Once again, I didn’t watch the Sunday morning shows, but based on the line up, I’m sure John is right. Believe it or not, Peter King is considered the front-runner to be the Republican nominee for the New York State Senate in 2010. Kirsten Gillibrand is quaking in her boots, as you might expect.
In the interest of post-preservation, I’m passing on two notes not really connected with this anyway. Number one, I emailed my sister the Rumsfeld prayer cards and she emailed back, saying
Is that real, or is it like a Wonkette joke?
Number two, I heartily recommend Jim Hoagland’s piece on the detainee photos, which actually dares to speak sensibly about the issue, asserting that Obama probably has good reason to oppose their release, but that he’s wrong about it (up to a point).
Update. Those of you not from New York State might not be aware of what a jack ass Peter King is. Here’s some of his finest work, from 2006:
As we go through the city of Baghdad, it was like being in Manhattan. I mean, Iâm talking about bumper to bumper traffic, talking about shopping centers, talking about restaurants, talking about video stores, talking about guys selling (inaudible) on the street corner, talking about major hotels.
I think that compares favorably with the best of Bachmann’s and Steele’s oeuvre.
joe from Lowell
When reading King’s comparison of Baghdad to Manhattan, you have to keep in mind that they typical Republican’s image of New York City pretty much consists of a nightmare landscape of brown-skinned terrorist types and appalling acts of violence on every other street corner.
MattF
Rumor has always had it that Hoagland is the public ‘Voice of the CIA’. If so, the column is good news, in that it suggests that the “not crazy” faction in the CIA is speaking up.
bob h
Distribution of the prayer cards, together with the leaking of the new detainee abuse photos will do wonders in the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell: You forgot about the appalling acts of gay sex going on, too.
burnspbesq
Yes, Peter King is a horrific piece of trash, and it is hard to understand how the good people of Long Island continue to elect him to represent them in Congress.
However, I respectfully submit that my guy, Ed Royce (CA-40) is every bit as bad, if not worse. And there are plenty more, equally as bad, spread around the country.
This is why we pray for the speedy demise of the Republican Party.
passerby
I generally agree with Hoagland. From what I’ve read by him, he seems to be a reasonable man. But, he made a statement in his article that I don’t quite get:
But blanket suppression of words or images is bad policy, even if intentions are good. Censorship always stirs greater distrust than does disclosure. It can also be used to shield wrongdoers. This is why a negotiated settlement rather than a court order is the best course for the ACLU and the administration.
If stirring distrust and shielding wrongdoers is a bad thing, why would we not want a court order (application of law) vs. a negotiated settlement (application of special interests)?
Isn’t subjective, political interpretation of law what got us into this mess to begin with? I’m too jaded now to hear the “national security” and “keeping Americans safe” bullshit.
This issue has a legal component as well as a political component AND largely ignored international legal and political components. If the USA fails to indict those guilty of torture, what action will the International Courts take?
I’m for foregoing prosecution and would be happy to see an open airing of all evidence by a truth commission. We either have rule of law or we don’t.
Notorious P.A.T.
How many rifle companies were surrounding him as he strolled through New Yo–I mean, Baghdad?
DougJ
@passerby
I actually buy the stuff about the pictures inflaming public sentiment against the US. But I also buy that there’s some of it that legally you really have to release. And I see other arguments in favor of release as well. I guess I’m impressed to see an actual pundit say this.
(I don’t understand why a negotiated settlement is better, either, though.)
gbear
Ahh Bachmann. I’m smiling this morning knowing that I’m represented by a woman rated as one of the most liberal members of the house, and that Bachmann is representing the district right next door, an area of northern suburbs that I have never in my life considered calling ‘home’.
The Hoagland column was good.
kay
@passerby:
Because he’s worried about precedent. A negotiated settlement avoids that.
It’s a good point.
hal
Wasn’t there some conservatives who were going to Baghdad for radio, to prove it was a great and happy place? What ever happened with that? Maybe they were on the same tour as Peter King. Oh, and I’m from NYS and I still think D’amato is the worst. How many times did he apologize for insulting someone?
Joshua Norton
I’m talking about suicide bombers blowing up bumper to bumper traffic, talking about blowing up shopping centers, talking about blowing up restaurants, talking about blowing up video stores, talking about guys blowing up (inaudible) on the street corner, talking about blowing up major hotels.
Fixed.
JenJen
Here is another of Peter King’s more recent masterstrokes of deep thought:
“If we have another 2,000 people killed, I want Nancy Pelosi and George Soros, John Conyers and Pat Leahy to go to the funeral and say, ‘Your son was vaporized because we didn’t want to dump some guy’s head under water for 30 seconds.”
He forgot to add “… 183 times” after “… for 30 seconds” of course, but the point stands, no?
Speaking of which, why is it that anybody allows the GOP to get away with this “The Bush/Cheney torture policy kept us safe” line, when, by their own admission, they stopped waterboarding in 2003, maybe 2004? Why did they stop? And if they did stop, then, again, by their own logic, wouldn’t that mean that in their 2nd Term, Bush/Cheney failed to keep the nation safe? So, what, did we just get lucky during that last term, or did the terrorists just cut us a break?
And also, since John McCain thinks waterboarding is torture, and since John McCain also said he would close Gitmo, then, doesn’t it follow that former Vice President Cheney’s argument would not be different, even if the 2008 Election outcome had been different?
There are so many holes in the Cheney Argument that I just can’t believe nobody is out there driving Mack Trucks through them.
passerby
@kay:
But kay, what about the precedent that would be set by failing to bring these heinous, treasonous and, by all accounts, illegal acts to justice?
DougJ
Al D is practically a Democrat now. He’s actually a fairly shrewd politician. King is worse.
kay
@passerby:
Right. But you can look at it the other way. What if you lose?
Then there’s precedent towards a blanket prohibition. You don’t want that.
KG
@10: yeah, precedent is the issue. Especially if the decision goes against the ACLU.
kay
@passerby:
By “lose” I mean lose on the narrow issue of blocking release. Then there’s an opinion on that specific issue, and it doesn’t go your way, and you’re stuck with it, the next time you have a different set of facts and the gubmint wants to keep things covered up.
I think it’s smart to consider that.
passerby
@kay:
I agree we wouldn’t want a blanket prohibition.
But given the strength of the evidence, how could we lose?
Perhaps I’m not understanding what is meant by “negotiated settlement” because I’m not for protecting wrong doers, and withholding some of the photos doesn’t make sense…like being a little pregnant…one photo can incriminate just as well as all the photos so if you can publish one, then why not all?
wasabi gasp
If it was a wonkette joke, they would have been slammed as godless troop-haters.
kay
@passerby:
You’re too far out. We’re nowhere near where you are, in the process.
Obama is going to argue national security and the other side will argue public’s right to disclosure. Obama will try to distinguish pix, and other side will say pix are just like memos, because they woulda won on memos.
But, if the gubmint wins, Obama will seek to deny disclosure the next time, by reading the pix decision broadly, and applying it to whatever new horrors surface. Because that’s what the state does.
kay
@passerby:
The strength of the evidence will only be considered within the narrow context of the issue, and the issue is release of photos, not criminality.
Does your right to know trump Obama’s claim of state’s interest in blocking release?
These pictures were used as evidence, in adjudication of detainee abuse. That’s where they came from.
wasabi gasp
Rats, I didn’t complete my thought. Wonkette would have been slammed for conflating Christianity with the brutality of warfare endured by the troops just to exploit the crippling stupidity of the commander in chief.
JenJen
Oh, my! President Obama getting quite the ovation upon his introduction at Notre Dame! Alan Keyes must be very upset.
smiley
OT except that it’s about state politics. The Georgia state republican party met this weekend:
Right after a black man was elected president.
P.S. Love the former Chatham county chairman’s name.
kommrade reproductive vigor
passerby
@kay:
I guess I’m always too far out. From my view, way out here, the government has not always acted with best interest of rank and file Americans is mind. They live to cover their political asses and avoid butthurt on election day.
I’m not calling for a perp-walk, I just want this evidence to see sunshine. Those who are claiming that we just want to move on no doubt live in the Beltway and have probably been complicit or at least apathetic, which, in my view, is just as bad.
According to Hoagland’s piece:
The Pentagon has already provided the ACLU with full textual descriptions of what the photographs show — largely point-of-capture battlefield shots of injured prisoners — in the more than 200 cases that are involved, U.S. officials say.
They can release full textual descriptions but not the photos themselves. I’m sure the difference between the two has been parsed to death in courts around the country.
kay
@passerby:
I don’t know anything about federal law, or this issue, and I haven’t read any case law, so I have no idea who will prevail. I just know the fear of losing/precedent is a valid tactical concern.
I do know this: it takes a long time. I have state cases that take 2 years. Just give it a bit. See how it shakes out. It’s a big creaky machine, but once it starts rolling, it’s hard to stop.
smiley
OK, was he dying his hair during the campaign, is he dying it grayer now, or has he really started going gray since 11/4? At this rate he’ll have white hair by December.
Edited.
Nellcote
The Prez. just got a standing O when he received his honorary law thingy.
Joshua Norton
@passerby: Actually, in the world of you and me, just providing a description of the document is not even vaguely legal. In fact, when being served a subpoena for electronic data you can be required to submit the document in native format. Judges have ruled the metadata under the face of the image can be as useful as the document itself.
KG
Notre Dame’s president is giving a rather nice speech right now about the nature of Notre Dame and Catholic Universities.
Comrade Jake
Are you folks watching the ND commencement? Holy shit.
JenJen
@Comrade Jake: Yes, I’m watching. This is quite an interesting speech… is he the Chancellor, Provost, what do they call them…?
I thought it was strange that there were a number of boos from the audience when he spoke about President Obama helping to heal our difficult past, in terms of race. Very compelling speech (I see from KG’s post he is the President of Notre Dame. The students should be proud to have him.)
POTUS about to speak now!
ETA: He is SO good. “I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these Honorary Degrees are rather hard to come by. I am only 1 for 2 as President.”
Hey, who is the sour-puss priest they keep showing in the audience? Oh, first big disruption just happened…
Louise
Thanks for the cue to watch the ND commencement. My brain froze up after seeing the Rummy Prayer Cards (tm Balloon Juice) and I just now regained the ability to think coherently.
I mean…WTeverlovingF? Bible quotes on defense briefings? The one with the tank silhouetted against the sunset with a quote from Ephesians? The fact that this wasn’t thrown out of the Oval Office on day 1 tells you, horrifyingly, all you need to know about the Shrub. Gah.
KG
Nice little jab at ASU, there.
sgwhiteinfla
Great icebreaker over the honorary degree for Pres Obama
Max
From the reception those kids are giving Obama, I’d say the GOP better hope Palin has a few more kids, because they appear to have lost an entire generation.
Call me a sycophant if you will, but I really dig our President.
KG
Obama handles that so well. Wow, and the off the cuff jokes about it.
JenJen
@Max: Interesting part there where someone tried to shout down President Obama, and the graduating class started clapping in unison, a few of them standing. What were they chanting? They seemed to be organized in advance against that kind of disruption.
@Louise: Isn’t that slide show something? I would be very interested to hear John Cole’s take (hint, hint) on the recent talk that a large segment of our military has been co-opted by fundies. I think I read recently that the Air Force Academy, in particular, has been swept up.
JL
@JenJen: I could not understand what they were chanting. It’s a shame some feel that it is necessary to ruin the graduating Seniors special day.
KG
@40: I think they were chanting “We are ND”, natural reaction for that crowd.
smiley
@Comrade Jake: Not the whole thing. I’m outta there as soon as he gets serious.
tofubo
i’ve never got over king’s “it’s all over but the counting, and we’ll take care of the counting”
gwangung
@JenJen:
Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has been all over this for the past few years.
Here and here for starters.
JenJen
@gwangung: Thank you very much! I only recently began reading about the growing evangelical interest within our military. I’ll be off to read those links as soon as this speech by President Obama is over… it’s really quite good.
Martin
You’d almost think that 21 year-olds don’t want to go to war with their neighbors. Funny that.
sgwhiteinfla
This is one helluva speech. And its major egg on the face of those journos saying he would only mention abortion in passing.
JL
@sgwhiteinfla: I don’t think that I have seen a group of graduates so focused on a commencement speech before.
Of course Fox News will spin it in a negative way.
asiangrrlMN
@gbear: hey, gbear, are you the one from Betty’s district? If so, we are neighbors! I am in her district, too.
I think we can just automatically assume that anything a Republican congress person says these days is pure horseshit. It works for me.
sgwhiteinfla
JL
I keep seeing the people behind him nodding knowingly. Its definitely not just an act. These people are eating it all up. And for that matter so am I.
Comrade Jake
I still cannot believe we managed to elect this guy President.
Jason F
In terms of the detainee photos, I tend to think of President Obama’s decision in terms of the Rules of Evidence. Certainly, there are important differences between the question of whether to admit a particular piece of evidence in a trial and whether to release the photos to the general public, but the framework is similar.
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 is the general rule on what gets in to a trial (or out to the public, in our analogy). It provides:
So are these photos “relevant?” The definition of relevant comes from Federal Rule of Evidence 403:
What we are trying to determine here is whether our government crossed lines in its pursuit of terrorism; so these photos very clearly seem relevant. Under the FRE 402 standard, they should be “admitted into evidence,” which is to say published to the public. Case closed, right? Not quite. There are limits on FRE 402, the most pertinent of which is FRE 403:
And that, to me, is the $64,000 question. Sure, these photos are relevant. But they are also prejudicial, in the sense that they will inflame the world against us. And that inflamation may do more harm than the good that will be done by airing the truth of what the previous administration authorized. Does the prejudice here substantially outweigh the probative value? To me, that’s not an easy or obvious call. I tend to come down on the side of the administration on this one — I think that photos are inflamatory in a way textual descriptions are not, and that the probative value of the photos can mostly be met by textual descriptions of what we did. But I certainly understand how others can disagree. The bottom line for me is that this is very much not an easy decision, and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to make it.
JenJen
@sgwhiteinfla: Exactly. This is similar to “The Race Speech” in March of 2008, in the way it is addressing not just the issue of life, but the way we talk to each other about it.
@Comrade Jake: I even went to the Inauguration hoping it would cure me, but honestly, I still don’t believe this country elected this guy. Are you sure?
InflatableCommenter
Just dropped in to say, I got to hear the I Have A Dream speech live, and honestly, I never thought I’d hear the likes of that again
Barack’s speech today is not quite in that category, but I am pretty sure that this guy will make a speech of that caliber before he gets done. This one today is work of art, in terms of addressing an issue straight on and bringing people together, even if only for a few minutes.
In a few minutes, he has made months of blather and “controversy” seem not a little ridiculous.
JL
Front page of MSNBC
gbear
@InflatableCommenter:
Well the pundits have an answer for that. More blather. I bet that the talking heads twist themselves into pretzels doing the post-speech commentary.
@asiangrrlMN:
Are you in St Paul? I’m about a mile SW of downtown.
InflatableCommenter
@gbear:
I know, I am listening to Michael Steele flap his mouth right now on Fauxnews. Every syllable out of his mouth probably drives another 1000 voters away from the GOP, so God bless him, let him blather.
kay
Douglas Kmeic, who is a smart right wing Catholic lawyer and Obama supporter, is up against Steele, on FOX.
Steele is getting slaughtered. It would be merciful to end this, now, FOX. I mean, it’s fun, but cruel.
JenJen
@gbear:
I’m too in awe of that absolutely brilliant speech I just heard from the American President to come down from my cloud and change the channel, but let me guess?
Pat Buchanan in 5.. 4… 3… 2… ?
Comrade Jake
@kay:
Kmiec has more IQ points in his left pinky than Steele does in his entire cranium.
Comrade Jake
@JL:
From the article:
It did not sound like “Yes we can” to me, but it would be awesome if they really said that.
JenJen
@Comrade Jake: It didn’t sound anything like that to me, either. At first I thought they were chanting, “Let him speak.” But when KG wrote above that they might be chanting “We Are ND,” that made more sense to me. It sounded more like what I was hearing.
I suppose someone will stick a camera in the face of a graduate for clarification.
The thing about Barack Obama is that he speaks like a leader, not a politician. Even as a pretty bitter partisan, he implores people like me to shake up the way we view our political discourse, and that’s the kind of thing a leader does, especially at a time when this nation is starved for leadership. To me, it’s the reason he was elected, and it’s certainly the reason I supported him from the primaries on. But I still can’t believe we elected as President a man who sounds this smart, and who talks so much sense. It just isn’t possible. I worry we’re living in a simulation. :-)
JL
@Comrade Jake: The Washington Post and the New York Times both highlighted the open heart, open minds. The Washington Post said the chant was We are ND.
passerby
@Jason F:
Thank you for illuminating part of the issue Jason.
One point to pick on:
I agree that the pics will be inflammatory causing both domestic and international outrage. But I cannot agree that they will cause the world to be against us any more than it is now after 8 years of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy riding roughshod across every border.
Part of what the world is watching is how is Obama going to right the wrongs committed by the previous administration. Even without the photos published, if we can grasp how despicable these acts of torture were and how clumsily the attempts to legally justify them were, then surely the rest of the world gets it too.
Obama called for transparency and he called for rule of law. I’m for that. I think the world is for that. Perhaps the whole issue is going to come down to who has the political power to win this fight. Right now the pundits and pols–and we–are arguing about what “win” looks like and I’m betting on transparency and rule of law.
JenJen
About that GQ piece, maybe this was addressed in the other thread, and I’m finally finished reading the entire piece, but these revelations about Donald Rumsfeld’s involvement in the military response to Hurricane Katrina are rather news-shattering, aren’t they?
OriGuy
@JenJen: This is incredibly stupid.
Edit: blockquote ends here.
Bubblegum Tate
Isn’t Peter King one of those r-tards who was waving around the report of finding the expired munitions in Iraq, screaming, “We found the WMDs!” a few years back?
asiangrrlMN
@gbear: Mmmmm, I’m in a northern suburb of St. Paul. I love St. Paul.
gbear
@asiangrrlMN:
I grew up in the city of North St. Paul when it was the end of the bus line. Moved into St. Paul in about ’76 and have lived here ever since. I love it too but I don’t know much else.
asiangrrlMN
@gbear: I like it because it has character and is the lesser-known twin city. I like the shops on Grand. I like being able to take a stroll around downtown if I want. I don’t like how it becomes dead at eight pm, but then I just go over the bridge to Minneapolis.
drillfork
Supposedly the unreleased photos are even more horrific than what we’ve already seen. I too believe that if images of child-rape were released, the Muslim world would go apeshit. And understandably so.
But I believe that the reason they’re not releasing the photos is they’re afraid that the already-significant number of people here who want Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, held responsible for their actions would double overnight.
Hoagland’s column is just another lame defense of the indefensible…
pseudonymous in nc
More than that: before 9/11, when such things became neither profitable nor popular, Peter King was a full-on, dyed-in-the-wool, IRA sympathiser. A judge in Northern Ireland described him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. Coddling murderers to an audience of 4th-generation plastic paddies was good for getting re-elected to his district, see.