Comments on: Bipartisanship

By: Crooked Timber » » Letter from a town hall

Crooked Timber » » Letter from a town hall — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:53:23 +0000

[...] he was shown. – I attended specifically to ask him in person if he would co-sponsor Edward Markey’s bill to stop extraordinary rendition. He let me explain the issue, then [...]

By: Crooked Timber » » Letter from a town hall

Crooked Timber » » Letter from a town hall — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:42:47 +0000

[...] he was shown. – I attended specifically to ask him in person if he would co-sponsor Edward Markey’s bill to stop extraordinary rendition. He let me explain the issue, then [...]

By: The Light Of Reason » Blog Archive » REPUBLICANS WHO HATE AMERICA

The Light Of Reason » Blog Archive » REPUBLICANS WHO HATE AMERICA — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:42:23 +0000

[...] esome “South Park Republican” caucus could stand on a beer mat with the entire anti-torture Republican caucus and still leave room for a beer. In real life, you’re lo [...]

By: Crooked Timber » » The war on pointy-headedness

Crooked Timber » » The war on pointy-headedness — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:51:16 +0000

[...] esome “South Park Republican” caucus could stand on a beer mat with the entire anti-torture Republican caucus and still leave room for a beer. In real life, you’re lo [...]

By: Nell Lancaster

Nell Lancaster — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:23:11 +0000

Lucy Phirr, Uncle Kvetch and others might enjoy the Poor Man’s response to a Republican blogger trying to mobilize other Republicans against rendition to torture.
I enjoyed it too, because the Man is funny as hell, but I don’t agree with it. First, because a Democratic administration has engaged in the same practice (though not on the same scale, and not with the blanket authority this current President gave to the CIA). Second, because this issue is too fundamental and it’s too soon to give up on people on the other side of the partisan divide.
Given all the issues affected by who’s in the White House, it’s just impossible to say about any particular Bush voter that they were voting for torture. Raising a huge and ugly issue like torture with people in your community is hard, but necessary. This legislation is very helpful in offering an action that is immediate, manageable, and might actually make a difference.

By: hilzoy

hilzoy — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:53:18 +0000

To be clear: when I said I didn’t want torture to be a partisan issue, what I meant was: I want there to be a broad consensus in this country that torture is wrong. I want us to disagree on all sorts of things, but not on matters of fundamental human decency.
Failing that, I want some Republicans in Congress to support this bill for two reasons: first, it won’t pass otherwise, and second, that might help prevent Republican citizens from viewing support for this bill as a dismissible “Democratic” thing.
That’s what I meant: that holding the bill constant, I wanted it to be supported by people on both sides. What I did not mean was: holding the current positions of Congressional Republicans constant, I do not want to criticize those positions lest I seem ‘partisan’. Not at all. I will criticize, vehemently, anyone who doesn’t support this. I am trying, in my no doubt ineffective little way, to raise the cost of not supporting it even as we speak. But I would rather the occasion for that criticism does not arise.

By: luckyjack

luckyjack — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:48:51 +0000

Of course we want it outlawed. But as for simple arithmetic, Katherine, the Bush administration has been telling us that 2+2=5 on a long list of policies and at least half the country believes it.
How quaint to think that the passage of this or any other bill will stop “them” from torturing people. Jesus H. Christ, what planet have you people been on for the last four years? Sixty million Americans voted for the architects of Abu Ghraib and (in essence) the indefinite suspension of a whole host of constitutional protections and you think some mealy-mouthed shit from Congress is going to stop them? Oh right, I forgot—reason, logic, evidence, the rule of law, and popular and expert opinion have so famously circumscribed the actions of the Bush Administration. How could I forget Perhaps because those architects of our new and improved torture state that weren’t reelected or promoted are now training the best future legal minds at Harvard or Boalt and elsewhere I presume. You know, unlimited executive power during a period of war lasting an indefinite period of time is really the American Way, and that sort of thing. Yes, we need them to stop torturing people. But having to grovel and beg for a couple, or even a dozen, Republican votes to condemn this lasting national shame isn’t going to change a thing. They have to be identified with this disgrace and driven out of power assuming anyone actually gives a damn anymore, which I seriously doubt. Allowing both parties to be identified as “against torture” is a lose-lose proposition.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:37:13 +0000

We don’t need to grind them into the dust. This isn’t social security. We need to stop them torturing people.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:13:53 +0000

We want it outlawed, they control the House, Senate and the Presidency, we need some Republican support to get a bill to a point where there is real pressure on the President to stop this. Simple arithmetic.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:52:02 +0000

And then there’s Wolfowitz at the World Bank…

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:46:46 +0000

Progressives and liberals (or whatever) don’t need to be in the business of offering the least bit of political cover to these people. We need to be in the business of grinding them into dust.

Well said. I heartily concur.

By: luckyjack

luckyjack — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:36:38 +0000

Why don’t you want torture to be a partisan issue? I’m completely baffled by that statement. Fortunately, as it stands, it IS a partisan issue and I fail to see the advantage in providing political cover to this loathsome un-American gang of international criminals that calls itself the Republican Party. One (or two or three) Republican co-sponsors will do nothing to stop the Republican policy of torture, “ghost” detainees, and illegal confinement in our global gulag archipelago. What the partisan nature of the debate does do, however, is reveal the ugly face of both the party and its millions of supporters around the country. It did not gladden me to see Sen. Graham speaking sanely about the issue during the Abu Ghraib hearings. To the contrary, I hoped for more from Sen Inhofe. Let the lines be clearly and brightly drawn for he is the true face of the Republican Party. These people are traitors to the Constitution; indeed, many are descended from traitors whether biologically, ideologically or both. Progressives and liberals (or whatever) don’t need to be in the business of offering the least bit of political cover to these people. We need to be in the business of grinding them into dust.

By: hilzoy

hilzoy — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:10:42 +0000

I want to see a Republican co-sponsor because I do not want torture to be a partisan issue. I really don’t.
Thanks, Ted.

By: luci phyrr

luci phyrr — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:19 +0000

“But I’d like to see at least one Republican co-sponsor for this bill.”
Why? In a “I call on thee to denounce this” kind of way? I guess that might be good for trying to make them take a public stance, but…
I’m cool with just letting the Republicans be the Party of Torture. Too many (white men and enough white women) like kickin ass and voting Republican. Someday, someone else will get a chance. And we should remember, for a very long time, what the bastards stood for.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:42:23 +0000

That’s almost as weaselly as the US’s adoption of the rendition part of the torture convention, which states “That the United States understands the phrase, “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,” as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean “if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.”
Even so, and taking Bush’s comments at face value, it all rather falls apart when you bring Maher Arar into the equation.