dear, next you will want investigations as to whether Bush took sick days before three-day weekends!
I don’t need an “investigation” to discover that Bush was on vacation for a month before 9/11, Dave: it’s a matter of public record. Your comment does not address the point either I or Charles Bird was making: when a terrorist attack occurs on 9/11, and Bush has held the office of President for 8 months (of which he has spent one month on vacation), how slippery is it to assert that he has to take the blame for the attack that occurred on his watch?
Nell: No. The detainee issue is not settled until those who have done nothing to warrrant detention are free, those who have committed crimes are tried, and those who have abused detainees are held accountable, as far up the chain of command as responsibility goes.
Most important, and most fundamentally, this issue will not be behind us until this administration explicitly renounces its claim of power to capture and hold persons in secret with no due process indefinitely.
Agreed.
KCinDC: I think you mean “If 9/11 had been 2/11”, Jes. You’ve got to keep up with our quaint American dating habits.
Curses! I knew there was something wrong with that when I looked at it. 😉
I think you’re interpreting his statement uncharitably. He said that it’s both bad policy and bad politics — what in that statement suggests that he cares less about the policy than the politics (which is what “politically motivated” implies)? If it’s that he emphasized the latter, bear in mind the audience he was addressing.
As Charles states above there are already 10 investigations going on, and he is concerned, not that the truth won’t come out, but that a bipartisan commission will give a better impression to those interested.
the US military is investigating the US military and it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Reporting to an independent bipartisan commission removes that appearance and gives the world greater assurance that the issue is being addressed.
I am not saying Charles doesn’t care about the allegations of torture. I am suggesting that his motivations for creating a bipartisan commission are mostly political. His post gives me the impression that he is more interested in the process of the investigation as opposed to its conclusions. That, to me, is political maneuvering rather than policy maneuvering.
Off-topic, but will all the Republicans who demanded Durbin apologize, now demand that Rove apologize for this:
What this makes me want to say about Rove’s relationship with his mother may be readily inferred by all.
No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
or those of Republicans, it seems.
I’m probably being deeply obscure by mentioning the whole “September 11th” thing. Who ever heard of that? It is, after all, a completely forgettable date.
Karl Rove disagrees with you, Gary.
I agree with Nell. Establishing a commission is the beginning, not the end. The end comes when the guilty, including generals and high-ranking civilians, are identified and punished, and Bush makes the renunciation Nell describes.
If we’re going to have a Commission, let’s do a few things:
1. Fund and staff it generously.
2. Expand its scope to cover all detention activities.
3. Give it as broad a power as possible, and as much time as needed, to conduct its investigations.
4. Obtain a commitment from the White House not to stonewall.
We’ve seen the tricks before. Bush gives in and sets up a commission, but hobbles it every way he can. Don’t let that happen again.
Off-topic, but will all the Republicans who demanded Durbin apologize, now demand that Rove apologize for this…
No. They won’t. Mostly they will echo it.
Gee — when I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, I thought all our troops were members of the 101st fighting therapists’ brigade. Don’t I feel foolish.
…and he is concerned, not that the truth won’t come out, but that a bipartisan commission will give a better impression to those interested.
Inaccurate, BN. In the body of my post: “Putting the disparate investigations under one umbrella (and perhaps adding a few more to fill in the holes) is an effective way clarify the hierarchy.” Note also that I said the current set-up was a “patchwork”.
I am suggesting that his motivations for creating a bipartisan commission are mostly political.
That is false. In the link in the body of the post above: “We need to address this issue better. Why? First, because our mistreatment of prisoners/detainees is wrong. Second and less importantly, because it’s bad politics.” I wrote more words on the less important segment because if I have to write a long treatise that our treatment of detainees is a problem, then that is itself a problem. Folks should know right or wrong without reading a long preachy lecture about it. Also, I linked to Sebastian, who spoke eloquently to the wrongness of it, and Henke also wrote well on the matter.
Nell,
I wrote above that the Detainee Commission should cover all manner of detainees, A to Z, ghosts to renditions.
The reality of the situation is why I propose a presidential commission, so that all of the charges and hyperbole and overwrought overreactions can be bundled into one place and dealt with. When some liberal or other critic starts going off about torture, then conservatives can gently steer that soul to the Detainee Report, where he can find for himself that the charges are overblown and overexaggerated, and that concrete steps have been and are taken to fix the problem.
But that didn’t happen with the 9/11 Commission report. The nutjobs who objected to the 9/11 Commission were summarily and effectively put on the political fringe. The unreasonables are going to squawk no matter what, but the rest of the left quieted. Are we getting damaged by a thousand political cuts because of 9/11 and the intelligence? No, because it’s off the table and only the loons like Cynthia McKinney still bring it up
These are comments you made about the Redstate story you linked to above.
I don’t want to get into a game of Gotcha, but I can’t reconcile these comments with the idea that your motivations for creating a bipartisan commission aren’t politically motivated.
Katherine, thanks for the correction. I read too hastily. I stand by my assessment of the probable usefulness of a commission compared with the range of other things that can be done immediately, if the President would only do them.
One of those actions is to allow UN inspectors into Guantanamo, as they have been requesting. While on that topic, what is the U.S. doing to invite a UN human rights inspector back into Afghanistan, after having kicked out the existing one?
but I can’t reconcile these comments with the idea that your motivations for creating a bipartisan commission aren’t politically motivated.
Now you’re goalpost moving, NP. Your original comment was, “I am suggesting that his motivations for creating a bipartisan commission are mostly political.” I never denied there wasn’t a political motivation, but I explicitly stated that the political angle was less important than the moral angle. Implicit in my words is that a political motivation did in fact exist. My area of disagrement was your false assertion was that it was “mostly political”.
So in other words, Blue Neponset, what Charles said was “technically true” but was nevertheless “slippery.”
You know, having had to look at “bedfellowing” every time I scrolled down this page for the last couple of days, I may have to re-think my reaction to this post. The substance is still mostly laudable, but verbing a perfectly good noun is just the sort of nastiness we’d expect from a conservative!
verbing a perfectly good noun is just the sort of nastiness we’d expect from a conservative
My problem is that I am reminded of Nancy Grace.
Who is Nancy Grace?
The substance is still mostly laudable, but verbing a perfectly good noun is just the sort of nastiness we’d expect from a conservative!
So there’s no misunderstanding, just because I used the term bedfellowing, does not mean there is any intention whatsoever to verb Nancy’s noun. 😉
Sorry DavidL,
Here is a link with a bio. And as a bonus, heres the LATimes media critics article about here, which contains this gem:
There is, however, one inconveniently disturbing detail on which CNN maintains a studied silence: On three occasions involving three separate cases, appellate courts have cited Grace for unethical behavior while she was a Fulton County prosecutor.
The most recent of those admonitions came last week, when a published opinion from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with lower court findings that Grace had “played fast and loose” with her ethical duties as a prosecutor in a 1990 triple-murder case. The lower courts had admonished Grace for failing to disclose the existence of other suspects in the case and for knowingly allowing a police detective to testify falsely regarding the matter. The appeals court, however, also concurred that Grace’s misconduct did not affect the outcome of the case.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice William H. Pryor Jr. wrote that the lower courts were right to uphold the defendant’s conviction “despite the failure of the prosecutor to fulfill her responsibilities.” The 11th Circuit, by the way, is the nation’s most conservative, and Pryor, a former Alabama attorney general, is sitting as a recess appointment because his is one of President Bush’s nominations to the federal court that Senate Democrats are threatening to block. Hardly, in other words, a court likely to be “soft on crime.”
In 1997, the Georgia State Supreme Court overturned a conviction Grace had won in the case of a man accused of arson and murder. Although the reversal turned on other issues, the court found that she had withheld evidence to which the defense was entitled and had made improper opening and closing statements. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Benham noted that Grace’s conduct “in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness and was inexcusable.”
In 1994, a 6-1 majority of Georgia’s highest court also overturned the conviction of a heroin trafficker Grace had prosecuted, again citing her for making an improper final argument.