"Water Treatment" != "Waterboarding"

This is brilliant:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/21/water-treatment/

Murat Kurnaz, “freed from Guantanamo in 2006 after a personal plea from German Chancellor Angela Merkel,” detailed the gross abuses he underwent in U.S. custody yesterday. Kurnaz said he was subjected to “water treatment” which involved a “strong punch” that forced him to inhale water. Asked if this was waterboarding, Kurnaz said “water treatment” is different:

ROHRABACHER: You suggest that you were waterboarded in your captivity. Is that correct?

KURNAZ: No, it’s not waterboarding. It’s called “water treatment.” There was a bucket of water.

ROHRABACHER: Was a cloth put over your face and you were put on a board?

KURNAZ: There was a bucket of water. And they stick my head in it and at the same time, punch me into my stomach.

Rohrabacher responded: “The CIA is claiming that only three people have been waterboarded. And this may be a loophole that they’re suggesting that’s not ‘waterboarding.’”

And since it's not waterboarding, it's not torture. Therefore, the President was not lying when he told us over and over and over that "we do not torture." Brilliant!

Liberalrob Hates the Troops

Posted on Megan McArdle's blog today:

One of my favorite movies about military culture is "A Few Good Men" (I'm also partial to "The Caine Mutiny"). Its plot clearly illustrates what I consider to be the main issue we're discussing here: line personnel with the most honorable of motives are ordered to commit a violation of the official code of conduct, because their commander thinks it necessary to enforce discipline. The thing goes south and they wind up accidentally killing the soldier the commander was trying to "train," and then rather than owning his ordering the action up front the commander tries to cover it up (or at least his involvement). When the commander is called to testify at the court-martial of the line Marines, he makes a long-winded speech about honor and duty and warriors manning the walls while effete sheeplike citizens sleep soundly in their beds secure in the safety he provides through his leadership; what moral right can the sheep then claim to criticize the manner in which he provides that safety? But the fact remained that he ordered the commission of an act that went against the code of conduct governing the military, and ordered that a crime be committed; and regardless of how lofty and high-minded his intent might have been, he did order that violation. So he was punished for it. We are a nation of laws, not of men, even in the military.

I have absolutely no criticisms at all for most of the people who carry out the orders and do the fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else they are called on to do it. They are all heroes. Like those Marines in A Few Good Men, they do need to exercise some basic moral judgment in carrying out orders; you don't give up your knowledge of right and wrong when you take the oath, and that's what some of the displeasure here is about. But I realize that there often isn't time to think about whether what you're doing is the right thing to do, and there is a lot of conditioning to push our troops to default toward following orders without questioning them; so a heavier responsibility HAS to fall on the commanders who are giving those orders. Those are the people who most deserve scorn, those people like Col. whatshisname Miller who came up with the interrogation regime used at Guantanamo and then exported it to Abu Ghraib. Where's his court-martial? Beyond that, where is the investigation into the people who ordered Col. Miller to come up with those techniques? Where is their indictment and trial?

That's what I'm talking about, whoever wants to think I "hate the military." I don't hate the military. I hate what's being done with it (and to it).

The Coveted Liberalrob Endorsement

With the Texas primary exactly two weeks away, and early voting starting today, I suppose it's time to decide who I'm going to pull the lever for on March 4th. Bill Richardson was my previous choice but he's no longer available. So, it's either Hillary or Barack. I'd be happy to vote for either of them, of course. Both are preferable to McCain.

Hillary was always the brains of the Clinton "team," or at least it seemed that way to me. Not that Bill was a dummy but Hillary seemed more ideological somehow. Probably it was her heading up the first universal healthcare initiative that gave me that impression. I also admire her strength and perseverance in being able to stand up to the relentless press hatred she's had to endure. She also does have experience being a national leader and being on the national (and global) stage. She's a known quantity.

That also cuts against her in my estimation. Not simply that she is a "divisive figure" (which is one of many execrable press-hate memes she's faced), but that she is too close to the Democratic "establishment" for my comfort. It was the Clintons who brought the DLC to national prominence and control of the Democratic Party agenda. Unfortunately the DLC turned into a corporate advocacy group, perhaps not as bad as the American Enterprise Institute or Club for Growth but certainly of that ilk, and I'm opposed to maintaining and expanding their influence in the party and the nation. It's not clear to me how aligned Hillary is with the DLC but given the past association it is a concern. I have also felt that Hillary is too willing to compromise with Republicans in the name of "getting things done," which is a huge mistake and misapprehension of their unity and fanatical opposition to any Democratic initiatives. It's also clear that while possibly not an elitist Hillary certainly is of the elite, and the nation needs to get some leadership that is not of the "ruling class" at some point. Voting for Hillary kicks that can down the road another 4 years.

So what of Obama? The first acceptably-moderate black man to run for President and have a reasonable chance of winning is a powerful symbol, especially for someone like myself who grew up in the South. Having a black man elected President would be the strongest possible statement to the racists who remain in this country, that their intolerance and hate is no longer viable; a relic of a sad and tarnished past that will inevitably disappear. Barack is a powerful public speaker, yet powerful without being strident. He has chosen to run on a generally positive basis, playing up hope for the future and a reunited sense of America as a good nation. He has a great personal story and is of humble origins. And he has Oprah's endorsement :)

My problem with Barack is his message, or more precisely the content of his message; I have no problem with the tone and I do agree that Republicans have won elections by focusing on sunny, rosy optimism. I simply don't think personally feel that rosy optimism is all I want in my candidate for President. I also
want to know specifically what my candidate will do to enact the programs I support, and this has been sadly lacking from Obama's statements. While Hillary has also been light on specifics, her long track record to a degree substitutes for detailed policy proposals; Obama's lack of history leaves this an open question. Also, given the hugely difficult situation 8 years of Republican misrule has inflicted on us, I would prefer to have someone with demonstrated experience at the helm rather than an unknown, if talented, newcomer.

So, when it comes down to it, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton on March 4th.

Happy New Year

A little late.


I will be 41 on Thursday. Starting on the downslope of life. Isn't this a time when you're supposed to be inspired to do something to make your life worthwhile?

My man Bill Richardson bailed early, as did Dean in 2004. Guess there's no room for you unless you're a media darling.

On Columbus Day

A day late, yes, I know. I posted this on Megan McCardle's blog at The Atlantic:

The point I want to make on the Columbus discussion is to admire the vision and determination to organize and execute the expedition, while deploring what he did subsequent to the initial voyage's success. While he didn't "discover" America he did "re-discover" it, and the voyage was indeed an epic worthy of remembrance. The horrors that came after are also worthy of remembrance, and I think it is fitting that Columbus Day serve both purposes.

Monthly post

Just to disturb the spiders and dust bunnies around here...

Nothing in particular to say though.

It's not hate

I keep getting accused by my friends of simply being partisan, of hating Republicans for being Republicans. It's simply not true. First of all it's not hate. If one hates something, one takes steps to physically eradicate it. I hate cockroaches. I hate wasps. I hate yard work. That's quite different from saying you hate a person. I hated people in grade school; not many, but there were a few. And always, I later looked back and wondered why I wasted so much time hating that person rather than getting on with what was important in life. Sometimes, I ended up making friends with people I had earlier hated.

Glenn Greenwald said this last Friday on the subject of partisanship and "progressive" Democrats at the Yearly Kos convention:

There are many mythologies about what are the defining beliefs and motivations of bloggers and their readers and the attendees at Yearly Kos. One of the principal myths is that it is all driven by a familiar and easily defined ideological agenda and/or a partisan attachment to the Democratic Party. That is all false.

The common, defining political principle here -- what resonates far more powerfully than any other idea -- is a fervent and passionate belief in our country's constitutional framework, the core liberties it secures, and the checks and balances it offers as a safeguard against tyrannical power. Those who fail to defend that framework, or worse, those who are passively or actively complicit in its further erosion, are all equally culpable. With each day that passes, the radicalism and extremism originally spawned in secret by the Bush presidency becomes less and less his fault and more and more the fault of those who -- having discovered what they have been doing and having been given the power to stop it -- instead acquiesce to it and, worse, enable and endorse it.

I don't hate Republicans. I disagree with them, I want to convince them why they are wrong to believe what they believe, but through reason not coercion. I am a Democrat and vote 100% Democratic not because I just love Democrats, but because they support more of the things I believe in than Republicans do.