Redstate

If your attitude is that because some evil people killed 3,000 people on 9/11, we have the moral high ground and are thus free to do as we please, including chaining people in a fetal position and forcing them to wallow in their own urine and feces, you might as well stop reading now because we aren't going to agree on anything.

Way to beat heck out of that straw man, John.

There will be someone who says "Who cares what we do to them, they want to kill us."

Or now that I have said it, probably not.

Censure has one attribute that an apology does not; in my opinion an almost vital attribure.

The Islamic radicals and their supporters clearly have ammunition for their claims that the American "occupation" of Iraq and our war on terror is a travesty. And, they have no less a light than a senior member of the United States Senate claiming that the US military behaves like Nazis.

An apology does nothing in the outside world to defuse this nonsense. But a censure, an offical rebuke by his peers, essentially puts the Islamists on notice that Duban's remarks are not the view of the Senate and his collegues.

With that said I think there are two chances of a censure; microscopic and none. The Republicans simply do not have the votes. So it's really all just an interesting cocktail party topic. "It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

. . . Senators Hagel or McCain compare the United States to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, etc. and then your analogy might be less pathetic than the one Durbin tried to make.

He didn't compare the United States to Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge.  He compared behavior as described in the FBI email with behavior done by members of the Khmer Rouge.  

That doesn't mean I don't or can't understand why some are offended, but to state he called our troops Nazi's is nonsense.

. . . would be for Senator Durbin to step up and do the right thing or for his colleagues on his side of the aisle to put enough pressure on him to compel him to do the right thing.  Give his non-apology apology and the way they've circled the wagons that seems less likely than a censure motion.

On the bright side, put another nail in the coffin of the chances of Democrats regaining control of either the House or the Senate.

oh well.

To get to the point of my first post-I think it was offensive.

He basically provided a large piece of proganda to the enemy to use, and sure I can agree to a point that we can't do everything regarding what the terrorists think, but this one didn't take much forethought.

And if Lott has to step down from his position as majority leader, for trying to make a couple of nice statements about an old man at his birthday party (comments that had no threat at all to national security, or even our nation for that matter), then what Durbin said was at least as bad, given that his comments absolutely can be used as a tool for the terrorists (and the comments have already hit Al Jazeera).

Not sure where I stand on censure, but I think his comments certainly were offensive, and to be honest for the most part factually wrong.

Also, I can't help but wonder about the basic math skills of that FBI memo writer-since last time I checked a "couple" has always meant two.

if somebody compared my behavior to that of Nazi's, Stalin or Pol Pot, I would believe I was being called a Nazi et al.

Sorry, but that "he didn't really mean it the way it sounded" is pure crap.

I like to think that both sides of the partisan divide have enough in common to share a vision of America as a country with high moral purpose.

Minor but important edit to the post: third to last paragraph, "should be condoned or endorsed" should be shouldn't.

Sure, I would like to see some official action taken to rebuke Durbin...although I think Bill Frist, who addressed this earlier today, is probably right when he says that "Censure" is available for violation of Senate rules, and Durbin's blather, no matter how disgusting, didn't violate Senate rules.

I think letting Durbin (and Reid, and Dean, and Pelosi, and so forth) continue on their merry hate-mongering ways, will do Republicans and conservatives better in the long run than some stern official rebuke.  Durbin and Dean, with their inability to permit their thoughts to pass through their brains before they escape their mouths, spell continued doom for the Democrats, and that's just fine by me.

Fixed.

. . . of a meaningful difference between saying that the actions of the United States are comparable to those of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot and comparing the United States to those regimes.

is he is the #2 Democrat in the Senate.  There are a lot of loons in the House.  The comparison completely falls apart.

He is speaking, in essense, for 1/2 of America and if he does not apologize for such idiotic language, he must be repremanded.  Why not censure?  It is an official slap-on-the-wrist for providing fodder for those that already hate us.

What should offend you is not what Durbin said, but the possibility that what Durbin said regarding the abuse may be accurate -even if it happened only once.  And spare me the false bravado and the tough-guy attitudes about how this doesn't sound so tough, and they deserve what they get.  I am all in favor of stern measures and tough interrogation practices, but there are lines that should not be crossed.

I think you're a pedophilic murderer, Mr. Cole.  Now, remember, don't be offended by my words.  What's more important than anything I say or the way that I say it is that it might possibly be true.  After all, the more outrageous the accusation, the more important it is!  Allegations are swirling.

Also, I believe you might have dismembered your wife, and fed the remains to your pet dog.  Now of course, I may be wrong, and I don't have any real evidence of this, and yes, maybe people who don't like you might latch on to my speculation and use it against you, but it might possibly be true.  This one sounds pretty bad too.  Questions are now dogging you!

Finally, I've heard rumors that you're employed by the DNC, and that you're being paid money to go around trying to throw up a smokescreen for Senator Durbin.  Now, maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but it's certainly not irresponsible for me to bring the accusation up, because it might possibly be true.  Gee, all of a sudden, you're mired in controversy!

Wheeeee!  This license to spread around baseless slander is kinda fun!  Say anything with no repercussions, what a spectacular idea! And castigate anyone who tries to reprimand you for your irresponsibility!  Why don't we do it more often?  

Oh wait, I know why.  

Because most of us are adults, and this is certainly not adult behaviour.

I do not accept the idea that a U.S. Senator comparing U.S. forces to Pol Pot, Nazis, and the Gulag is okay because "there's a possibility that these events were represented accurately." If these events are accurate and laws were broken, have an investigation to determine guilt and punish those responsible.  Grandstanding and comparing the events -- based on a single, redacted, informal email -- to systems responsible for murdering 30 million or so people is unhelpful and irresponsible.

A good start would be accepting Durbin's apology or future apologies, dropping these petty calls for censure, and beginning a serious conversation on the legal status of detainees and our long-term strategy in the War on Terror, all the while while investigating credible FBI reports of abuse.  The American people and the world deserve that much from us.

Tell you what: a few days or a week from now, I'll quietly apologize that you didn't understand the nuance in the accusations I made against you above, and we'll call it even.  Of course, we'll also have to begin serious investigations into all of the charges I brought against you -- especially that Democratic shill one.  That sound good to you? Because that's what you're asking people to accept with regard to Durbin's remarks.

And finally, as to why no one called for censure for Hagel, McCain, etc., perhaps its because they didn't inspire enemy propaganda like this Al-Jazeera story:

US senator stands by Nazi remark

Thursday 16 June 2005, 21:38 Makka Time, 18:38 GMT

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

US Senator Dick Durbin on Wednesday refused to apologise for comments he made on the Senate floor referring to Nazis, Soviet gulags and a "mad regime" like Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Illinois Republican party chairman Andy McKenna had demanded he apologise.

"Senator Durbin's comments come as a great disservice to our military personnel in Guantanamo," he said.

"They are also a great disservice to all US soldiers and veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to overcome evil regimes and spread democracy around the world."

Durbin did not plan to apologise for the comments, spokesman Joe Shoemaker said.

"This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," Durbin had said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

We get the point you're making but some of us would hate to see you get banned for going over the top about it.

don't get me wrong, I'm happy to allow the Democrats to continue to marginalize themselves. But the price to the country, and potentially the direct impact on the troops, is a very high price to pay for an incremental increase in the Dem's already miserable chances.

...is that he tried to be too clever by half.  The issue is not how Durbin inserted the Nazi-gulag-Pol Pot associations, but that he inserted them.  He could've gone dozens of different ways, but he chose that old, tired, unimaginative Nazi-communist atrocity track.  Durbin tried to make the association in a way so that he could still plausibly deny he made it because he weaseled the words just right.  Not acceptable political discourse.

BTW, how dare he presume my response to the FBI report, that I would "most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others."  He shouldn't get off so easy on this, or the fact that he backdoored this Nazi-gulag bullsh*t on the Bush administration.  He should apologize, but I agree that censure is overdoing it.

One other thing.  Except for the offending paragraph, I found myself agreeing with most of what Durbin said.

I don't think is remarks will be treated as "1/2 of America"; the Islamists won't make that distinction.

that my actions are like those of a Nominalist, and then if someone else declares that I am like a Nominalist, the only difference could be in the possible motive.

In the case of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, or the Soviets, the actions were so atrocious that the motivation is naturally secondary.  So any differentiation in this case is bogus.

There is a slight difference between some anonymous person calling me a pedophile murderer without cause and an FBI agent detailing what he saw.

And I see you really paid attention to the post.  Did you just fly into dudgeon mude the second you decided you disagreed with the totality of the post, because I already linked the Al Jazeera story that got you all hot and bothered:

Likewise, I have no doubt that those who already hate the United States will choose to misrepresent Durbin's statement almost as viciously as polemicists like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have, but for different reasons.  In fact, some already have.  I have to ask, though- when did upsetting the delicate sensibilities of murderous thugs become such a priority?

Does the link to Al Jazeera lookfamiliar now?

Durbin didn't call our soldiers Nazi's.  You and Al Jazeera want us to believe otherwise, despite the speech being right in front of you.

Strange bedfellows.

... is a very fine distinction for people in this country whose native language is English. I'm afraid it's a "tad" too subtle for others. N

ot to mention that the Islamists have no vested interest in giving his remarks the kind of "benefit of the doubt" called for in your hair-splitting.

On the contrary, I think getting banned would prove my point exactly.

If my words were intended and taken seriously, I'd deserve it.

I think you're beginning from several poor assumptions, but I want to pick out two of them:

(1) That the ballyhooed "abuses" have actually occurred.

(2) That the ballyhooed "abuses" were, in fact, abuses.

Contra Durbin, we really don't know about #1: all we have is a single uncorroborated FBI report. Contra you, I don't think "Nazi! Gulag! Third-world hellhole!" when I hear that they've turned off the central air at a prison, or they've chucked a prisoner into solitary for so long that he peed themself.

You want to talk about torture? Yes. I emphatically oppose attaching jumper cables to a detainee's testicles, et cetera et cetera. But I think the ongoing characterization of what's alleged to have gone on as "abuse" or "mistreatment" simply debases the words. Sure, it's not summer camp, but it's not supposed to be, and like Lileks I simply cannot muster any outrage for it.

Durbin explicitly comparing Marine guards to Nazis, though? Sorry. I don't shrug off inapposite Nazi comparisons. They're tantamount to Holocaust denial, quite frankly, and people who subscribe to such nonsense deserve public ridicule.

But I guess I'm not an "adult".

...is that he tried to be too clever by half.

I an think of a hundred ways to say what he said without making a Nazi reference.

Durbins' remarks are indefensible and having our troops compared to those from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Khmer Rouge is thoroughly contemptible.  

If Senator Richard Durbin has an ounce of integrity and/or patriotism in him, he will retract the remark immediately.  If any in his party do, they will call on him to retract that remark and/or step down as Minority Whip.

And I think that snippet illustrates the pickle Durbin is in, and why the censure move is at least serious.

He is the #2 leader of the party in the senate, and while the extended remarks are otherwise thoughtful, the analogies were drawn to support his arguments and the effects they've had, overseas and at home are undeniable.

The question becomes, what are the standards for debate? Perhaps the adults in charge will simply pass on to the next controversy and let this be where it stands, but Senator Durbin has surely left a permanent marker behind for any future comments he makes.

I think the effect may be the same with or without a censure. Santorum's remarks (and most others) are more traditionally inane examples of Godwin's law describing debate sinking to Nazi comparisons. Durbin's weren't of the same off-the-cuff inanity - they were clearly by design, and a precise comparison to the most repugnant aspects of Nazism, communism, etc...

He's reached a new level of hyperbole, and has so messed up the debate it will take some time restoring it.

Durbin didn't call our soldiers Nazi's.

To say that somebody is behaving like a Nazi, is in reality calling them a Nazi.

If I said you were behaving like a fool, you would probably take away from my statement that I said you were a fool.

Stop trying to parse his words, the comparison was pretty clear, and a poor one at that.

Durbin should have just stuck with criticizing what he read, and saying he would do what he could as a senator to make sure it wasn't happening.  He even could have said that this wasn't how he expected Americans to behave, but he crossed the line at the Nazi/Stalin/Pol Pot comparisons, and he isn't backing off from his words.

for why he didn't use one of those other ways without resorting to the Nazi reference.

He essentially handed a piece of propoganda to the terrorists.

He said "If I didn't tell you that X had been done by Y, you might have thought X was done b Z."

He did not say that our soldiers are Nazis.

If anyone is parsing this, it is those who continue to assert that he did.

I have to run, you guys have fun...

...by refusing to recognize what he really said.

except that instead of saying it was his opinion that our soldiers were behaving like Nazis et al, he was saying that we would think our soldiers were behaving like Nazi's et al.

It is the behavior he is criticizing here, and the alleged behavior (since we don't even know if what is in the report is fact) is what he is saying we would think is the behavior of Nazi's.  There is no other conclusion here other than that Durbin thinks our soldiers are acting like Nazi's given their behavior (unless of course he didn't really mean the comparison, then in that case why did he use it, and to what purpose, and does that actually excuse it-given that he doesn't think he owes anyone an apology).

Well stated and reasoned.  

I am simply amazed at how many people here are talking about how we are going to stir up the terrorists.  I'm sorry but either you care about the politics of our actions as a nation, ALL OF OUR ACTIONS, or you don't.  Cherrypicking things to get outraged about doesn't cut it.

If I knew all the words, could simulate musical notes in HTML language, and had a smidgen of musical talent, I'd write up lyrics to the tune of "Praise the Lord, and Pass The Ammunition".  Then, I'd write a post depicting al Qaeda and al Jazeera singing it.

Because Durbin's words gave them cause to sing.

Nice, nuanced argument you're making here, Johnny C.  The problem is, as Tom Friedman once said, al Qaeda doesn't do nuance.  They do big picture.

Durbin should have known that his language would be twisted by al Jazeera, al Qaeda and the Middle Eastern press, and thrown back at us.  (Much as, I once read, some of the scrap metal we sold to Japan in the 1930s returned to US possession on 12/7/41).

Now, either Durbin didn't realize this (which means he's STUPID, STUPID, STUPID).  Or, he just didn't care (which means he's a JERK JERK JERK).

The guy who thinks he smells smoke in the movie theater bathroom, yells "Fire", and then sees that it was just an usher copping a smoke break, was actually just thinking of the greater good.  He wanted to protect the crowd from fire.  Problem is, the people who got trampled in the ensuing panic don't see it that way.

Words have impacts, Johnny C.  Durbin, and you, need to appreciate that.

Exactly.  If only Just Me (and everybody else) would admit that Durbin was right, and that we were treating people just like Pol Pot, the Nazis, and the Gulag system did, then our enemies would immediately stop, er, saying that we were treating people just like Pol Pot, the Nazis, and the Gulag system did.

Uh, or something.

Yeah.  

Right.

If US troops were subjected to the abuses you so casually dismiss you'd be calling for blood and you know it.  

Islamists do not mind splitting hairs, just below the hair line. as I recall.  Now that is torture, not the activity that has been characterized as occurring at Gitmo.  

Now get writing ;)

Check your warranty card before contacting the factory representative.

Pat Robertson, Grover Norquist, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Congressman Steve King, Sen. James Inhofe, Sen. Tom Cole, Sen. Rick Santorum, and Sen. Phil Gramm?  Shall they be censured as well?

If I'd read that US POWs were being treated that way I'd be after blood.  Sorry to assume that you care about the troops as much as I do.  I'll remember not to make that mistake in the future.

If anyone is 'cherry picking' it's people like Durbin.

Where is Durbin on the "abuse" in prisons in Illinois, Louisiana, Texas, Ohio? People are killed, wounded and scarred for life in American prisons.  In some cases they are reportedly even {gasp} "tortured" and "abused." I don't see Dickie and his merry band of left wingers in high dudgeon over the conditions or the "abuse." Well, maybe that's someone else's problem.

Where is Durbin's "demand" that we punish the morons who saw people's heads off. Oh I know he's opposed to it and thinks it's terrible, awful, yada, yada. But where is his impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate (Curiously dropped out of a clear blue sky into the middle of a debate on an energy bill, but hey what do I know.)

Where is Durbin's passionate demand on the floor of the Senate that the "UN take action to stop the genocide in Darfur and if they don't we will."

I'll tell you where they are, nowhere. For the simple reason that none of those issues will get half-a-column-inch in the New York Times. Mind you it's not that they don't "care" about Illinois inmates or the people of Darfur. No, of course not. But comparing the behavior of troops at Gitmo to the behavior of Nazis not only gets you lots and lots of ink and airtime but it "nourishes" the party base too.

And before someone says he didn't say they were Nazis, just that they did things that Nazis did, it's true he didn't say they were Nazis. He just said the things they did were the things we knew the Nazis did. Just how many Democrat angels can dance on the head of a pin anyway?

You mean Durbin threw this out there in the middle of a debate on the Energy Bill?

WTH?

... since only half of them are Senators...

And the question before the house is the censure of Senator Durbin. If you want to start a diary about censure for Sessions, Imhofe, Cole, Santorum then by all means do so. Oh and by the way, Phil Gramm has been retired for years --- no joy there "sono."

I wasn't watching the "debate" but that's my understanding. The incongruety of it is why it stuck in my mind. If someone corrects me that's fine.

Besides, it might have happened :-)

</Newsweak&gt

You can find Durbin's comments in the Congressional Record, June 14, 2005,  pp. 6591-6595.

thomas.loc.gov lists them as occurring under topic 59 . RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD -- (Senate - June 14, 2005).

I guess it makes sort of makes sense when you think about it -- since he probably couldn't get a scheduled agenda item like DISCUSSION OF HOW U.S. FORCES BEHAVE LIKE MEMBERS OF POL POT'S REGIME, NAZI GERMANY, OR THE SOVIET GULAG, he had to slip the comments in somewhere.

Immature? Please.

Let me just clarify something for you: if somebody compared my behavior to that of Nazi's, Stalin or Pol Pot, I would believe I was being called a Nazi et al.

Sorry, but that "he didn't really mean it the way it sounded" is pure crap.

I don't agree, but first there's another important distinction you elided:

Durbin didn't say "what the guards did was like something the Nazis did" though this would have been correct, if only in the same sense as "Hitler was a vegeterian, too". Instead, he said, you would probably think it was the Nazis doing this if he merely read the report without attribution. And as far as I'm concerned, he's right.

Ask yourself after reading the full report (and without reducing it to no aircondition and loud music), if you read that report and were asked where it came from, wouldn't you point to a despotic regime? I would.

And if in a follow up question, you were asked if you could imagine this report came from an American facility, wouldn't you say "Hell, no! No way!". On second thought, you might perhaps want to add "Certainly not unless something had gone horribly wrong or there was a terribly good reason which is not mentioned e.g. the detainee being chained to avoid self-mutilation and some other unexpected circumstances causing the air-condition to stop, the morning call to be kept running and nobody around to lead the man to the toilet." All sorts of weird shit does happen, but under normal circumstances, you'd surely never assume US soldiers would leave someone in their care like that, right? <Can I get a confirmation on this point, I'm no longer sure the average response would actually be along those lines.>

Now, to make a comparison that might be less charged: Assume a minister was related a story about a man being helped in various extraordinary ways and then going on to say: If I merely told you that story (and removed some of the contemporary references), you would certainly have assumed this man's benefactor must be a lesser known saint, or the story from some part of the gospel you are not familiar with. But no, all these good things were done by our fellow parishioner X.

The man is certainly not saying X is a saint, and he is also not comparing X to Jesus and the saints in the sense that he has already written to Rome to get the new saint X approved. He is, in a very general and hyperbolic sense saying X has done some very good things. At least that's what I would be taking away from the sermon.

I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

Would I think those were the actions of Nazis or Pol Pots thugs? Only if my intention is to twist history beyond recognition - where the Nazis and company have gone through eight weeks of sensitivity training during which they were convinced of the uselessness of chopping off hands, putting people in ovens, and throwing folks in freezing water to see how long they lasted before death.

Could you please answer the question: What would your reaction be upon reading US troops or civilians were being subjected to the conditions described in the FBI e-mail?

but thank you for trying.

I have no problems with referring to the actions as wrong, but what was described isn't anywhere near comparable to Nazi's, Pol Pot or Stalin.  

I admit while I think it is out of line, and poor policy, I just can't get all up on the "torture, torture, torture" cry, when it comes to leaving somebody restrained for a length of time.  Just doesn't quite get up to the par of say, beating them, expirementation etc.

The comparison once again was on behavior-sorry, but if somebody says your behavior is like that of Nazi's, then they are comparing you to a Nazi period.

You can keep trying sell that bridge, but you aren't convincing me.

and you know it, come on.  In fact, it is usually the opposite.  When you accuse someone of acting "like" something it is often a way of saying "you're not that, so why are you acting LIKE it?"  

Example:

I say to my six year old son when he wines and refuses to get dressed in the morning:  "You're acting like a baby!"   This is the same as saying "you are a baby" or "you have the mental process of a baby"  or essentially "you are severly retarded at the age of six"????  No of course not.  I obviously do not think he is severly retarded or mentally disabled.  He just happens to be acting like he is for those few minutes when I need him to be acting his age so we can get out the door on time.   See the difference?  If I actually thought he was severely retarded, I'd rush him to the doctor and the last thing I'd ever say to him is "you are acting like a baby."  Because I'd know, he is a baby, mentally at least.

Do you see the difference now between saying someone is acting like a Nazi and saying someone is a Nazi?   If they really were a Nazi, you wouldn't get all indignant with them and inform them they were acting like who they really are!   Only when someone is displaying behavior that they should not, and when this fact is troublesome to you, do you call out that behavior as being contrary to who that person ought really to be.

Is this so hard to understand?  How many here have told their spouse "you're acting like a jerk today" and how many really thought that, as a core element of their soul, their spouse really was a jerk?  No, how many instead said such a tough thing precisely to get their spouse (or sig oth) to "snap out of it" and see their actions from someone else's point of view?

Listen fellows, a number of my relatives died at the hands of Nazis.  If I for any minute thought that any of our US troops actually were Nazis, I'd go kill them myself, and I'd expect every single patriotic red-blooded American to do the same.  If they really were Nazis they'd be the enemy.  Obviously no one thinks they are:  they think troops shouldn't be imitating the enemy.  

I cannot believe some of you cannot make the distinction!

Sorry but I can't help but laugh.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Durbin is accusing the US military of joining the Nazi party and turning into Nazi's.

Well, you can spend all day and all night parsing the devil out of the phrase and it won't make any difference.

The Democrats pour forth copious crocodile tears about the terrible image of America in the Islamic world created by Gitmo, Abu Grahib. "Oh, woe is me the Bush administration is destroying our image in the Islamic world." "Oh Frabjus Day! Caloo-Calaa. Whatever will the Muslim street think of us now."

Well, if the image of America in the Islamic world is so d*mned important to the left side of the aisle why would they say that Saddam's torture machine has reopened under American management. Why would they compare the behavior of American troops at Gitmo to that of Nazis.

"Well, the truth must come out, after all we are a nation of laws and the the important thing is the rule of law." Besides, what's that he didn't really say that? He said 'behavior similar to that which we saw from Nazis.'

Well, guess what, as far as Al Jazerra and the rest of the Islamists propaganda machine are concerned he said it. Unlike us, they are not spending hours and hours trying to discern the cutsie little differences  between "are Nazis" and "behavior similar to what we have seen from Nazis." It all comes out of their pipe as "US troops are like Nazis."

PS. No matter what he said, using "Americans" and "Nazis" in the same sentence is just d*mned offensive.

-----------------

As a long-time reader of your blog, John, it's nice to see you here on the front page.  No hints as to who I am over there though.

And another aside what with all the "torture" talk going on the last few days.  I think it's high time the government declassify the video tapes of William Buckley courteously recorded by Hezbollah.  Especially considering the mastermind, Imad Mugniyah, has long standing alliances going all the back to Arafat's Fatah and has been rumored inside Iraq since (atleast) last year.

Let's also put the transcripts from the POW trials against Iraq into the record.  If we're going to have a debate on exactly what is and isn't torture let's be as inclusive as possible.

In case you've forgotten, U.S. POW's have been treated poorly at times.

Kept in cages and beaten daily for confessions of information they really did not possess.

Had glass rods inserted into sensitive orifices and then broken.

Tied to wicker chairs while fast-growing bamboo shoots planted underneath grew to the point of impaling them.

Summarily executed, often with the excuse of keeping the prisoners being a combat inconvenience.

Of course these images conjure up a visceral desire for blood.

So how does solitary confinement in a hot or cold room for 2 days compare?  Do civilian prisoners in this country not pee or poo their pants?

making a silly comparison.  If I am not offended by it, why should anyone else be?

I am more offended by the notion that punishing Durbin for alleged sins is more important than making sure this sort of thing isn't happening and punishing those who do it.

If you want to know what tarnishes our military guy's (and gal's) reputations, it is allowing people that do this to get away with it.  Not talking about it and trying to make sure it isn't happening.

Oh, by the way, speaking of not paying attention, Al Jazeera didn't say that Durbin called our soldiers Nazis.  That seems to be what you want people to believe.  To quote the Al-Jazeera article again (you know, the one you yourself linked to! [but didn't bother to excerpt]):

A US senator has refused to apologise for comparing the actions of US soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis, while others have decried or defended the mandate and method used to hold prisoners there.

Nor did they have to misinterpret his words when they put in this direct quote from him:

"This administration should apologise to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorising torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," Durbin had said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

But hey, since you've identified me as a collaborator with Al Jazeera trying to fool the public about what Durbin said, the people shouldn't take my word for it; they should decide for themselves.  Who are they gonna believe: John Cole or their own lyin' eyes?

I'm sure you are all familiar with statements by various Republican Senators, Congressmen and other public figures mentioning Nazis. I must of missed the outcry over these:

Grover Norquist saying estate taxes are the "morality of the Holocost" and "The Nazis were for gun control, the Nazis were for high marginal tax rates.... Do you want to talk about who's closer politically to national socialism, the Right or the Left?"

OK, he's not an elected official. How about:

Sen. James Inhofe on the Kyoto Treaty, that it "...would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and communism flourished."

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, again on taxes: "Now, forgive me, but that is right out of Nazi Germany. I don't understand ... why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany."

And then Rep. (now Senator) Tom Cole that voting against the re-election of President Bush is like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two.

Now you may tell me these are out of context. Fine, show me the context. But if you say "that is different" you are a hypocrite.

I think that anybody using the word "Nazi" in an American political statement is being silly. But why is a politician being silly such a surprise?

If U.S. soldiers captured during a conflict had been treated this way, I'd be upset, yes. Why? Because (a) they're my countrymen, and -- much more significantly -- (b) they're soldiers, and thus entitled to POW status and the protections it entails.

As opposed to Gitmo detainees, who are neither my countrymen, nor -- again, much more significantly -- soldiers entitled to POW status and the protections it entails.

I simply cannot be moved to outrage over this. I'm sorry; I just can't. Like Lileks, I don't want us beating these people until they pee blood, but if we have to make them a little uncomfortable to either get them to talk or to keep them in line, I do not see it as particularly problematic. And I certainly do not believe it places Gitmo's guards in the same phylum as Nazis.

I know this bothers you. I know you've convinced yourself that it's somehow a grievous affront to our national dignity if we fail to afford these people all the comforts and procedural protections we'd provide to ordinary POWs or even criminal defendants. I believe you've convinced yourself of this chiefly in order to throw mud at your political opponents from what you take to be the moral high ground, but whatever:

I think you are very wrong.

... for the honest answer.

FWIW, I find your lack of concern troubling, but I recognize that the "pale" varies between people. It would have been nice if you'd been able to recognize this as well instead of making up some pseudo-psychological theory according to which I'm essentially deluding myself.

It also would have been nice if we could have had that honesty up front, instead of wasting time on debating Durbin's words. I mean, if you'd just said "I really don't care that much about that", it would have been obvious that it's impossible to find an interpretation all can agree upon.

Okay, John, so far as I can tell, there are three basic areas in which your post is dead wrong. I'll do my best to dispatch them, in no particular order.

First, your breathless contention that Censure is some off-the-wall equivalent of a nuclear bomb landing in the Senate. If you're interested in the history of Censure in the Senate, I've provided one here. Nine senators have been censured in history - for reasons ranging from reading classified documents into the record, campaign finance flaps, abuse of power, and yes, even political reasons (See McCarthy, Joe). There have been far more Senators who have actually been expelled, or resigned under the threat of expulsion, most for siding with the confederacy during the time of the Civil War.

The point of this history and legal lesson is that what we're basically advocating here is that the Senate tells Durbin that he's been behaving badly. We're not advocating that Durbin be caned, or paraded through the public square in shackles, or heaven forbid left in a room where the A/C is cranked all the way up without his shoes on.

It's frankly absurd for you to charge those of us who advocate censure as "going overboard" in some bizarre partisan torture job. A Senate resolution for censure doesn't carry the legal force of a darn thing, except to say that the Senate itself is pretty well disgusted with what Senator X did, and they don't like it. If you don't think that's an appropriate response to Durbin's remarks, you're entitled to your opinion, but to imply that we're all behaving like a bunch of "kids" as opposed to you mature "adults" who have a more sophisticated view of the world, is just flat out ludicrous.

Which brings me to point number two. You'll notice that I've taken exception to being called a "kid" despite the fact that you never specifically used the word "kid" to describe me or anyone else calling for censure. However, I doubt that anyone else who read your post would come away understanding that you meant anything else when you included in the title of your post, "Thank goodness the adults are in charge."

The point is that implications matter, and it insults the intelligence of everyone who listens to you to come along later and pretend that they don't. Okay, so Durbin never said our soldiers/administration/whoever you blame for this incident are Nazis, or Stalinists, or Khmer Rouge. Fine. I never said he did. But in saying that their actions are more consistent with Nazis than with Americans, it is a valid and necessary implication of his statement that in his judgment, they were behaving like Nazis/Stalinists/The Khmer Rouge. If I tell you I'm going to the store to pick up 2 apples, and then 2 more, I can't come back later and say, "I never said I was going to get four apples from the store."

You don't need classes in semantics, logic or hermeneutics to understand this. People are plenty capable of connecting the dots themselves. When Al-Jazeera repeats the piece, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're distorting it. When a self-described liberal editorial cartoonist interprets Durbins comments thusly, you gotta say, it's a pretty clear message.

Trent Lott couldn't come along later and say that he was talking about Strom Thurmond's plan to lower the capital gains tax when he praised his Presidential run, and Durbin can't come along later and say he didn't mean what he clearly did mean, either. And yes, I've read the speech, the whole ridiculous thing, in its context. And yes, I've also read the FBI report as a standalone. That absolutely does not change the fact of what the man said - context can really only do so much. And it also doesn't change the fact that an elected official of this country, especially one of such prominence, should be a darn sight more careful in choosing his words, if he doesn't want to be "misunderstood" so fundamentally.

Which brings us to point three, upon which I have come to understand that there is a fundamental difference between myself and many people. I've visited prisons before and seen the conditions that people live in. I've read correspondence with some of my converted Christian brethren who are currently behind bars and read about the conditions that they currently live in, and by comparison, granting the absolute truthfulness of every story coming out of Gitmo, Gitmo is a cakewalk.

I don't advocate torture. I don't advocate that we attack electric nodes to their genitals and shock them until they talk, or burn parts of their bodies alive, or torture their children in front of them - you know, things the actual Nazis would do. But in my own narrowminded provincialism, I'm a lot more concerned about the way our own citizens are treated in prison than I am about the folks at Gitmo, and there you have it.

And further, Durbin's idiotic remarks indicate one of two things about him as a person. Either, he is unaware of the prevalent conditions in prisons in the United States, or he is aware, and doesn't care. In either circumstance, he finds it more worth his while to berate the administration over the comparatively mild treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo - which leads me to firmly believe that he doesn't really care, he's just trying to score political points. If you think he's genuinely concerned, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to try and sell you some of my real estate interests in Arizona. And the fact that he would use this irresponsible and inciendary rhetoric not over an actual grievance, but rather to score political points is totally inexcusable, and worthy of official condemnation by the Senate.

I don't think it was a "waste of time", frankly. As I have said before, inapposite Nazi comparisons are tantamount to Holocaust denial. I think it's absolutely crucial to publicly shame people who promulgate such rot.

Who said these were not stupid, and for the most part, reprehensible remarks? Who here has defended those remarks while condemning Durbin? I don't know of anyone but if you do then please feel free to correct me here in public in front of God and everyone; I will take my licks.

But sir, the question before this house is the remarks made by Senator Durbin. Citing other remarks, made by other people, at other times, in other places, on other subjects, and claiming that not condemning them in the course of this conversation renders criticism of Durbin illegitimate is foolish, childish and illogical.

For the record, in my humble opinion, any American politician, or person in the public light (Norquist), who invokes the Holocaust as a casual "throwaway" line about taxes is an irresponsible fool. Any American politic an who invokes Nazis in any context other than Nazis is a fool and deserves to be roundly criticized. Any American politician who will not condemn such remarks made by someone of their party or the opposition is a coward and a charlatan.

Happy now?

Now sir, can we go back to discussing Senator Durbin's vile, reprehensible comparison of American behavior at Gitmo to that of Nazis, Soviets or Pol Pot?

The other warning, profanity is not tolerated.

Regards

Same talking-points, same troll-rating

First, your breathless contention that Censure is some off-the-wall equivalent of a nuclear bomb landing in the Senate. If you're interested in the history of Censure in the Senate, I've provided one here. Nine senators have been censured in history - for reasons ranging from reading classified documents into the record, campaign finance flaps, abuse of power, and yes, even political reasons (See McCarthy, Joe). There have been far more Senators who have actually been expelled, or resigned under the threat of expulsion, most for siding with the confederacy during the time of the Civil War.

I am well aware of the Senate history, having written about it myself.  And if there is a prize involved, I can even tell you the last person censured, without having to use the link.  I can even tell you that a certain Senator from Connecticut has a father censured.

It's frankly absurd for you to charge those of us who advocate censure as "going overboard" in some bizarre partisan torture job. A Senate resolution for censure doesn't carry the legal force of a darn thing, except to say that the Senate itself is pretty well disgusted with what Senator X did, and they don't like it.

It is frankly absurd to censure a Senator remarks you don't like.  And if all cesnure is for is to tell someone you don't like what he has said- is that really necessary?  Certainly seems like plenty of people have told Durbin they don't like what he said.  I would leave censure for actual malfeasance rather than perceived slights.

But in saying that their actions are more consistent with Nazis than with Americans, it is a valid and necessary implication of his statement that in his judgment, they were behaving like Nazis/Stalinists/The Khmer Rouge.

He didn't even say that.

He said, quite simply, if you did not know that X behavior had been done by Y, you might think it had been done by Z.  I will say it, though- if the actions described are true, they are more consistent with behavior from a nasty regime than they are with the overall great treatment we afford the detainees.

Noting that some people in the military have stepped over the line of acceptable behavior is not an indictment of the entire military or the country.  It really isn't, no matter how strongly you feel about it, and I don't know why you wantto keep handing propaganda victories to the enemy.

If you think Durbin handed Al Jazeera a coup, wait until they report that the response from the Senate was not to take the claims seriously, but to punish the Senator.  That will be swell.

I've read correspondence with some of my converted Christian brethren who are currently behind bars and read about the conditions that they currently live in, and by comparison, granting the absolute truthfulness of every story coming out of Gitmo, Gitmo is a cakewalk.

Which still does not justify malfeasance.  While it is a good thing that Gitmo detainees are treated well (and it would be a good thing if our prisons at home were run as well), it doesn't excuse the fact that some awful things are taking place. I would think the path of least resistance and greatest benefit would be to simply investigate. acknowledge the shortcomings where they exist, and move on.

When I go to the doctor with a sore throat and a cough, I don't want to hear about how bad the previous patient had it.  I don't want to know all the awful things that could be happening to me.  I want the problem fixed.

In either circumstance, he finds it more worth his while to berate the administration over the comparatively mild treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo - which leads me to firmly believe that he doesn't really care, he's just trying to score political points. If you think he's genuinely concerned, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to try and sell you some of my real estate interests in Arizona. And the fact that he would use this irresponsible and inciendary rhetoric not over an actual grievance, but rather to score political points is totally inexcusable, and worthy of official condemnation by the Senate.

I harbor no warm thoughts for Dick Durbin- remember, this is the guy who, with Harry Reid, wanted to make a capital case out of Jeff Gannon.  And I thought right away how stupid it was even to use the word Nazi- just like it was stupid for Santorum last month.  But to simply decide that he is playing political games and dismiss the message in a pursuit of our own political games is no solution at all.

Some might say that is childish.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was abused as a child. He was regularly beaten and punched. Therefore you cannot convict him of simple assault, since this is not as bad as a beating. In fact I reckon my client can assault whoever he wants  whenever he wants because he was beaten as a child.

This is a different country than the one I grew up in. I don't remember people proudly bragging that we weren't quite as bad as the Nazis. This wasn't something anyone boasted about- it was just taken for granted. It makes me very sad to see Americans reduced to enumerating all the methods of torture that this country hasn't inflicted on anyone yet. How the mighty have fallen.

unfortunately

So we can agree on a resolution jointly censuring Senators Durbin, Inhofe and Santorum (forgot him in my first post)? I'd even agree to an automatic censure to any Senator mentioning Nazi's unless directly commenting on the events of 1932-1945.

Remember when you were a kid and there was one piece of cake you had to share with your brother? My Dad always used the rule, "one cuts, the other chooses." What does this have to do with anything? It says to me "if places were switched, would you feel the same?"

If the FBI agent's description was of the treatment of an American captive (military or not) I would be outraged and I think (I hope!) most here would. So unless you believe the FBI agent,  Sean Baker and all the other reports are lies, then where is the outrage at what is being done in our name?

In Europe, "patriotism" is loyalty to a particular piece of ground, a ruling house, to a particular tribe. To me, American patriotism has nothing to do with any of these. It is loyalty to the idea that we are trying to be the best at what we do, be it politics, science, sports, whatever. We are not perfect: we make mistakes, individually and collectively. But hopefully we learn from them, make corrections, try to avoid repeating them. That is America to me.

You may say these allegations are false, made up, purely propaganda. That is entirely your right (but I would argue you are in denial and reality will bite you one day). But to admit they are true and to say it doesn't matter, is to me, the un-American stand, not bringing them to light.

It is frankly absurd to censure a Senator remarks you don't like.  And if all cesnure is for is to tell someone you don't like what he has said- is that really necessary?  Certainly seems like plenty of people have told Durbin they don't like what he said.  I would leave censure for actual malfeasance rather than perceived slights.

It is not that they are a matter of distaste to me, personally. I dislike virtually every remark that comes out of Ted Kennedy's mouth. Harry Reid's, too. I've never advocated the censure of either. But I certainly am of the belief that rhetoric can go too far, and can be damaging to the integrity of both the Senate and the country if it is left unchallenged, and that is my grievance in this case.

To use a Southernism, your "druthers" are that censure would be left for things like Senators who pilfer campaign funds into their own personal accounts. My "druthers" are that the Senate could, by their own decision, "condemn" (censure) any Senator who they deem has disgraced their institution, for virtually any reason.

Your "druthers" do not make you more adult than me.

He said, quite simply, if you did not know that X behavior had been done by Y, you might think it had been done by Z.

You are again missing a necessary and valid implication of that very statement. The necessary implication involved here is, the person committing behavior X is behaving in a manner consistent with person Z. Otherwise the logical foundation that caused you to make the implication involved in your first statement would not have existed.

This point is the fundamental thing that you are missing about Durbin's remarks. Until we come to terms on it, you'll no doubt dismiss out of hand most of the rest of what I'll have to say.

If you think Durbin handed Al Jazeera a coup, wait until they report that the response from the Senate was not to take the claims seriously, but to punish the Senator.  That will be swell.

This logic is even more screwy. Is it your actual contention that the correct response here is to say, "Yeah, you know what, our behavior is consistent with the Nazis. We need to fix that." You think that's a better PR move for the Arab Street? If a spurious report of a Koran being flushed down a toilet generates bloody riots, how will the endorsement of a prominent Senator making those remarks go over, do you think?

If you want to make some move to address the issues that you perceive are going on in Gitmo, that's certainly fine. But it's fallacious to assume that the acceptance of this ridiculous and inflammatory rhetoric is part and parcel of that package. We are certainly capable of addressing grievances at Gitmo without giving approval to someone who makes wildly irresponsible remarks, can we not?

Which brings us to the point of the treatment of the prisoners. Really and seriously, would I want to be treated the way that some of the Gitmo prisoners are being treated right now?

Absolutely not, I wouldn't. Which is why I don't engage in behavior that puts me in those situations. FWIW, the single legitimate grievance I believe the Gitmo residents have is the denial of access to some kind of forum where they can make the case that they don't belong there. If it can be established that they are being held with legitimate cause, their beef goes flying out the window, and I'll tell you why.

Prison is an uncomfortable place. It's supposed to be. It's well advertised as one. That's why it works as a deterrent. You don't want to go Parchman, where they'll leave you in your cell for days at a time with no A/C in the summer, and you get to make best friends with the serial rapist sharing a room with you? Then you don't commit the crime that gets yourself sent there. It's that simple.

These prisoners are being held in Gitmo indefinitely for the specific reason that their actions on the field of battle placed them in legal limbo. Nobody made them fight out of uniform, fight for a group not sanctioned by the government of their country against a sovereign nation, use civilians as shields, etc. They made their choice to forfeit their GC rights, and here they are.

Now, as a decent people, I don't advocate that we use actual torture on them, or put them in pain for no reason at all. But when I read the descriptions that Durbin read into the record, I honestly didn't think, "Whoa. Must have been some Nazis doing that."

I thought, "Sounds like prison to me."

And upon further reflection I thought, "It sounds like a prison that's probably a whole lot better than any they have in Afghanistan." They knew the choice they were making, and I'll bet that many of them are frankly surprised at their accomodations. For God's sake John, THEY ARE GETTING FAT IN OUR "TORTURE CHAMBER".

If this sounds like the treatment of some nasty regime to you, then I'm glad to let you be the "adult" in this conversation.

John Cole wrote:

He said, quite simply, if you did not know that X behavior had been done by Y, you might think it had been done by Z.

Actually no, what Durbin said was:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

"Most certainly believe this must have been done" is quite a bit more definitive than "might think."

The underlying assumption of his actual remark was not that the person committing behavior X is behaving in a manner consistent with person/group Z, he actually said that behavior X is limited to person/group Z.

Therefore, someone committing behavior X necessarily belongs to group Z (in this case, the Nazis, Stalinists, or Khmer Rouge).

The argument you constructed in which we should censure Hagel and McCain for making remarks that we don't like won't stand on its own either.

I have been perhaps the most outspoken, rabid critic of McCain on this site, but I've never called for his censure, because I am capable of understanding the difference between something that is objectionable to me politically (such as saying we are losing the war in Iraq and ought to get out), and something that is damaging to the nation as a whole and the Senate as a smaller portion of it.

So you don't think that the actions described so far are as bad as, say, beating prisoners. I can accept that. Unfortunately, Americans have done that very thing as well.

For example, here's a story about an American soldier, a guard at Guantanamo, who was acting as an uncooperative prisoner in a training exercise. The guard squad did not know it was a training exercise, and beat him to the point where he suffered brain damage.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.gitmo19jun19,1,5168437.
story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Genuine prisoners have also been beaten, in some cases so severely as to cause their death:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/tort-a26.shtml

What do you have to say now?

is that none of those remarks does anything to affect our national security.

Durbin handed a nice piece of propaganda into the hands of o