I’m just going to quote his whole post without comment:
One addendum to today’s column: the truth, which I think everyone in the political/media establishments knows in their hearts, is that the nine months or so between the summer of 2002 and the beginning of the Iraq insurgency were a great national moral test — a test that most people in influential positions failed.
The Bush administration was obviously — yes, obviously — telling tall tales in order to promote the war it wanted: the constant insinuations of an Iraq-9/11 link, the hyping of discredited claims about a nuclear program, etc.. And the question was, should you stand up against that? Not many did — and those who did were treated as if they were crazy.
For me and many others that was a radicalizing experience; I’ll never trust “sensible” opinion again. But for those who stayed “sensible” through the test, it’s a moment they’d like to see forgotten. That, I believe, is the real reason so many want to let torture and everything else go down the memory hole.
Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
#1 by Cliff on April 24, 2009 - 11:29 am
I can confirm that.
#2 by Federal Farmer on April 24, 2009 - 11:37 am
Paul Krugman should stick to his partisan economic forecasting. What expertise does Krugman have on the torture debate?
#3 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2009 - 12:05 pm
Fed–
Yeah, let’s listen to the experts. For example, Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE).
Waterboarding is Torture… Period
#4 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2009 - 2:54 pm
I have to admit, there’s a certain part of me that doesn’t want to see the chaos the republicans are going to wreak on everybody who wants justice, but they are the ones who will have to defend torture. Something tells me a whole bunch of people without names, like Federal Farmer, are going to be showing up with pro-torture websites.
One of the most tenacious workers for justice is David Swanson, who was protesting in a hearing at which Attorney General Eric Holder had testified. As Holder walked past Swanson, he remarked, “And you will be proud of your country.”
#5 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2009 - 3:18 pm
If the Republicans really want to be The Party of Torture, they are welcome to it. I just hope the Democrats aren’t planning to compete for that distinction. What is the matter with these people in Washington?
#6 by Federal Farmer on April 24, 2009 - 5:52 pm
The problem is, the torture discussion has been absent from our legal and political system for years now. Just now Democrats are sanctimoniously trying to pass themselves off as tireless human-rights crusaders, when the fact of the matter is, when they had the opportunity to define torture and challenge “enhanced interrogations,” they waffled. What you see happening now is just a show, much like the closing of Gitmo by the President.
If Democrats are so opposed to government-sanctioned torture, where was the outrage when the Congressional Black Caucus met with the Castros? Where was the outrage when the President of the United States met with Hugo Chavez? The Castros have been torturing their own citizens for decades, and if you don’t believe it, I know a number of Cuban expatriates who experienced it. Chavez also is guilty of torture and other human rights violations… and don’t try to say that such meetings were merely diplomatic. The Congressional Black Caucus was more than praiseworthy of Fidel, and what reasonable justification can be given for the President himself meeting with the Anti-American Chavez? It should be an embarrassment for anyone who champions the anti-torture cause.
Where was this fearless rhetoric when Clinton allowed for extraordinary renditions? Oh yeah, torture is only an issue when it involves Republicans.
#7 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2009 - 10:48 pm
Federal Farmer:
Obama says he’s closing Gitmo and discontinuing the practice of torture. I’m sure if it turns out he’s lying, there will be hell to pay from democrats who helped get him elected. We don’t always stand with our man, the way republicans do.
I didn’t know Clinton approved anything called “extraordinary renditions” until well into the Bush “presidency”, but I’m sure the application wasn’t anywhere near as severe as what Bush allowed; that’s why he had to employ idiots like Yoo, Gonzales and Addington to pull stuff out of their rear ends which they thought would protect their boss.
Where were YOU, when Bush was doing all of this?
We need some kind of grand tribunal where all of this information will come out, and if Clinton or any other Democrat was complicit in torture, they will have to answer to justice.
And by the way, Krugman has earned the right to say anything he wants on any subject he desires. There aren’t many journalists in this country that have tried as hard as he has to get the truth out.
#8 by cav on April 24, 2009 - 11:09 pm
My fear is that when all the culpability is dully assigned, there might be three or four of our reps and sens left untarnished. How will it feel to know what a chunk of our shiny stars are so criminal?
#9 by Federal Farmer on April 26, 2009 - 1:17 am
Larry, what is currently being done by the Obama Administration to give relief to detainees at Bagram Air Base?
Hell to pay? As in the case of Bagram Air Base, the Left and their sympathizers in the media don’t seem too concerned with other injustices; the more important objectives are purely political (i.e. Gitmo).
Extraordinary renditions weren’t merely “approved” by the Clinton Administration, they were initially commenced by Clinton in 1995 through a presidential directive. You probably weren’t aware of such information precisely because it doesn’t bode well for your rigidly partisan paradigm.
I wouldn’t be so sure that individuals like Yoo are “idiots.” Why is it so unethical to make a distinction between terrorists, saboteurs, and spies, and uniformed military foe? Was the Supreme Court similarly guilty by refusing German saboteurs Geneva protections in 1942?
Isn’t it humorous how Democrats are anxiously thirsting for the blood of a handful of attorneys who authored some legal memorandi? Have you read the infamous torture memos? Were they really just an attempt to “protect their boss?”
Where was I? Well, I was serving a mission, going to school, and working a menial job… and I was studying the torture memos themselves, as well as other pertinent writings like John Yoo’s, “The Powers of War and Peace.” You see, I think that it’s beneficial to formulate an argument AFTER I have investigated the issue; it just seems more rational to me, I guess.
Ha! I’m fully confident that Congressional Democrats and the White House will see to it that this remains a strictly apolitical affair. Certainly the Speaker’s foreknowledge of “enhanced interrogations” will be examined and she will be forced to “answer to justice.” Oh, and I am equally confident that President Clinton will be lambasted in a Bush-like fashion for his presidential directive in 1995… and while we are at it, I am confident that the Left will turn against the current President for his waffling on the Bagram case, and his use of the state-secrets defense.
Larry, WHERE ARE YOU NOW? Detainees in other US facilities are being denied the “right” to appeal their detainments in US courts… Yet those at Gitmo are now being allowed to? If you are such an advocate for human rights, why aren’t you criticizing your president for his hypocritical exceptions? You Democrats don’t “stand by your man no matter what?” Ha! I don’t see many Democrats attacking their Democratic senators and representatives for their absolute lack of spine when it came to actually confronting the issue of torture, rendition, detainments, etc. when President Bush was in office. And now that they have the political capital, Democrats are pushing their sanctimonious sense of morality on the entire country.
And by the way, Krugman has earned the right to say anything he wants on any subject he desires. There aren’t many journalists in this country that have tried as hard as he has to get the truth out.
#10 by Cliff on April 26, 2009 - 11:06 am
Federal,
For purely academic purposes Mr. Farmer, what if any progressive blogs do you read daily? …besides OneUtah of course (and thank you).
DailyKos?
Firedog Lake?
Greenwald?
Huffpost?
#11 by Federal Farmer on April 26, 2009 - 1:59 pm
No problem, despite my perpetual disagreements with OneUtah’s contributors, I do enjoy reading this blog.
You are right that there are strong voices in the ranks of the Left. I read Huffington Post often, Glenn Greenwald every now and then, and once in a while I will check out DailyKos. As a matter of fact, I really enjoyed Greenwald’s opinions on Bagram.
While some individuals are outspoken on the issue, regardless of partisan background, there is a real lack of criticism coming from much of the mainstream… particularly from the more recognizable faces on the Left.
#12 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2009 - 2:32 pm
Federal Farmer Said:
I thought you were the kind of guy who read everything on a subject before commenting. You didn’t know that Krugman has been the biggest thorn in Obama’s butt about his fiscal policies? I guess reading legal torture memos is your favorite hobby, so you don’ have the time to figure out what the right wing is really up to.
Torture has hurt our country, but you seem to think it’s fine. You have the right to pick your side. I would have to see proof that Clinton went within light years of implementing the sorts of horrid policies Bush did.
I often criticize people from my own party, but I have to give them some deference because, unlike Bush, they actually do things I like sometimes, and the alternative would have been McCain/Palin. I’m not an idiot.