As Congress prepares to make the Bush administration’s dream of retroactive telecom immunity come true, I can’t help but think of the vast legal gulf between the telecoms who will never need to defend themselves in court, and the Gitmo detainees who may never get the chance to.
On the one hand, the Bush administration, the GOP, and most of the Democratic leadership are working to ensure that the telecoms will be given blanket amnesty after clearing the laughably low hurdle of showing that the most dishonest government in American history told them their actions were lawful.
On the other, the Bush administration, the GOP, and 44 feckless Democrats (12 Sens., 32 Reps.) pushed through the Military Commissions Act which declared that the Gitmo prisoners were not entitled to a trial to contest their detention. Even after the Supreme Court ruled the MCA unconstitutional, President Bush expressed his intent to bypass their ruling legislatively. (Indeed, the MCA itself was just such a response to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.) In the Republicans’ legal bizarro world – which far too many Democrats inhabit – a terrorist suspect’s rights are the exact mirror image of a telecom’s.
Are the telecoms guilty? I think they probably are, but we’ll never know. Are the detainees innocent? I think many of them are, but if the Bush administration gets its way, we’ll never know that either.
Throw in the trumped-up, politically tainted prosecutions and convictions of Democrats like Georgia Thompson, Don Siegelman, and Paul Minor, the kid-glove treatment of Republican congressmen and allies like Jack Abramoff’s bribees, Halliburton/KBR, and Blackwater, and you have the state of "justice" under the Bush administration. It has as much in common with the true meaning of the word as the Gitmo detainees have in common with the telecoms.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Eli, I think that should be “just-us.”
Eli!
Neuro!
I was about to say that “just-us” could also apply to the comments on this thread…
You can Digg it right HERE!!!
4 comments in 17 minutes? What do you want, dood?
The Bushies think more in terms of privilege rather than justice.
Yep, that’s what it’s all about. Who you are, and who you’re affiliated with, is far more important than any law.
There is one group more to blame for the state of our nation more, much more, than any other.
You know who I’m talkin’ about.
The Democratic Party in Congress. If more than a handful are deserving of anything other than a horsewhipping I’d be shocked.
I know one person who will be hearing from up close and personal this Fall.
The vile Pelosi. The worst Speaker of the House in it’s long and varied history. Which other speaker shrugs off the deaths of one million Iraqis at our hands?
Which other Speaker took the Impeachment ‘off the table…’ of a President that even 8 year olds know is a crook, a liar, a thief and a murderous psychopath?
Yep Pelosi is a twofer alright.
I’m also concerned with people in this country getting justice. We have awful problems with AAs and Hispanics getting any sort of justice. The Bushies have no sense of humanity. Where has just plain old kindness gone in this country? Or “there but for the grace…..”.
What did they say, 88 plaintiffs had already died by the time the Exxon Valdez verdict came in.. it wouldn’t have been that generous to them, after all…
Thanks for articulating the injustices. Keep on keeping on.
Watching the insanity of Zimbabwe today. As the whole world watches. Some people willing to die for freedom.
Watching the corruption in our own yard. People here unwilling to protect the freedom we have. Not even conscious of it some. Some willing to sell it out for power and security.
Watching our newly nominated candidate say troubling thing after troubling thing.
“Throw in the trumped-up, politically tainted prosecutions and convictions of Democrats like Georgia Thompson, Don Siegelman, and Paul Minor, the kid-glove treatment of Republican congressmen and allies like Jack Abramoff’s bribees, Halliburton/KBR, and Blackwater, and you have the state of “justice” under the Bush administration.”
the concept of “justice” under the boosh administration has no meaning or reality whatsoever
ian says—On the other, the Bush administration, the GOP, and 44 feckless Democrats (12 Sens., 32 Reps.) pushed through the Military Commissions Act which declared that the….
=======
anybody got a link? i know this one’s been thrown around, but i didn’t save it…….i know a few names, but would like the rest of them…….
No argument here. If you want unkindness, check out the Paul Minor case if you haven’t already.
Eli, u sumz it up
Oh they have contempt for justice, imo.
Senate Roll Call
House Roll Call
I don’t think we should wait until more legislation pops up on the detainees. I think when we contact our Senators on FISA we need to also let them know that we won’t sit still for an end run around the Supreme Court in regards to torture and that if they do it we will have a massive march on Washington.
QUICKVOTE:
Who’s cooler?
A)George Schultz
B)Henry Kissinger
C)Dick Perle
The next AG may be more important to our general well-being than the rest of the people in DC put together.
Which is so interesting because Nancy Pelosi had backed Hillary Clinton for quite some time and even today she considers Hillary to be the most admired. Makes you wonder what Hillary thinks of impeachment? Does she have a table setting for it each night like we do?
I”m really disguted that with all the criminal actions of this administration, they will all walk away scot free. I just don’t believe Obama will want any of these investigations to continue after the election.
Thanks for the roll calls. Will use for my phone calling.
Nice to see Chaffee’s vote.
Snowe was non-vote. Abstaining? Where does she stand?
My guess is that BushCo’s plan is to run out the clock on the detainee trials so that President Closet-Muslim-Terrorist-Sympathizer gets the blame when the prosecutions fall apart for lack of evidence.
oh, I think all three should be put on ice
D) Me
;~P’
thanks, eli…………i didn’t save the vote when it happened…..
and to anyone who wants to know, jane created a firedoglake readers page on flickr.
inspired me to get out a camera someone gave me and create a page……only pics on there now, was going to wait to announce till some of my photoshop art loaded up there..screen said it could take a while for it to load, but then my internet quit while it was loading, so, don’t know if it all did…….will be playing with it next few days before i go out of town, and when i get back will do more……..this is gonna be fun!!!…so, promise to check back in a while????? when i put the really cool stuff up?
i’m d128
facebook didn’t work for me, this is much more how i operate.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/776591@N20/
Schultz. Those other losers don’t stand a chance.
I forgot James Woolsey.
Who would you choose as AG, Twain?
John Edwards – first. Fitz would be great, too. I think John would kick some serious a**.
I could go for that
As long as Fitz is in the DOJ *somewhere* where he can kick some ass. Maybe a special prosecutor in charge of investigating the previous administration…
Good choice, but I’d take Looseheadprop over John.
Unless, of course, she wants to run for Congress.
Schultz. Those other losers don’t stand a chance.
yeah – I love the Peanuts cartoons. Except when Lucy pulls the football away – reminds me too much of politics.
Maybe, but I think they will try whatever they can to keep any more evidence about torture from coming out.
Hey, Eli–
It ain’t over until its over. Give us until July 8 before you start the wailing and tearing of garments and sackcloth and ashes, OK?
Yes, I know what everyone’s saying, but they were saying last week that it was going to be a done deal before the 4th of July break. And look what happened?
Time to mobilize our troops again.
Bob in HI
So, does this mean you’ve got Sen Akaka turned around, ready to vote against FISA?
ianEli says…My point is more about the Bush administration and GOP’s skewed views of justice, but you’re right, I don’t have a lot of faith in the Democrats to do the right thing here.
Heh. I get that *all* the time, even when there are no Ians in the general vicinity.
Of course they will. They do everything they can to keep any evidence of *anything* from coming out.
I don’t have a lot of faith in the Democrats to do the right thing here.
I think that too many will – I wish they’d do the “left” thing a little more often…
great article by Marc Ash… continues your theme, Eli:
http://www.truthout.org/articl…..nd-useless
Look at this distorted WSJ piece about the Greenwald/Olbermann dispute:
Fair-Weather Civil Libertarians
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..lenews_wsj
I see the hand of Rupert Murdoch on this one.
*sigh*
Yeah, I’d say he’s got it about right…
Dugg!
and that is one vile hand
Gonna rally the troops this weekend. Gotta work on both senators.
Bob in HI
– I think they will try whatever they can to keep any more evidence about torture from coming out. –
A helpful nit to pick. Shun the word “torture.” It has a legal conclusion attached, that invites a “we don’t torture” defense.
In place of torture, accuse of cruel and inhuman treatment.
I know it’s a more complex utterance, but if the arguments scrupulously avoid accusation of “torture,” and argue violations of “cruel and inhuman” instead, the ramifications are profound. I don’t expect you dimwits to follow my advice, but there it is.
oo oo me too
Another take on the Greenwald/Olbermann disagreement:
Glenn Greenwald Takes Olbermann’s Recent Defense of Obama & FISA into a Back Room; Only Greenwald Comes Out
http://themoderatevoice.com/me…..comes-out/
Yeah… that was my favorite comment, too.
That and ”democracy is under siege this week”.
But score one for gun lobbyists and manufacturers. They did well this week. So that is the ”safe” constitutional issue to protect??? And Exxon got protected, too.
Feels like an Alice in Wonderland world for sure.
And you want to say to the SC and Congress, if you can’t help us, at least don’t make it worse.
The 2nd Amendment is just about the only piece of the Bill Of Rights still standing…
I think you make an excellent suggestion, however, did you ever think that perhaps more people might take your advice if you didn’t call them dimwits?
I think that’s probably better than the Ten Commandments are doing. :)
Shit!
He had me until you jumped in there
Whew
I don’t expect you dimwits to follow my advice, but there it is.
Call it what you want. I’m way too dim to even remember your advice past the time I finish typing this.
‘Course, the fact that I really don’t care to remember your advice might have something to do with it…
I think these constitutional issues are going to separate the boys from the men, the girls from the women, among the progressives. I think the boys and girls will landslide, sadly.
Eli, eloquent post and sad too. Yes, but not karmic law. But, karma aside, who they are with all their power and influence will not exempt them from old age and someday leaving this world.
– however, did you ever think that perhaps more people might take your advice if you didn’t call them dimwits? –
Aye. I figured to draw a reaction. I don’t plan to deliver a repetitive chorus, and it’s my experience that without a repetitive chorus, the advice goes unheeded.
I’ll stand by, mute, and see if there is a change in rhetoric (i.e., dropping “torture” in favor of “cruel and unusual”). Proof will be in the pudding. If “torture” remains the prominent accusation, then the accusers are in fact dimwits.
I yearn for a Daniel Ellsberg of the telecom “papers”
True, but most of them will continue to live very comfortable lives and never, ever face any negative consequences for their actions. It’s frustrating – I guess all I can do is hope that they come back as dung beetles or male Emperor Penguins or something.
So sayeth cboldt
So shall it be
I’m pretty sure that it’s possible to offer a divergent opinion without calling everyone else dimwits…
thatch
Well, the good news is that they can’t it with them, and the bad news is that they can’t take their relatives with them either.
– I’m way too dim to even remember your advice past the time I finish typing this. –
I don’t believe that. And if you let your emotional reaction to my “dimwit” observation to rule, then you are putting emotion ahead of reason.
I’ll repeat one time, if the label “cruel and unusual” is substituted for “torture,” the ramifications are substantial.
Not everyone else
IanEli.Only those who don’t agree.
;~P’
southern and nonplussed-left you a message at 68 in warmonger thread two flights of stairs down.
and sorry eli, not ian, brain reverted to the three letter name that i new best, know an ian.
Sometimes it’s the delivery, not the content, dimwit.
In an interveiw Obama stated that he would instruct his AG to look into these matters and if there was criminal intent, he would have him pursue it. I’m sure Republican’s will say all of these actions were “done to defend” the nation, without criminal intent.
I used to think Frank Capra movies, about the stand-up hero against the corrupt and the obtuse were exaggerations.
Remember the movie “Z” in which one had this cathartic high just before the reckoning whereby corruption prevails. Play the “democracy” theater until it starts to work and then take off the gloves and pull out the carpet.
The problem is, now instead of everyone thinking, “Wow, what an interesting point – I’d like to hear more about those ramifications,” they’re thinking, “Jeez, what a dick.”
Was this some kind of Vulcan initiation test or something?
duh–knew best, not new best, i’m multi-tasking trying to get awesome art up on my flickr page……not working.
Excellent point. On another subject, the Addington and Woo appearances before the HJC, Kevin Drum made the point that the members of the committee knew they were dealing with two that would be difficult to question. That they should have allowed their most adroit member (Artur Davis perhaps?) to have a full hour rather than each of them getting 10 minutes. The results could have been different if they had.
They say the ends justify the means, I say they’re one and the same.
At first I thought this post would be about the Extreme Court. But what you said in the first paragraph, Eli, said it all.
Or they just plain disagree with you because they know that whatever is said about the treatment of the detainees the Bush supporters will come up with a BS defense to pretend that they treated them humanely.
I agree with you. However the comment from Obama didn’t fill me with much hope.
and trying to eat at the same time.
variety of marinated chunks and pie slices of tofu from whole foods that i had in the freezer and a croissant………man, i love tofu.
and trying to get the tiger cat to come in………i just chased off a reallly cute baby raccoon from the feeders when the sun was setting…….darnit. cute, but they can’t hang here. so,. there is no justice to be ontopic.
telcos knew what they were doing, should go to jail for it…..
tortureres knew what they were doing, death penalty.
Well, if it’s a true statement, I’d say it’s a positive. I just don’t really believe it. I expect it’ll be like the congressional hearings, where they just can’t figure out how to get around the bogus claims of executive privilege.
Yes, but wouldn’t these people parse “cruel and inhumane treatment” ad nauseum?
Not nominated yet. ‘Presumptive nominee’ is more accurate.
I think you’re absolutely right.
Fixed for ya!
Although, I guess I’m too dimwitted to to decide if it’s “Inhumane” or “Unusual”
cboldt, please help!
justice is bling.
“Cruel and inhuman” is the term of art.
Sorry about the sloppy dropping of cruel and unusal
They can hang it around their necks and show it off?
Gold-plated rope?
Can you explain what it is that makes that particular phrase special? It sounds like you’re referencing something specific, but it doesn’t ring any bells for me.
Cruel & Unusual
Cruel & Inhumane
Torture
Split hairs much?
OT — Hey, PW, if you’re around, here’s a don’t miss story about Coleman’s digs in DeeCee over at Josh’s place.
bonger at 86–yeah, i just saw that, i need to catch up on the lingo…….haven’t read all the comments yet, but i will take cboldt’s advice on most anything……
like on the lehrer report when they said ’insurgents’ killed americans, what happened to ’armed combatants’?
ok, found it, cboldt at 50-In place of torture, accuse of cruel and inhuman treatment.
do you mean inhuman or inhumane?
still think we need both descriptors………treating someone in a cruel and inhuman(inhumane) manner is torture, so, you kinda need both phrases to completely describe what they did…..and are doing.
a most icelandic post eli, thanx for writing it
Heh. Thanks, perris!
eli aka ian at 77–They say the ends justify the means, I say they’re one and the same.
i was taught the means determine the ends, so, the means matter more in the end……….
– still think we need both descriptors………treating someone in a cruel and inhuman(inhumane) manner is torture, so, you kinda need both phrases to completely describe what they did…..and are doing. –
NO!
The term “torture” has a narrow legal meaning, and your opponents are applying the legal meaning. In the law, “cruel and inhuman” is different from “torture”
Use the force, Luke.
“Cruel and inhuman” (not inhumane, I just checked the statutes)
“just us” for the floating gulags….and Barry who seeks to rule them…
Julia has Late NIte upstairs!
Late Night FDL: Mc(Anheuser-)Busch family values
just hit the wall.
check out the flicker page in a few days or so, will have cool stuff on there soon.
right now just normal kinds of pics.
uploaded a bunch of photoshop stuff this afternoon, don’t know why it isn’t there, am waiting on an answer from them.
am going out of town next week, if stuff not on there in next few days, will do it when i get back.
take care pups.
Beer?
I’m there!
I have to disagree. Torture is an ugly word with a meaning like no other word. If I kick my dog it’s cruel and inhuman but it is not torture unless I do it hour after hour. The word used should be as ugly as the act itself.
I think part of what might be going on here is a conflict between legal objectives and messaging objectives. “Cruel and inhuman” may be the sweet-spot phrase to use for purposes of making a case against these criminals, but “torture” is the word that resonates in people’s brains.
So perhaps “cruel and inhuman” is best used when speaking to the criminals directly, or in the context of congressional hearings.
Nice wrap up. TY, Kirk.
– Can you explain what it is that makes that particular phrase special? It sounds like you’re referencing something specific, but it doesn’t ring any bells for me. –
War crimes and Geneva Convention statutory language.
Thanks, that’s what I was looking for.
safe travels, dmac
cboldt, is the “cruel and unusual” phrase derived from the Eighth Amendment and the following?
(from teh wiki)
– think part of what might be going on here is a conflict between legal objectives and messaging objectives. –
There’s an intersection there, and you boneheads are missing an opportunity by overreaching. You want to call it torture, knock yourself out. It’s a stupid tactic, and will not get you where you want to go.
If you accuse the admin of cruel and inhuman, you have them over a barrel.
don’t worry cboldt at 97, i getcha, i will look up what you’re talking about, and i will use the force…….if not for you i would never have understood half of the things i write and call about…..
thanks.
those of you who haven’t checked out cboldt’s blog, i suggest you do, but have a pen and paper handy. go all the way back to when mccain was trying to avoid being accountable for his fec violation……..
nitey nite.
You really should lay off the dimwit bonehead stuff. And I mean that not in a I-will-strike-you-down-with-my-hammer-of-fury way (I actually have no mod/admin powers whatsoever), but rather in a people-will-tune-out-your-important-message-if-you-keep-calling-them-stupid way.
delivery
content
delivery (sux)
content (very worthwhile)
Which one gets the attention?
boneheads – just because we disagree with you? I think not.
Yeah, that’s the problem. If you sprinkle in insults, all people will hear is “Blah blah blah blah dimwit blah blah blah blah bonehead blah blah your stupid minds, stupid stupid!”
The horse is dead, methinks.
nite
– you really should lay off the dimwit bonehead stuff. And I mean that not in a I-will-strike-you-down-with-my-hammer-of-fury way (I actually have no mod/admin powers whatsoever), but rather in a people-will-tune-out-your-important-message-if-you-keep-calling-them-stupid way. –
I don’t give a shit. If your skin is that thin, if the straight point is rejected because I happen to notice that people don’t notice (or reject) the straight point, so be it.
Tell you what. You take the message, if you believe in it, and be my gentle messenger. Because I don’t have the patience to convince people who think it’s better to yell “TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE” that they are reduced to background noise.
Like this?
Patience is a virtue.
trying to explain something to a varied group is a frustrating task……….cboldt has been here for many days posting about the senate and helping for more hours than anyone……….
i believe a break should be given here.
i used the phrase herding cats a while back and got slammed, but it is……
chill.
cboldt, you can call me a dimwit and a bonehead, but ”just don’t call me stupid”, stupid…..
: )
nite.
So you don’t *care* if people listen to you? Or you only want people who are Pure Creatures Of Logic to listen to you?
Seriously, I’m not bugged so much as mystified by your approach to disseminating what you clearly believe to be such an important point.
I’m not even suggesting that you be obsequious and nicey-nicey about it, just that you not be actively insulting and condescending.
Or, no thanks, I don’t think I will read the blog.
totally unlike me, but here goes…
How about some respect for the author and host of this fine post? Sheesh.
Why are you getting in such a snit over a word? Geez, don’t we have enough trouble without fighting over the language?
I think I catch your drift (albeit, dimly); “Cruel and Unusual”, though more of a mouthful, has a ‘resonance’ with very deep legal and historical roots, and, as a fundamental principle of ‘American Law’, is so deeply embedded in what might be termed, loosely, the collective American legal-social subconscious, that it allows ‘examination’ which the word ‘torture’, in this country, today, simply does not.
Torture, by definition is ‘cruel’ and should be completely ‘unusual’.
Even knuckle-dragging knee-jerking citizens and CongressCritters would be compelled to ‘look’ at “Cruel and Unusual”.
Plus, legal nicities aside, it takes far less ‘evidence’ to ‘get there’.
In fact, from what ‘they’ have willingly, if not boastfully, said (and obviously done), we are already ‘there’.
Yes, and this.
– you can call me a dimwit and a bonehead, but ”just don’t call me stupid”, stupid –
Well. Well. I’m not insulting people in order to make them worse off. Maybe a slap upside the head helps, maybe not. I don’t know. But I do know that my gentle admonitions to shun the legal term of art “torture” have been ignored. If this one is too, well, I fucking give up.
– Why are you getting in such a snit over a word? –
It’s like the difference between murder and manslaughter. You can argue til you’re blue in the face they are the same. Knock yourself out. But torture and “cruel and inhuman” are not the same.
The administration is CLEARLY guilty of cruel and inhuman. Make THAT accusation.
I can only speak for myself, and sometimes have a difficult time doing that, but is it OK if we use the word “TORTURE” quietly, amongst ourselves, as long as we promise to not utter it in any courtroom?
IT IS WHAT IT IS, DIMWIT (legal hair-splitting aside)
Gentle
bwahahaha!
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that they are guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment BY TORTURING PEOPLE? I truly am asking – not being sarcastic.
BTW, cboldt, I very much appreciate the conversation you and Mary had on EW’s post.
Clearly, you both are possessed of insight, information and perspective that has immense import today.
Thank you.
– can only speak for myself, and sometimes have a difficult time doing that, but is it OK if we use the word “TORTURE” quietly, amongst ourselves, as long as we promise to not utter it in any courtroom? –
Of course. But when the conversation turns public, when you seek a response from the accused, the specific accusation matters. The administration has uttered “we don’t torture” so many times that it hurts my brain. Oh what a difference, if they were forced to say “we don’t do cruel and inhuman.”
You may think it’s a distinction without a difference, and that’s understandable. But trust me when I say the administration WELCOMES being accused of torture.
But it is afraid of being accused of cruel and inhuman treatment.
As I’m understanding it, “torture” is a very narrow and hard-to-prove subset of “cruel and inhuman”.
What I’m *not* getting are the legal ramifications of *us* saying it, as opposed to the congresscritters who could (theoretically) actually do something about it, or the reporters who get to ask questions of the administration and its enablers. Unless they’re taking their messaging cues from us, which seems pretty unlikely…
Taking my dimwitted self to bed, so I can be up early for work tomorrow. I can only hope that 24+ years worth of training can help me overcome said dimwittedness in order to help any soul I encounter tomorrow who dials 911 and needs help.
Thanks, Eli, for a very fine post!
Thanks, LL! G’night!
Well, whatever it’s called it makes me want to have Bush and Cheney stand naked in front of the WH for days while people laughed at them.
– Wouldn’t it be fair to say that they are guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment BY TORTURING PEOPLE? I truly am asking – not being sarcastic. –
The terms represent degrees of wrongdoing. Neither is good.
But the threshold for “torture” is so far “out there” that NOBODY gets there. “We don’t torture” is a technical defense.
gotcha, thanks.
Well, Eli;
As usual you’ve an important post, the comment thread is spirited and the company stellar.
Good on you.
Brightly!!!
And the reply, and the showing is “Yes, you did and do torture, and here’s the proof”, not “you are cruel and unusual.”
Thanks, DW!
…Although they are.
people, people…………this is blowing my mind, another choice commenter being misunderstood and slammed…..again……
cboldt approaches these subjects with an altruistic, fine-toothed, literal manner…….
completely literal person…….how many of those do you know? how do they operate?
this is an emotional place, and literal doesn’t always get understood.
trying to get that across is a chore.
and when it’s not understood, repeatedly, literal doesn’t always express it well……
he is probably exhausted from all of the hours he’s spent on the fisa stuff and senate stuff this week and then explaining it to us rubes…….yes, rubes……
give the literal scholar a break will ya??????????
capice?
and cboldt, don’t ’fucking give up’ just go to bed and try again in the morning.
it’s late nite, things don’t translate as well as in the daytime.
i’m gonna be really pissed if you all can’t see past this and cause someone else to no longer comment here cuz you didn’t want to drop it. over stupid shit…….he’s makin’ a point, someone else asks the same thing, he answers again and noone is listening, kinda gets a little frustrating…….round the mulberry bush.
nite for real this time…….
and justice scalia was on charlie rose last friday if anyone wants to watch it…….now, that’s someone you should throw something at.
and look up dimwit, it’s not as severe as you think……just descriptive.
Thanks, cboldt. I got your drift about 50 comments ago, just couldn’t help but to stir the pot. I gotta work on that.
Please take no offense, but it is a generally accepted practice to check one’s ego at the door.
Your first “dimwit” comment got under my skin almost immediately.
…And I got pretty thick skin.
Remember…
delivery (is important, but not at the expense of…)
content
;~P’
We are all trying to make a point about word choice.
– and cboldt, don’t ’fucking give up’ just go to bed and try again in the morning. –
It’s not in my character to be patient. Hopefully I’ve riled enough attention here to carry the point forward. It’s a serious, and valuable, and now YOUR point.
I’ll be watching. If I see “torture torture torture,” I’ll know my advice was wasted.
Jeez!!!
All that beer upstairs and here I am in the basement with the geeks
Story of my life.
Let us parse words, just for the heck of it.
Is “CRUEL” inhuman?
Is “INHUMANITY” cruel?
Is either “UNUSUAL”?
These are “yes” or “no” questions.
We can ‘torture’ logic, each other, or even ourselves. We can torture those whom we hate as well as those whom we say we love.
But, of course we are concerned with ’state-sanctioned’ torture.
And Americans NEVER torture any more than they would bury someone alive, at least according to John Yoo. Lots of other ‘things’ are fine, though, with John Yoo. He has said so, even written it down and passed it around.
Perhaps, had Yoo been asked if he considered what he suggested be done, was ‘cruel’ he might not have been so glib.
The test is, “What would a reasonable person conclude?”
And, semantic evasion aside, when episodes of ‘cruel and unusual’ or ‘cruel and inhuman’ are piled, one on top of the other, at a sufficient measure, a reasonable person would very likely conclude that such a program, conscientiously applied, systematically, and repeatedly would show a pattern which would rightfully deserve the apellation,’torture’.
Viola! We are ‘there.
After a long and torturous journey …
I think either would be a great choice. I also think that Edwards would be far more interested in that job than in being the Veep. He’d probably be able to do more to make the country better.
– And, semantic evasion aside, when episodes of ‘cruel and unusual’ or ‘cruel and inhuman’ are piled, one on top of the other, at a sufficient measure, a reasonable person would very likely conclude that such a program, conscientiously applied, systematically, and repeatedly would show a pattern which would rightfully deserve the apellation,’torture’. –
I’m not advising anybody to practice semantic evasion. I’m giving straight-up advice as to how to practice semantic kung-fu. Say it like it is, without exaggeration, and the point STICKS like glue.
Your clever rhetoric that piles a series of “cruel and unusuals” to become a “torture” is cute, but has ZERO power in the legal realm.
I have no problem with casual, non-legal conversations. Play away. But when you decide to get serious, if you want a legal consequence, then you’d be smart to adopt and respect the legal terms of art.
Tell you what: If I’m writing a post about how the Bushies are vile amoral scum with no compassion or empathy, I’m going to use “torture”. If I’m writing a post about how they should be impeached or tried for war crimes, I’ll use “cruel and inhuman”.
Just dicking around. Imagine somebody says the following:
Does that make an impression? Does it stir engagement?
Now add one more comment – “I don’t expect you dimwits to follow my advice, but there it is.” Did that cause more attention? I hope so.
cboldt, ’semantic evasion’ is what ‘they’ do.
I was not being ‘cute’ merely ‘pragmatic’.
Clearly, I agree with you.
Have you no humor at all?
I appreciate your wisdom and insight which you belittle with ‘incite’ and a too easy umbrage.
Just a thought, cboldt, not a suggestion dim-wittedness might attend yourself, at times.
;~D
We’re talking terms of art here. I respect cbolt’s advice on this and deeply appreciate what he has been doing here recently.
So did I miss the point?
Where is this battle, semantic or otherwise, being fought? I don’t see a courtroom on the blogs, in the papers, on teevee. We’re not pleading to the Supremes or addressing a circuit court.
Seems to me this battle you’re talking about is in the streets, and legalisms dull the lance.
The terms you are suggesting are better applied by the next Solicitor General in front of black robes. That’s not the forum here.
– Tell you what: If I’m writing a post about how the Bushies are vile amoral scum with no compassion or empathy, I’m going to use “torture”. If I’m writing a post about how they should be impeached or tried for war crimes, I’ll use “cruel and inhuman”. –
!!
Awesome.
I’m not saying “never say torture”
But understand how to make accusations that don’t have a technical refutation.
As do I, very much, in spite of a wee touchy contentiousness on cboldt’s part.
– Have you no humor at all? –
It depends. But I’m in fact a generally jolly fellow. Some subjects are just serious, IMO. I’m honestly interested in living among informed, effective humans, some of which I have disagreement with.
Then we are, indeed, in much agreement!
– Where is this battle, semantic or otherwise, being fought? I –
Ah! Great question. It’s being fought in many venues, from Dana Perino Pressers to casual debate on blogs. Anyplace the accuser has only the most extreme accusation in hand (Torture), the defender has an easy rebuttal. “We don’t torture.”
Take that away.
I’m not turning in just yet, but I think this dialog got a substantial amount of attention on account of me being an asshole.
It may have caused more attention, but less receptiveness. “I don’t expect you to follow my advice, but here it is” would have been challenging without being hostile or insulting.
You’re telling us to avoid using the word “torture” if we want to get our message across, and we’re telling you to avoid using the word “dimwit” if you want to get yours across.
I would also point out that the Bushies can say “We do not perform cruel and inhuman treatment” just as glibly and easily as they can say “We do not torture.” That it is baldly untrue bothers them not at all, and, sadly, no-one in a position to nail them for it will ever do so (unless they wander overseas and get arrested for war crimes).
You DO have a sense of humor.
Ourselves are one thing we should rarely take too seriously.
Good on you … and thanks.
So if I take you right:
Torture is now a dulled-down word because its been introduced and beaten to death, lost its effectiveness
and
It conjures extreme emotional response and drives away listeners
so
We should adopt the phrase “Cruel and…” because we get to drive the debate as if we were arguing the legalisms, and because the phrase doesn’t conjure up extreme emotional response…
So tell me – Who’s the dimwit? Emotional response registered.
– You’re telling us to avoid using the word “torture” if we want to get our message across, and we’re telling you to avoid using the word “dimwit” if you want to get yours across. –
And if you aren’t dimwits, you’ll figure out which ot those two contests is more important
I’m afraid you’re right there. My impression, based on your first comment and about a dozen others in this thread, is that you’ve just made a declaration with no supporting evidence, nor even an example, and then said that anyone who didn’t think you’re right is a dimwit.
That particular rhetorical flourish stopped working for me around the fifth grade.
Do you have any examples of how the wording you favor worked, and “torture” didn’t?
And I owe you a Coke, Eli.
I think it a question of ’style’.
“Dimwit” actually had me laughing, and I wondered who would take it personally.
cboldt threw ‘it’ out ‘there’ to see who would bite.
I’d say he succeeded …
It got everybody’s attention, one way or another.
It also got his point across.
In future, he shall have to up the ante, however to have the same affect or a different bunch of us to consternate …
– Do you have any examples of how the wording you favor worked, and “torture” didn’t? –
As in having a physical consequence? Perpetrator punished and all that? Or as in making a moving speech where the listeners left “energized”?
– “Dimwit” actually had me laughing, and I wondered who would take it personally. –
I am genuinely depressed that the “waterboarders” get away with “we don’t torture”, and faced with the option of accusing “cruel and inhuman” or “torture,” the cretins making the public accusations mostly accuse of torture. It’s maddening.
I wasn’t particularly offended or amused, I just observed everyone else’s (entirely predictable) reaction. It’s all about signal-to-noise ratio, and insults are very noisy.
And I’m more than happy to be dinged 100 style points, if I can make 1 substantive point in exchange.
The effect you had in mind when you wrote this:
Shun the word “torture.” It has a legal conclusion attached, that invites a “we don’t torture” defense.
In place of torture, accuse of cruel and inhuman treatment.
I’ll work out whether that’s the effect I’m after.
If the Bush-Cheney administration cared about international treaties, the law, or the fine distinctions of torture versus cruel and inhuman punishment, I doubt we would be here on a Friday night having this discussion.
They are doing it, they are getting away with it, and I don’t care how many angels are on that pin, it’s wrong.
I think the average person might be confused thinking about cruel/inhuman/unusual punishment and trying to remember what they learned in 8th grade civics class, but the average person is very clear that torture is wrong.
Well, there’s this. Pretty persuasive.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
I’m certainly an average person in that regard.
To me, “cruel”, as a word by itself, is almost innocuous. We tell “cruel” jokes, for instance. Perhaps in the legal world it has more meaning, but to me “torture” evokes an image of doing psychological and/or physical damage to a person in an attempt to get him to do something.
Maybe that’s not a common definition among the Bush Administration or Congress, but I think most of us have a similar connotation for that word.
Well, we already know that “cruel and unusual punishment” is inoperative, because they’re not being punished for anything, having not been convicted… or even tried.
I believe both Scalia *and* Yoo used that argument…
(Not intended as a counterargument to anything, just something that pisses me off)
Guess that’s the connotation those Genevans have for “torture”, too…
They (insults) also waste a great deal of time, ruffled feathers and all that, must be sorted out or not, and rises on blood-pressure are all too common in the Bu$h Co era, rendering the gratuitous, unnecessary.
However, compared to certain ones, who shall remain nameless, cboldt is a ‘pussycat’, a playful kitten who actually doesn’t use his (or her) claws.
And, his point seems valid, very much so, to me.
If we wish to prevail, then we must hear wisdom regardless of its origin, delivery, or terminology, even if it is raw or ‘impolite’.
That’s right!
I don’t recall seeing any statute anywhere that specifically covers beating the fuck out of people for no good reason.
So, they’re covered.
I suppose we can get into specifics, like burying alive, leaving in a container to die, etc.
I’m not advocating ignoring a good idea or a valid argument because it’s unattractively packaged; I’m just pointing out that human nature being what it is, returned hostility is an inevitable outcome. I’ve been talking about this solely from a tactical perspective.
Well, this has been fascinating, but I really need to get to sleep – must get up early to prepare for vacation.
‘Night, everyone!
nite eli. thanks for this.
– You DO have a sense of humor. –
And a sense of purpose. My underlying point isn’t threatening at all. It’s to level the charge that is more difficult to rebut, as between “torture” and “cruel and inhuman.”
I’ve not defended the conduct, I’ve suggested a significant tactical redirection that I think will be effective to accomplish your ends.
Piss and moan all you want about how I delivered the suggestion, but I honestly believe it would have gone unnoticed if I’d not been an asshole about it.
Whteher or not it’s acted on is to be determined. I’m not holding my breath.
Personally, Eli, I regard your ‘perspective’ to be rational, as well.
But ‘human nature’, as you suggest, often is not.
Fortunately, we are all humans here. Therefore, we all can understand, even if our behavior might suggest otherwise.
;~D
Goodnight, Eli.
Piss and moan? Me?
Surely not.
I’m too busy laughing.
Everybody is trying so hard, not to ‘get it’.
Even you, most worthy word-smith, haven’t let go of “Dimwit”.
So? I shall, with your permission, view your cast aspersions as tokens of respect and appreciation, whomever they might be directed towards.
The fact is you like us, otherwise you’d not waste a moment upon us, you pussycat you.
;~D
Yes, Eli, good night and thanks, once again.
– The fact is you like us, otherwise you’d not waste a moment upon us, you pussycat you.–
The fact is I’m wasting my time. The proof will be in the pudding.
If the arguments scrupulously avoid accusation of “torture,” and argue violations of “cruel and inhuman” instead, the ramifications are profound.
yes
Way way EPU – but this is a grea post Eli.