Michael, below, echoes some of the frustration that many of us are feeling about the torture debate:
Thanks to Feinstein and Schumer, someone who can’t even tell us what torture is will likely be the next Attorney General.
Andrew Sullivan also ripped a full-throated assault aimed at the Dems the other day:
They both intend to vote for Mukasey, despite his refusal to state that torture, as practised by this administration, is illegal. Every time the Democrats fold on these matters, Cheney tucks a precedent under his belt. Every time they cave into their cowardice and fear, another critical part of our liberty disappears. These precedents are designed to destroy the rule of law and replace it with the rule of a Decider. And they will last for ever, as will the right to torture, because this war is for ever. This is how democracies perish. The rule of law no longer has any party to defend it. The Republicans want no check on the powers of our de facto protectorate. And the Democrats have no spine. We live under the lawless protectorate we deserve. And such lawlessness is always the result when cowards refuse to confront bullies.
While I think we can all agree that the Democrats are supremely spineless, it is important to remember who is to blame here- the Republican party. The Democrats are not the ones creating this situation. It is not democrats running around saying cute things like “You want torture illegal, then ban it!” or “We only torture a little bit!” Those are the Republican position. What the Democrats are guilty of is failing to stop a corrupt and immoral party from doing whatever the fuck it wants. they are not, however, responsible for the torture.
In short, blaming the Democrats for this is not unlike blaming the FDA because someone is slipping poison into Tylenol bottles.
Wilfred
Have you also become a Jesuit as well as a Democrat? Your distinction seems like hair-splitting to me. If someone can stop a wrong from taking place and doesn’t, ethically they are culpable.
Jess
I agree, John, but there’s another factor to consider here. The Republicans supporting torture were elected by those who wanted them to be like Jack Bauer. The Dems by those who wanted them to rein in those excesses. So which group is doing the job it was elected to do?
cleek
i’ve said it before, but i’ll say it again (because i like the sound of my fingers on the keyboard): i believe there are a number of Dems who simply want the outcomes they’re getting. the could fight this (or the FISA stuff, or the Iraq deadlines, etc.) if they wanted to; but they simply don’t want to.
maybe they think torture works. maybe they somehow think whatever we’re doing really isn’t torture (because we’re the good guys and only bad guys torture?). maybe they think it’s torture but it’s OK because someone somewhere did something bad.
i’m sure some of them are afraid of a “soft on terror” accusation, but not all of them.
Buck
Wilfred is correct here.
Basically the same argument can be used towards Pelosi’s decision to take impeachment off the table. It’s not her place to do so! And the old, worn out argument about margins of majority simply don’t figure in here. The Constitution is clear on matters of impeachment. Pelosi simply decided to ignore it.
It’s the “trying to do right” that counts.
smiley
I agree with cleek — in part. The democrats are doing what they’re doing because they assume their next election opponent will be the same bush-policy follower as the current crop of republicants. They’re afraid of supplying ammunition for their next opponent. What if the republicants wise up and start running against bush’s most repugnant policies, which are tacitly, at least, being supported by the democrats?
sevenleagueboots
Feingold to Oppose Mukasey
Just posted at TalkingPointsMemo Blog
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Buck
During Washington’s day, didn’t the British have us outnumbered on the battlefield?
Thank God George didn’t have any Pelosi blood coursing through his veins.
Libby Spencer
I think you’re wrong John. The Dems took co-ownership when they voted to pass every bill Bush insisted on to legitimize and condone his illegal activities. Since they took power they have not only failed to push an alternate agenda, they failed to block the GOP’s continued hold on the process. Reid and Pelosi have it in their power to keep bad legislation from even getting to the floor and consistently have ignored their ability to do so.
I think a better analogy would be that you can’t blame the FDA because some nutcake poisoned the Tylenol, but you can hold them responsible if they fail to get it off the shelves because they didn’t poison it themselves.
jcricket
It is a bit like blaming the victims of a bully for not fighting back.
However, I don’t think the Dems are blameless. I think the formulation is simple
Republicans are primarily to blame.
* For the torture itself.
* For the tortured (pun intended) legal theories that attempt to circumvent international obligations the US has signed on to.
* For making people think that the WOT is like an episode of 24
* For making this debate about individual methods, rather than the idea that America ought to be (on principle) above this – or the terrorists really have won.
Democrats are to blame for not standing up (since they’re not powerless) and voting in good conscience to draw a bright line between what America does and does not stand for. This are complicated times, but this issue is simple, and fear of seeming soft or worrying about some political calculus is blinding Dems from doing the right thing.
That’s not acceptable, but anyone who lets the Republicans off the hook can go to fucking hell. No wait, they can go to Gitmo and enjoy some vacation time.
Buck
How can you “fight the good fight”, if you have your hands shoved deep into your own pockets?
Losing a fight is one thing. Laying down, taking a beating and not throw narry a punch to protect yourself – to protect what’s right – is pretty damn wimpy.
America deserves better representation than what we have.
JGabriel
I’m with John Cole on this one. Blaming the Democratic Party, or all the Democratic Senators and Representatives, for the votes of the few that capitulate to Republican bullying and immorality is getting it ass backwards.
nightjar
The first part of your statement cleek, I’m sorry, but I don’t agree at all. In fact, the vast majority of dems have voted to do the right thing on these issues. The main problem are the so called blue dogs who are terrified of getting tagged with the “soft on terror’ label. I think they are way too fearfull given the current politicall climate, but to some degree, their fears are valid for their conservative leaning districts.
Then there are those like Feinstein, who seem to have either lost their minds or are politicking for favors with repubs. These dems, who are relatively few in number, can and have thwarted the SLIM majorities dems have in congress. They deserve the full wrath of their liberal constituents.
However, the scattergun approach that too many liberals apply to all dem leaders is a baffling characteristic of the democratic party and I think detrimental to the cause.
The cold truth remains that Bush still has the veto stamp
and the dems have to get super majorities to win any vote of consequence.
And I don’t believe any dem congress person favors waterboarding of any form of torture.
capelza
I agree completely.
When something like 52% of the country thinks bombing Iran is NOT a bad idea, some are going to cave. It pisses me off to no end, but it isn’t all Democrats. It’s not like our critters vote in a bloc or anything…is that good or bad…I’m not sure.
My Dem Seantor is Wyden, how can I be mad at him?
cleek
i know i wasn’t clear about it, but those are the Dems i’m talking about: the Schumers and Feinsteins who sit in important spots on important committees.
not one? if that’s true, then the only other options are:
1. they don’t believe we’re doing it in the first place. and therefore feel that they have no need to stand up and oppose things like this.
2. they somehow managed to get elected and earn spots on powerful committees but at the same time they totally fail to understand that they can simply vote No on certain things that they don’t like. they’re great politicians but don’t understand what sitting on the Judiciary committee involves.
3. opposition to torture means less to them than avoiding demagogic charges of “Soft On Terror”. or maybe they’re honoring some back room tit-for-tat agreements which only benefit the parties involved. either way, there’s not much morality there.
The Truffle
Schumer didn’t “cave.” I think he always planned to vote for Mukasey. Honestly, the party needs to weed out these Bush enablers. I don’t think they’re “caving.” I think they see eye to eye with the president on a lot of things.
However, I suspect the movement conservatives will be in for a big surprise when and if we get a Democratic president and (as is projected) a bigger Democratic majority in Congress. Imagine, say, a President Hillary Clinton with these kinds of powers. Think they’ll still believe in executive power then?
jcricket
The only people worse than the Blue Dog Dems and the “moderate Republicans” who mainly provide cover for all the radical Republican policies time and again. Spectering is capitulation/appeasement in the worse form.
jcricket
I wonder if these retired JAG guys have a book tour planned. That must be it.
Yep. Not complex at all. Torture. Morally, ethically, legally wrong. To suggest otherwise is repugnant and short-sighted.
jake
I call Bullshit and Bad Analogy.
This isn’t a case of one organization doing its job as best it can and an outside individual coming along to fuck it up. In your example, the pills were good when they left the factory so of course no one could blame the FDA or Tylenol. “No one could have possibly foreseen…” really does apply here. This is more like Vioxx. The product was dangerous when it left the factory, the people who created the product knew it was dangerous and they unleashed it on the public anyway.
PotD.
There are people running this country who think the U.S. can exist even if you eradicate the core principles on which it was created. Those people are dumb, dangerous fucks and I wouldn’t trust them to collect garbage.
If you want to assign blame on the individual level (rather than say “The Democrats”), fine. But you also have to do the same for the Republicans.
And no, I can’t believe I just said that either.
Jinchi
Imagine, say, a President Hillary Clinton with these kinds of powers. Think they’ll still believe in executive power then?
But that’s the whole point. This country and it’s leaders are supposed to stand for rule-of-law not rule-of-men.
Partisan Republicans will scream bloody murder if a President Hillary gets these powers. But they’ll applaud loudly and demand more if President Rudy takes over. I don’t take any comfort in knowing that Republicans will support their team 100% regardless of the offense and oppose the Democrats 100% regardless of virtue.
nightjar
Ok. I don’t know of one dem who has claimed out loud that waterboarding is either not torture or that it works. None of us can read minds, but I stick with my assertion that the motivations of dems who side with Bush on torture issues, are not approval of these tactics, but fear of the ‘soft on terror” label. If they’re are examples that contradict what I’ve said, then I stand corrected.
Lieberman doesn’t count as a dem. He belongs to the “Lone Dumbass” party.
Mr. Sparkle
Good analogy
Better allegory:
Jinchi
If someone can stop a wrong from taking place and doesn’t, ethically they are culpable.
More to the point, Feinstein and Schumer aren’t sitting on the sidelines. They’re actively supporting Mukasey. If Democrats were in the minority and losing the good fight I’d applaud them, but too many are aiding and abetting.
Democrats have the votes to stop this nonsense. They deserve plenty of blame for not doing everything in their power to end it.
Jinchi
And I don’t believe any dem congress person favors waterboarding of any form of torture.
I agree with Cleek, that’s a convenient, dodge. I honestly don’t care what they favor. I care what they do. If Feinstein votes like McConnell, she deserves the same contempt as he does.
nightjar
jinchi
You may not have read my first post on this issue concerning Feinstein and others on the issue of waterboarding and all forms of torture. Anyway, it looks like she has changed her mind, so kudos for her, at least on this issue.
MNPundit
Honestly I can’t even respond to this anymore. I’m so angry anything I say at this point will get flagged by the government internet trackers.
I hope people follow them around for the rest of their god damned lives reminding them that they support human torture.
laneman
….
…..
the fact that people are getting all excited about a TV show about a moron is telling.
RSA
Well, yeah, they’re guilty of failing to prevent the wrong, but not of committing it. (Traditionally there’s a distinction between commission and omission.) To throw yet another analogy into the pot, imagine a security guard who has the drop on a bank robber but freezes and lets the robber get away. We can accuse the guard of various things (cowardice, dereliction of duty, etc.) but we don’t charge him with bank robbery.
Jinchi
Nightjar.
Russ Feingold is not Diane Feinstein.
Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer haven’t changed their minds publicly yet. Let’s hope they do.
That said, we’ll see how many Democrats vote for Mukasey when his nomination hits the floor. Based on this summer’s FISA legislation my bet is 20-30.
That’s no longer a few bad apples.
Chris Johnson
How do we know the Democrats are not fearful, not of public opinion, but fearful of their PERSONAL safety?
I don’t think most of these guys are especially courageous. If I was Karl Rove, and Democrats asked me about the deaths of Mel Canrahan and Paul Wellstone, I would just SMILE A LOT. It wouldn’t even matter if I hadn’t done a thing to kill those men. It would seem as if I could have any Democrat that angered me, killed. And they’d never cross me, and it would take many years for them not to believe there were shadowy operatives out there in my pay.
I’m not talking specifically, literally a Bush Mafia (although, hello? Blackwater, mercenaries, tame voting machine companies?). I don’t think it has to be established that Democrats crossing Bush are in danger of being executed.
You only have to make people afraid, and Senators are people. With all the effort coming from the Bush Administration to scare the public, does it not make sense that they could still scare Dem senators who work with them every day? There could be a lot of subtext going on, and when you get right down to it, these guys have killed a LOT OF PEOPLE already. What’s a few civil servants on top of all that? When you’re looking at being tried for war crimes and the slaughter of whole countries, surely it seems relatively unimportant to scare the shit out of Democrat civil servants?
jake
Except this isn’t a life or death situation, the “guard,” works with the “robber” every damn day and doesn’t just “freeze” while the thief makes off with a bag of loot, he holds the fucking door for him and tells him to have a nice day. In that case you bet the guard would be at least an accessory to the crime.
Wilfred
But Schumer and Feinstein occupy two of the safest Senate seats imaginable, elected by vast majorities in states with equally vast Democratic majorities. How can they worried about the ‘soft on terrorism’ rap?
Cinderella Ferret
True. But … the average Joes or Janes are concerned about losing their life in a terrorist attack. Right or wrong that is what the noise machine induced paranoia benefits from. Democrats in the Congress are paranoid. Indeed. They are worried about losing their seat of Power. They are much more concerned about losing the Power that comes with being a DC insider. They have not shown one iota of moral integrity, nor a willingness to sacrifice personal Power for the good of the Country. That is, in a nutshell, how I see it from my fortified compound in the badlands of New Mexico. Too many Bosses, not enough Leaders.
Bruce Baugh
I went to the Talking Points Memo link, and have to say: this is what not being part of the problem looks like. If he sticks to the decision announced in that quote, Feingold will be doing exactly the right things – saying the truth, and then following up with action. A Democratic Party whose members reliably did that would not be part of the problem.
nightjar
My bad. I thought sure I saw Feinstein changed on a wingnut blog. Oh well, she’s back in the dem doghouse. Alright jinchy, we’ll wait for the vote. I’ll bet no more than 10 vote yes, unless Mukasey makes a public statement that waterboarding is torture and illegal.
wilford, maybe you didn’t read my earlier post so here it is again.
I didn’t include Schumer because he painted himself in a corner by praising Mukasey before the hearings. I suspect, he’s spent the weekend trying to figure out to unfuck himself on this one.
Soliton
One minor point:
The Anthrax mailer is still on the loose after sending highly refined, weaponized anthrax that came from government bioweapons labs to key members of Congress.
Congress has shown a truly remarkable lack of interest in finding out just who was responsible for infecting two of its top members with a deadly disease. Recall that the only reason Schumer and Leahy survived the anthrax was because there were warning notes enclosed.
Meanwhile the White House staff was on Cipro *before* the anthrax mailings.
“Such beautiful grandchildren you have, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to them”.
Those who are willing to kill hundreds of thousands for personal gain are unlikely to balk at the killing of a few more.
Soliton
Umm… That was supposed to be *Daschle* and Leahy..
Brain fart.. Get to my age and that’s about all you have left.
cynn
You can directly blame the paralyzed democrats. They’re worthless.
Justin
You’re right about this John, and ultimately here the Democratic party’s real failing (or at least the failing of the DLC-oriented officeholders) is the inability to work together effectively in opposition to the “unitary executive theory” presidency, or what John Dean called “the Imperial Presidency on steroids.” How these two Senators (Schumer and Feinstein can be so arrogant and self-absorbed at such a crucial time is beyond my fathoming. They should be cut down by primary challenges as soon as possible.
However, ad you said, we should remember that not so long ago, before the Bush administration, torture was considered off-limits in America and we (rightly) criticized foreign despots for practicing it. Now we can’t bring it up because it would raise those troublesome questions like “so why do we do it?” If America is to ever learn anything from this mess, it must know what lies at the heart of the Republican party. If anything is clear by now, it’s that they do not intend to slow down and refuse to be bound by law of any kind. How can they ever be trusted with power again?
Jinchi
I think we need to remember the scale of torture that we’re talking about here. Remember that John Yoo, author of the original torture memos, legal advisor the the president and now Professor of Law at U.C. Berkeley stated, on the record, that he thought the president had the right to crushing the testicles of the child of a terrorist suspect – if the president thought he needed to do that.
We could make it a little less offensive by giving it a cute name, like the Nutcracker. How could you be against anything that reminds kids of the magic of Christmas morning?
Is this still considered out of bounds? Or does Mukasey need Congress to write a law specifically outlawing this specific procedure to prohibit it?
In fact, I’d like to know if the Republican candidates would be willing to crack the nut of the 2 year old son of Osama bin Laden in order to prevent a nuclear attack on the MegaMart in Lincoln, Nebraska. I mean we don’t want to see another 3000 Americans dead. Right Rudy?
When’s the next FOX debate?
Captain USA
No, it’s more like blaming the government from failing to protect you from terrorists. Evil people exist. We don’t rely on them to protect us from themselves.
bago
Becoming a democrat is a brilliant strategy to truly loathe the democrats.
sparky
Fortunately, fafblog can explain the difference between the point in this post and the party itself.
sparky
Linky didn’t work. Sorry.
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/fafblog-interviews-democratic-party.html
jenniebee
Oh goody. Ours is the party of Van Papen. Makes a girl proud.
crack
Cleek:
Those aren’t the only options. What happens if Mukasey isn’t approved? Does that magically stop waterboarding? Does it magically start prosecutions of those who have waterboarded? If the Senate never approves a replacement then the acting AG just keeps on keeping on.
Bush is the problem, short of impeachment he won’t stop torturing. And then Cheney comes in and we all wish for the days of waterboarding.
Mukasey is a stupid place to take a stand. Impeach Bush and Cheney and approve Mukasey the best of terrible options.
Chris Andersen
I think it is also a mistake to blame all Democrats for begin wussies. A lot of good Dems stuck their necks out in an attempt to derail Mukasey’s nomination. But the margins are show narrow in the Senate that all it takes is 1-2 wimps to paint the entire party as being spineless.
Why is why we need more and BETTER Dems.
blognround
this is an erroneous hairsplit…. IMHO
members of congress jointly legislatively steer the country through their acts of commission or omission. if bad or suspect legislation is made law, congress and the president pass it….(except when Bush nullifies it via signing statements)
if no AG is more dangerous than an AG, then voting for one is a better ethical choice.
however, clearly, Mukasey can’t and won’t admit to torture, because is opens up prosecutable activities against the administration. thinking or hoping is would is nonsense.
So does this congress want an end to the current modus operandi of DOJ, no oversight, Gonzalez style leadership, GWOT. the answer is no, or they’d make different choices.
why, and what underlies their lack of courage… one can only speculate. nonsense… exactly when is it the right time to ‘take a stand’…. not in the future…. someday on that river…. denial….
Jinchi
Mukasey is a stupid place to take a stand. Impeach Bush and Cheney and approve Mukasey the best of terrible options.
Who said we only get to take one stand?
The point to be made is that the Senate shouldn’t approve anyone who doesn’t have a basic level of respect for the rule of law.
I don’t understand why this is such a tough concept for some people.
Jinchi
if no AG is more dangerous than an AG, then voting for one is a better ethical choice.
First of all, your statement is wrong. Do you think that everyone in the Justice Department has gone on vacation since Gonzales left?
For that matter, you’re basically arguing that the Senate should never have demanded Freddo’s resignation in the first place.