Quoting I'm SO awesome!: Anne, I did not care for what you had to say.

Regards,

ISA

Ann not Anne.

no, she changed it cuz she's religious

I enjoyed the part about American Idol, even though I have yet to watch the show. I must concur with Althouse giving special mention to the gay guys on her blog. They add an interesting and welcome perspective. These two bloggining Divas work well together. Trey

Ann,
You might want to read David Brooks on Obama's torture/detention policy. He seems much closer to the truth than you are.
He says there was a Cheney torture policy for 3 years, and then a gradual rolling back of the Cheney policy to a Rice/Hadley policy, and that Obama is continuing (with some tweaks) the latter policy, while Cheney explicitly attacks Obama and implicitly attacks the later Bush policy. This seems much closer to right than Ann's seemingly faith-based claims that Obama is going to be just like Bush (meaning Bush-Cheney, apparently). Brooks objects to Obama's repudiation of Bush's policy, on the grounds that it's unfair and partisan, given that he is keeping the broad outline of the later Bush strategy.
I think this overlooks the fact that the Bush II policy, like the Bush-Cheney policy, was implemented quietly, without any repudiation of the insane Bush-Cheney policy. THAT original policy was one the Bush administration could not or would not denounce in the terms it needed to be denounced in. Obama can turn the page, which is important for national security, and total fairness to the later Bush regine should rightly take a

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Where does Ann get her certainty that Obama will play the same word-games as Bush (we do not torture by definition)? I have seen no evidence of that kind of blatant dishonesty so far, and Ann, of course, never presents any -- the very idea of presenting any seems not to occur to her.

Yeah, that was sort of the low-point of Althouse's argumentation. Confronted with evidence that she was wrong she replied (without a note of doubt or uncertainty) that she still believed Obama would act like Bush anyway. Not a very flattering reaction IMO. Which gets me to the Obama = Bush thing. It was entertaining a couple months ago, when the alternative was fawning comparisons to Lincoln or FDR, but it's starting to get really played out and insipid. He's been in office long enough that you can find real stuff to criticize without having to make absurd stretches and dubious predictions. At least the people comparing him to Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are putting some effort into it. It's been a while since 2001 but IIRC Althouse is also wrong when she said that people were

Nonsense.

it true i red it on da internets

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Ann, are you a law professor or a Dachsund?

Great line! Though perhaps your division is overly binary

Quoting pampl: Yeah, that was sort of the low-point of Althouse's argumentation. Confronted with evidence that she was wrong she replied (without a note of doubt or uncertainty) that she still believed Obama would act like Bush anyway. Not a very flattering reaction IMO.

That really was an astonishing sequence at around minute 16 (sorry, life is too short to go back and dingalink it). Althouse makes a, shall we say, counterintuitive assertion, provides no evidence whatsoever nor evinces any awareness that the burden of proof is on her, is confronted with evidence to the contrary, and shrugs it off with a "oh, I don't believe that for a second." Too bad she didn't play the "well I'm just trying to stir things up" card to complete the Althouse drinking game hat trick. I don't know why anyone agrees to appear on bh.tv with her.

Brooks objects to Obama's repudiation of Bush's policy, on the grounds that it's unfair and partisan, given that he is keeping the broad outline of the later Bush strategy.

I won't listen to Althouse. Ev-er. But I did read the Brooks piece. He makes a good argument that the Bushies, chastened by the Supreme Court and an absence of WMDs in Iraq, and better advised by elders from Bush-1-land, had already distanced themselves from hardcore Cheneyism, certainly by 2006. I have a slightly different take on it: the whole fucking government flipped out after 9/11 and the far right neo-cons got everything they wanted. They were drunk on the barbarism of aggressive warfare, and most of them gradually sobered up. It amounts to the same thing though. Cheney is now left with just a populist pro-torture base. The neo-con intellectuals who stirred the pot in the name of coercive democracy have retreated to rationalization, revisionism and the woodwork. It's basically Dick and Joe the Plumber. So yes, it's preposterous to conclude that Obama will be "just like Bush." In fact, one of Obama's biggest advantages is that almost anyone would like like a genius and great statesperson

Obama reached a new level of cleverness at Notre Dame by not stating that babies were punishment comparable to STDs, as he did on the campaign trail. And if neocons are 'drunk on barbarism', please describe those who murder strangers over cartoons, reporters for being jewish and teen girls for shaming their families.

Obama is now surrounded by a group of people he had almost zero contact with throughout his life: high-level career militarists. They have their flattery, their shiny medals, their crisp uniforms, their swagger, their homoeroticism and their charm.

Maybe the most awesome quote on these boards ever. Happy Memorial Day!

Jeffrey Toobin’s profile of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. in The New Yorker of May 25, 2009 is incomplete, misleading, and in one respect inaccurate. The article is incomplete in several respects. First, it says nothing about Chief Justice Roberts’s formidable lawyering skills. Although the Chief Justice was regarded by many as one of the finest appellate advocates in the nation, the article says nothing about the quality of his performance in oral argument or the quality of his appellate briefs. Second, the article says almost nothing about then-Circuit Judge Roberts’s work as a judge on the DC Circuit: nothing about his collegiality or the quality of his writing or of his performance at oral argument. Third, respecting the Chief Justice’s Supreme Court tenure, the article says nothing about the quality of the Chief Justice’s opinions, and little, other than a mention of one of his annual reports and his conduct at the Court’s attorney-admission ceremony, about his administrative work respecting the Court or the Judicial Conference of the United States. The result is that Toobin’s article fails to discuss what are arguably the most significant aspects of the Chief Justice’s career. Moreover, Toobin’s

Quoting Wonderment: Obama is now surrounded by a group of people he had almost zero contact with throughout his life: high-level career militarists. They have their flattery, their shiny medals, their crisp uniforms, their swagger, their homoeroticism and their charm. They wouldn't fool Martin Luther King or Gandhi or even an older George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (both of whom, after all, had BEEN in the military). But Obama is no MLK and no Gandhi, and it remains to be seen if he's even Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps Obama isn't a dupe at all, he may be a true believer. He never claimed innocence or pacifism. If so, what strategy do you employ to influence him otherwise? Do you have hope? It seems that it doesn't matter whether you call it Bush or Obama... The President of these United States, when in need, must first and foremost protect with military might. Opinions of said need differ, but selective readings of the constitution may apply.
WWC(arter)D? If not Jesus, MLK or Gandhi.

Shame... incapable of listening to Ann Althouse. She's not even a right-winger. Your latter points are exactly what Ann Althouse is talking about when she means to say that President Obama will be a lot like President Bush. She's not arguing that he will be exactly like him in style or in every substantive matter, but in many substantive matters Obama will only be caring on with what Bush did.

Perhaps Obama isn't a dupe at all, he may be a true believer.

I'm curious to what extent he believes in the Bush doctrine of US exceptionalism. I would expect him to be a skeptic, but all the flag waving, rides on Air Force One and hails-to-the-chief must be very intoxicating. I'd like to think Obama can remain truly thoughtful and even humble. (Was Lincoln?) But he lives in a bubble, surrounded by sycophants, careerists, connivers, warmongers, crooks and megalomaniacs. And those are just the Democrats!

Quoting Wonderment: But Obama is no MLK and no Gandhi, and it remains to be seen if he's even Jimmy Carter.

Even Jimmy Carter? You just darkened my day Wonderment.

I should add that I think Jimmy Carter was the best US president of the 20th century.

Quoting Wonderment:
Well, Ann aside, I think there is SOME evidence. Obama has not walked away from rendition, which IS a euphemism for "they'll do the torture for us, and we can maybe even be in the room." Also, the revival of military tribunals is a word game. And then there is the walkback from justice and due process on the issue of permanent preventative detention of suspects who have never been charged with or convicted of anything.

I certainly worry that your dark interpretation could be true. But I don't think it's clear that a rendition policy is necessarily a torture outsourcing policy. As I understand it, there are people who, if they were not dangerous, we would not return to Saudi Arabia or to Egypt -- we'd regard them as deserving asylum. But in the case of terrorists, although we don't like returning them to their country of origin, we prefer that to our other options (living with them or attempting to come up with a criminal case against them). Of course, a rendition program could be (and has been) employed as torture outsourcing, but I'm not sure it has to be exactly the same thing. Prisoners of war

Seriously? Have you looked at where he's ranked on the list according to Presidential historians?

You make some good points for a more sanguine reading of Obama policy as articulated so far. But rendition remains very murky, despite administation assertions to the contrary.

But I don't think it's clear that a rendition policy is necessarily a torture outsourcing policy. As I understand it, there are people who, if they were not dangerous, we would not return to Saudi Arabia or to Egypt -- we'd regard them as deserving asylum. But in the case of terrorists, although we don't like returning them to their country of origin, we prefer that to our other options (living with them or attempting to come up with a criminal case against them).

How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror. For example, you could kidnap someone in a sovereign country -- say, a Pakistani in Bolivia, -- and ship her to Egypt, NOT the country of origin, for "interrogation" and detention, not a hearing or trial. If the intent o were simply to rid the US of the custody problem, there is no need to resort to

Are you sure you're rating him as a President or as a post-President left-wing, champion of human rights celebrity?

Seriously? Have you looked at where he's ranked on the list according to Presidential historians?

Yes, I have. I'm not impressed with the rankings. In the 2009 CSPAN poll, slaveholder GW is ranked #2; slaveholder Jefferson is ranked #7;Genocidal slaveTRADER and crook Andrew Jackson is ranked #13; the only man on Earth to order a nuclear bomb dropped on civilians is ranked #5. Need I go on?

ohhhh, i forgot to consult my "I'm insanely left wing" handbook before asking.

ohhhh, i forgot to consult my "I'm insanely left wing" handbook before asking.

Oops, I forgot that opposing slavery and the mass murder of civilians were insane left wing views.

let's see......dozens of experts vs. a guy who is really biased. hmmmm....that is a tough one. although, i did ask Denville steve what he thought and he said "G. W. Bush" and since he's the equivalent of you on the other side i'll compromise and rank them 1 and 2, respectively. how long do you think it'll take wikipedia to change it back after i "go on record"? 5 seconds?

Are you sure you're rating him as a President or as a post-President left-wing, champion of human rights celebrity?

You do have a point in that I am "rating" according to values I apply to the overall person. The confusion we're having is because presidential historians' assessments are only valuable in the narrow context of the presidency itself and mostly from the narrow viewpoint of US national interests. In other words, the historians will look at the context of Jefferson's election. Could someone with an abolitionist agenda get elected? Of course not, so Jefferson must be appraised given the political constraints of the time. How did Truman do? Well, from the national interest point of view, he got the Japanese to surrender and saved American military lives. But if you look at Jefferson from the slave's point of view or look at Truman from the Hiroshima victim's point of view, you will assess the humanity of these presidents differently. So the historian may say Jefferson was one of our best presidents. But I -- who think the great moral issue of the first 90 years of the country was the abolition of slavery -- conclude

I see where you're coming from, but I profoundly disagree with you. I abhor judging our ancestors by today's standards, i.e., slavery is bad and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad, so on and so forth. Jefferson was just a part of the southern economic system which made it difficult to not own slaves or free them. If he had been born and raised in Massachusetts, his actions would have been different probably. You make the perfect point against your own argument by both congratulating Truman on ending the war and saving peoples' lives, and then giving him them thumbs down with the way he did it, like he had another choice... because whatever choice he made meant slaughtering Japanese people one way or another (Americans too of course).

I see where you're coming from, but I profoundly disagree with you. I abhor judging our ancestors by today's standards, i.e., slavery is bad and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad, so on and so forth.

Ok, we can agree to disagree on that. I think slavery was always bad -- then, now, whenever.

I do too, Jefferson did as well, but if I had lived in the antebellum South, and owned enough property, I probably would have owned slaves too because that was how large property owners made their land profitable. Even free blacks owned slaves. The only people who didn't own slaves in the South were the white trash farmers who were too poor to own slaves. Julius Caesar butchered peopled by the thousands and enslaved many of the ones he hadn't butchered. Is he not still estimable? Socrates was a free man who lived in a slave based economic system. He didn't try to end the slave economy of the Hellenistic world. Should we look down upon him because of this? James Madison, a slave owner, wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is the same document President Barack Obama upholds and defends this very hour, and the same document that allows for Barack Obama to be the President of the United States. James Madison is less of a human being because he lawfully owned slaves? Does his humanity not live on through the Constitution he wrote and the country he helped to found? The

if I had lived in the antebellum South, and owned enough property, I probably would have owned slaves too

That doesn't make it right.

Even free blacks owned slaves.

That doesn't make it right.

The only people who didn't own slaves in the South were the white trash farmers who were too poor to own slaves.

That doesn't make it right. Ironically, the people of Jefferson's beloved Virginia disagree with your position:

On February 25, 2007 the state of Virginia resolved to 'profoundly regret' and apologize for its role in the institution of slavery....The apology was unanimously passed in both Houses as Virginia approached the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, where the first slaves were imported into North America in 1619

Hanna - LOVED the way you powered through Ann's MANY interruptions. You learned the hard way that is what you have to do. Good for you!

@willmybasilgrow You may be interested to know that before the recording began I told Hanna I wanted her to interrupt me. I encouraged it, because I think friendly overlapping is good for conversation. I like diavlogs with casual overtalking rather than the patient endurance of sequential monologues. Prissy folk who think it's wrong or rude to overlap are, to me, boring. So I want to diavlog with someone who feels comfortable and, really, energized by this kind of conversation. Therefore, I ask for interrupting (and vigorous argument). Some diavloggers can't or won't do it, and I try to avoid those pairings. That said, some of the overtalking on this diavlog is caused by the technical problem at my end. My recording kept skipping ahead, dropping some of what I was saying and making Hanna's side not match up. The tech people tried to fix the problem to the extent that they could, but it's not exactly right. By the way, did you know that linguistic studies show that women tend to speak in this overlapping style much more than men do? So, let me add that your objection to my style could be some unconscious misogyny. I want you to contemplate that.

Will do. -Miss Priss

Quoting Ann Althouse: So, let me add that your objection to my style could be some unconscious misogyny. I want you to contemplate that.

O.K. then.... pointing at Ann

you've been resorting to some really weak Appeals to Authority lately in your mocking, dismissive responses - it is a poor fit with your attitude and style. step up your game!

true...but some of these dorks need to be throttled just a wee bit harder than the rest

Of course it doesn't make it right... cause it is 2009 and we live now. Who knows how we would have lived our lives in the antebellum South. Virginia's resolution is hollow cause nobody from that time period is alive today and had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington probably appreciate that the United States is a much better country (thanks to their Constitution, their ideas, and their actions), but they probably think it is stupid for people not ever involved with to apologize for it. An apology for segregation would have been/would be more appropriate (although I wasn't around for segregation either and I parents did their part in helping to end it). If I was from Mississippi I would have voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the State flag, for example.

Stay classy ... ... and in case you miss the link at the bottom of that post, here it is again.

Althouse wasn't actually criticizing Judge Sotomayor. She just made an observation.

Quoting Wonderment: How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror.

From what I've read, the Obama administration will make a similar argument to the Bush administration argument, i.e., that wherever the terrorist is found it is a kin to being on the "battlefield". That way they can be given POW status or some such new status that allows for them to be indefinitely detained. Seems like like a completely logical and legal argument to me. If lawful combatants can be detained for the duration of a conflict, so can unlawful combatants.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Since the agreements are international, perhaps we need to convene another Geneva convention.

This is exactly what is needed.

I don't think BJ was saying Althouse was criticizing her, just that it's kind of a gross comment to elevate to front and center. It's also baseless, so that's another thing against. And the fact that it's baseless, and was nonetheless still elevated, might imply that Althouse, at least implicitly, disapproves of Sottomeyer (or however you spell it). So probably BJ does think it's a criticism (I know I do), but in any case, he didn't say that.

Quoting Wonderment: But if you look at Jefferson from the slave's point of view or look at Truman from the Hiroshima victim's point of view, you will assess the humanity of these presidents differently.

I don't think that's true. Jefferson's slaves lived in the same social context he did but with much less access to information about how things could be any other way. He wouldn't be compared to how rich white people would act in (what was then) a hypothetical world where black people were treated fairly, but in comparison to how other neighboring slaveholders acted. To judge Jefferson harshly requires actively abandoning the viewpoint of the slaves and instead judging him by the standard of someone who's known a much better, fairer world. That doesn't mean it's a mistake or anything, just that it's nothing like adopting the viewpoint of the victims. edit: sorry if this is dogpiling. I just felt like this was a worthwhile nit to pick

From what I've read, the Obama administration will make a similar argument to the Bush administration argument, i.e., that wherever the terrorist is found it is a kin to being on the "battlefield". That way they can be given POW status or some such new status that allows for them to be indefinitely detained.

Seems like like a completely logical and legal argument to me. If lawful combatants can be detained for the duration of a conflict, so can unlawful combatants.

You are missing the whole point of a legal system here. How on Earth are you supposed to know who is a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant?" We just take Mr. Bush's or Mr. Nixon's or Mr. Obama's word for it? Rounding up suspects and accusing them of crimes without due process is the road to a Gulag (like Guantánamo) or a concentration camp (like Buchenwald). The pretext of a bogus, perpetual, undeclared "War on Terror" is an attempt to legitimize the kind of outrages that we protested so decidedly in the USSR and Nazi Germany. The Law, as in the Bill of Rights, is supposed to protect you from governmental misconduct (abuse of

Quoting Bobby G: I don't think BJ was saying Althouse was criticizing her, just that it's kind of a gross comment to elevate to front and center. It's also baseless, so that's another thing against. And the fact that it's baseless, and was nonetheless still elevated, might imply that Althouse, at least implicitly, disapproves of Sottomeyer (or however you spell it).

So probably BJ does think it's a criticism (I know I do), but in any case, he didn't say that.

And, let's be clear. It was a puerile, pointless "observation" apropos of nothing. People who say things like that in person (as opposed to from the relative safety of a blog item) are generally shunned.

What utter nonsense. She simply made an observation. It doesn't have to mean a thing.

What you observe may say a lot about you. If I got robbed by six people, five black and one white, and I say that all I remember is that I was robbed by a white guy, well, that's kind of telling that that's the only thing I remember. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm racist--it could mean a lot of things--but the point is, it means something. Similarly, if I observe the Mona Lisa, and I say, "hmm, she's obviously an atheist", well, that's a weird observation, the kind of thing that would make you wonder, "why does he think _that_?"

Well, no kidding... but it can just as equally say absolutely nothing.

Quoting Lyle: Well, no kidding... but it can just as equally say absolutely nothing.

I agree. And that is what Ann offers in spades: Saying a lot while meaning absolutely nothing.

when she started talking about giving tests and what not, I was jolted into thinking about the fact that she is an actual professor - some poor suckers are PAYING money to listen to the witless, puerile crap that passes for her thoughts. now that is sad.

Quoting Wonderment:

How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror. For example, you could kidnap someone in a sovereign country -- say, a Pakistani in Bolivia, -- and ship her to Egypt, NOT the country of origin, for "interrogation" and detention, not a hearing or trial. If the intent o were simply to rid the US of the custody problem, there is no need to resort to channels other than an immigration judge with authority to deport undesirables. Rendition is predicated on the notion that the third party nation will do some kind of dirty work that we are unprepared to do.

I've heard that Clinton's use of rendition (which I thought dangerous and unlawful at the time (based on what I'd heard at the time)) was much more limited -- and more or less as I described it above. But even now, I confess I don't know if that's just Democratic/Clintonian spin. I'd like to know how they plan to limit rendition.

That is, to quote the Yooists, a quaint notion. Bush conceived of the War on Terror as

It's reasonable to consider the case that we really do need to detain some as prisoners of war, and then to think whether there is any tweak that will keep the detention within our values (though not within the precise institutions we inherited). At the same time, we shouldn't take it as obvious that the court system can't handle everything. Nor should we give Obama a blank check.

I generally agree with that, but it is important to parse the issues here: probable cause, detention, interrogation, etc. If we take interrogation out of the equation, things are somewhat simpler: "name, rank serial number." If there's no interrogation, you never have to worry about torture. But you still need to resolve the rules for searching and surveiling (The Patriot Act, the FISA Court, the Military Field Manual?), arresting and keeping a person (24-hours, a month, a year, perpetuity?). Bush tried (clumsily) to get around all the legal safeguards. He claimed (although he didn't always exercise) the powers of tyrants. He also claimed an undeclared perpetual war, i.e., a fiction. The War on Terror would only end when he said so, and he would never say so. I see no way to do get from A to B anywhere along

I'm in general agreement with how you separate the issues.

Quoting Wonderment:
I'm not convinced of that. I believe there are serious difficulties in arresting and prosecuting "terrorists," but there are also tremendous difficulties in arresting and prosecuting ordinary criminals. Ask any cop or prosecutor; they are required to let violent offenders go every day. That's the way it has to work in a democracy.

I am not convinced of it myself -- the "may" in my statement was not just a hedge or understatement. I've only gotten as far as being convinced that I don't know that there isn't a real problem here. I'm aware of the procedural hurdles we place in the way of prosecutions -- and I'm certainly in favor of them. However, I don't think terrorists can be equated with ordinary criminals. First of all, a terrorist with a nuclear weapon or with the ability to make one would be vastly more dangerous than your average serial killer.
But even apart from that, spectacular terrorism, like that we saw on 9/11/01 can create a panic far in excess of the actual risk he poses. Just a few such attacks would likely be enough

But even apart from that, spectacular terrorism, like that we saw on 9/11/01 can create a panic far in excess of the actual risk he poses. Just a few such attacks would likely be enough to completely shred the Bill of Rights. It might really be best, even from a liberal point of view, to be slightly less liberal now in order to preserve some amount of liberalism in the future.

The problem with that is, how much tearing can you do before it becomes shredding? Slippery slope, to mix a metaphor. Bush-Cheney could certainly argue that what you've outlined above is precisely what they did. You've certainly raised the hard questions though.

Quoting Wonderment: The problem with that is, how much tearing can you do before it becomes shredding? Slippery slope, to mix a metaphor. Bush-Cheney could certainly argue that what you've outlined above is precisely what they did.

You've certainly raised the hard questions though.

I don't really think Bush-Cheney could make the claim that they had done the minimum necessary to deal with the challenge. It's pretty easy to slide down the slippery slope if you regard the first step as equivalent to the last. The Bush administration was trying to push the law as far as it could possibly go, not to mention trying to set up precedents supporting executive power and secrecy. From what I've heard, they didn't even have any kind of system to keep records on the prisoners in GITMO, and what was their evidence that they needed to torture? -- a few episodes of "24"? I definitely think an administration serious about the liberal aims (in the broad, uncontroversial sense) that the US is founded on would have been concerned, not just to get advice from lawyers about how best to evade all the restrictions that were set

This op-ed in today WAPO by Jack Goldstein (one of the Bush regime's few dissidents) covers the "shell game" of switching from Gitmoized procedures to Bagram, renditions, new forms of out-sourcing for capture, detention and interrogation, as well as targeted killings:

We congratulate ourselves when we raise legal standards for detainees, but in many respects all we are really doing is driving the terrorist incapacitation problem out of sight, to a place where terrorist suspects are treated worse.

Quoting Wonderment: This op-ed in today WAPO by Jack Goldstein (one of the Bush regime's few dissidents) covers the "shell game" of switching from Gitmoized procedures to Bagram, renditions, new forms of out-sourcing for capture, detention and interrogation, as well as targeted killings:

Jack Goldsmith, for the record. Thanks for the link. I gotta say, read like a veiled argument for keeping Gitmo open indefinitely, not to mention excusing ongoing violations of our principles. Hard to tell from that piece that he was much of a dissident when he was a Bushie, although I suppose a case could be made that asking for a night-and-day difference is asking too much. I remain unconvinced that we need to be as skeered of the turrurists as Goldsmith says "everyone" in government thinks we do. Of course, I don't have to run for reelection.

I remain unconvinced that we need to be as skeered of the turrurists as Goldsmith says "everyone" in government thinks we do. Of course, I don't have to run for reelection.

I agree, but Goldsmith did discuss that in closing:

This approach to detention policy reflects a sharp disjunction between the public's view of the terrorist threat and the government's. After nearly eight years without a follow-up attack, the public (or at least an influential sliver) is growing doubtful about the threat of terrorism and skeptical about using the lower-than-normal standards of wartime justice.

The government, however, sees the terrorist threat every day and is under enormous pressure to keep the country safe. When one of its approaches to terrorist incapacitation becomes too costly legally or politically, it shifts to others that raise fewer legal and political problems. This doesn't increase our safety or help the terrorists. But it does make us feel better about ourselves.

I'm not sure if he's saying the people are starting to underestimate the threat, while the government may tend to overestimate it. I don't think he expresses a clear opinion on the objective threat (greater than zero

Quoting Wonderment: I agree, but Goldsmith did discuss that in closing:

I'm not sure if he's saying the people are starting to underestimate the threat, while the government may tend to overestimate it. I don't think he expresses a clear opinion on the objective threat (greater than zero I will concede), nor does he have specific recommendations to reduce the threat while preserving democratic freedoms.

He does point to a real dilemma, however, that I hadn't seen articulated before: Will hardcore counter-terrorism just become another NIMBY? Is that the dark side of Obamaization of the War on Terror? I hope not.

My sense from that piece is that Goldsmith thinks the threat is not only non-zero, but non-trivial. His "the government ... sees the terrorist threat every day" in the part you quoted was just one example. Another was his dismissing elsewhere a view that we have to stick to our principles (which would be for the best for security reasons, too) as "unrealistic." As I said before, it scanned to me like a bit of an apology for past and future failings to stick to our principles. On another note .... I really wish you would get off this kick of

Quoting bjkeefe: Another was his dismissing elsewhere a view that we have to stick to our principles (which would be for the best for security reasons, too) as "unrealistic."

Which reminds me: why is David Petraeus so unrealistic?

You know it is interesting to see your evolving understanding on this issue. It shows that you are giving it considered thought; a welcome improvement from my perspective.

... you've recently started to sound unhinged -- i.e., like a Republican -- with your attitude that he is solely responsible for everything you don't like.

You forgot to capitalize He.

Quoting Wonderment: You forgot to capitalize He.

Yeah, keep it up, Wonderment. Keep indulging your self-righteousness and your smugness and your juvenile instinct to disparage the best choice available because it's not the perfect one. Keep ignoring all the other people who are actively working against your interests, who have no interest in compromising, and make it all about you not getting every last thing you want from the guy in power who's closest to sharing your goals. Keep being afraid to show a little loyalty and a little team spirit lest some Villager say "just like Bush." Keep prioritizing approval from wingnuts like Lial and piscivorous. Keep patting yourself on the back for your "willingness to hold Obama's feet to the fire" -- you're getting to be as impressive as Mickey Kaus and Ann Althouse with your "independent streak." And hey, isn't it about time for another one of your top 10 list of things you don't like about Obama? You're the GOP's best friend and a perfect example of why Democratic politicians are so hesitant to reach out to real liberals -- there is just no pleasing spoiled children like you.

Quoting bjkeefe: Jack Goldsmith, for the record.

Thanks for the link.

I gotta say, read like a veiled argument for keeping Gitmo open indefinitely, not to mention excusing ongoing violations of our principles. Hard to tell from that piece that he was much of a dissident when he was a Bushie, although I suppose a case could be made that asking for a night-and-day difference is asking too much.

I remain unconvinced that we need to be as skeered of the turrurists as Goldsmith says "everyone" in government thinks we do. Of course, I don't have to run for reelection.

Hello Brendan,
I'm sure you'll think I'm being my usual insufferably nit-picky self, but can I suggest that your first response, looked at as an argument, is essentially ad hominem -- a special case of that fallacy that one might call "ad hominem by remote psychoanalysis."
Goldsmith is making a reasonable argument for the claim that our moral qualms about detainee treatment are having perverse effects, and that if we were honestly to examine these facts we would not move in the direction we are moving in -- not even out of a moral concern for terror

This illustrates the "cat herding" problem that the left perpetually contends with. Don't fret too much though. The dogs on the other side of the aisle can't even figure out whom to call leader. Most of them are following the trinity trail:
R- ush
N- ewt
C- oulter
Where you and I like to believe that politics is the art of the possible -it often persists by default or institutional inertia. Why do you value or expect team loyalty in such a dispiriting endeavor as politics and do you think it has an impact on results? Wonderment may be emboldening the terrorists... But only on this forum. Although maybe that is worth fighting for.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, keep it up, Wonderment. Keep indulging your self-righteousness and your smugness and your juvenile instinct to disparage the best choice available because it's not the perfect one. Keep ignoring all the other people who are actively working against your interests, who have no interest in compromising, and make it all about you not getting every last thing you want from the guy in power who's closest to sharing your goals. Keep being afraid to show a little loyalty and a little team spirit lest some Villager say "just like Bush." Keep prioritizing approval from wingnuts like Lial and piscivorous. Keep patting yourself on the back for your "willingness to hold Obama's feet to the fire" -- you're getting to be as impressive as Mickey Kaus and Ann Althouse with your "independent streak." And hey, isn't it about time for another one of your top 10 list of things you don't like about Obama?

You're the GOP's best friend and a perfect example of why Democratic politicians are so hesitant to reach out to real liberals -- there is just no pleasing spoiled children like you.

Wow! Talk

Quoting graz: Where you and I like to believe that politics is the art of the possible -it often persists by default or institutional inertia.

True. But a million tiny pushes can overcome this. And we really have no other option.

Why do you value or expect team loyalty in such a dispiriting endeavor as politics ...

I value it principally as opposed to the demonstration of playing for the other team. Whether you believe that any individual can have a beneficial effect on politics, it hardly seems to me that participating in the simplistic dismissal of our guy and parroting rightwing mantras about him is going to help achieve what we want.

... and do you think it has an impact on results?

Who knows? Sometimes it seems worthwhile to act under the assumption that while each individual effort may be immeasurably small in effect, somehow everyone's contributions add up to something meaningful. Kind of like voting, paying your taxes, turning off unnecessary lights, keeping your tires properly inflated, and like that. It has to start somewhere.

Wonderment may be emboldening the terrorists... But only on this forum. Although maybe that is worth fighting for.

Yup. May be.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Wow! Talk about "unhinged!" I mean it seems unhinged unless Wonderment is (a) a major media star and (b) ginning up nasty rumors about Obama's sex-life in order to get him to resign.
Even if Wonderment were extremely influential, why wouldn't s/he be just helping to move the Overton window over?
I'm glad Obama is running the country rather than Rachel Maddow, but I'm glad Rachel Maddow and the ACLU are holding Obama accountable from the left.
Of course, I haven't followed every thread here, so I suppose it's possible that in some other thread, Wonderment made some really outrageous claim. But based on this thread, I don't see how you get to so intemperate an attack.

As I said to Wonderment earlier, there is a difference between making specific criticisms about specific decisions and actions -- which Maddow, the ACLU, and many others do quite well, and which I welcome -- and just being an ass who repeats the most banal right-wing slogans. I don't have to tolerate "Messiah" allusions from anybody, least of all a self-righteous, holier-than-thou liberal, especially when it's given as the sole response to a respectful request.

I don't have to tolerate "Messiah" allusions from anybody, least of all a self-righteous, holier-than-thou liberal, especially when it's given as the sole response to a respectful request.

Interesting that you think calling someone "unhinged" is respectful.

Quoting Wonderment: Interesting that you think calling someone "unhinged" is respectful.

First, you're confusing my saying you're starting to sound unhinged with saying you're unhinged. Second, you're quote-mining and pulling something out of context. Read the whole message, instead of just searching for one tiny tidbit to justify your claim that you were offended.

Quoting bjkeefe: On another note ....

I really wish you would get off this kick of pinning every last thing on Obama alone. There are many powerful competing interests at work here, who are unabashedly opposed to making a clean break from the way things were done in the last Administration: the military, the intelligence services, the right-wing noise machine, and much of the Democratic Party, to name four. Obama is not a supreme dictator, and he has to stay within the realm of the possible, especially when there are so many other items on the agenda.

Criticizing Obama on specific decisions and actions is one thing, but you've recently started to sound unhinged -- i.e., like a Republican -- with your attitude that he is solely responsible for everything you don't like.

rnOf course not, but freedom is freedom. The logic applied by lawyers and judges to the law would be the exact same for polygamy, polyandry or whatever. This is fact. The same argumentation is already being used in courts in Utah with regards to polygamists there. It is no red herring. Why the heck do you think Matthew Yglesias is making the same point if there wasnt something to the argument?rn

rnOf course not, but freedom is freedom. The logic applied by lawyers and judges to the law would be the exact same for polygamy, polyandry or whatever. This is fact. The same argumentation is already being used in courts in Utah with regards to polygamists there. It is no red herring. Why the heck do you think Matthew Yglesias is making the same point if there wasnt something to the argument?rn

"... of Ann Althouse and Her Commenters."

What's wrong with talking about the photo? Why is she responsible for other peoples' comments?

Quoting Lyle: What's wrong with talking about the photo? Why is she responsible for other peoples' comments?

If you read the comments you will find that they are not discussing the photo. For the most part, they are just giving vent to their various racist, sexist and pointless prejudice. The point is that they are not discussing the photo at all. In fact, it seems that they are all assuming a subtext of Michelle dissing Carla as reason to comment.
As to the actual photo, my take is that they are actually looking at different things, past each other. Filling in thought bubbles is fine, attributing intent to expression is within reason... Hate is unmistakable. Not that there is anything wrong with that... Right Lyle? And pity poor Ann for being held accountable... Right Lyle? Here is an interesting website for photo deconstruction:
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/

graz, Excuse me, but not all the comments are ribald. And people, thanks to free speech, can write whatever they want to write. All kinds of views are expressed in that comment section. People spar with each other all the time in her comments section. Also, what exactly has Ann Althouse said that is "hateful"? What are you holding her accountable for again? Good for Ann Althouse to allow a discussion to be had about that photo.

Quoting Lyle: graz,

Excuse me, but not all the comments are ribald. And people, thanks to free speech, can write whatever they want to write.

No shit contrarian Sherlock.
And deciding that it is classless or offensive is a further expression of this first principle.

Except Althouse didn't write any of the ribald comments. She lets people post whatever in her comment section. Fair wouldn't you say? I celebrate Ann Althouse's celebration of that photo. Long live the Michelle Obama - French Polyandrist photo!

Quoting Lyle: I celebrate Ann Althouse's celebration of that photo.

Party on!

Quoting Lyle: She lets people post whatever in her comment section. Fair wouldn't you say?

Actually, I'm pretty sure she's said several times during diavlogs that she deletes comments. Also, you can often predict what the usual commentators will say about something when it's posted, so in a way the post is done in part to provoke the expected comments. (I see this all the time in blogs I read, it's not an uncommon dynamic.) I have yet to go to Ann's blog to see the photo referred to and comments, so have no opinion about the specifics yet, but I don't buy a blanket argument that a blogger has no responsibility for what commentators post. Whether and how much and whether the comments reflect badly on the blogger all depend on the circumstances.

She has deleted a few posts, you are right. However, more or less she lets everything go. To be more precise I should have said she's very lenient with the comments. However, how is she responsible for what people write? It's somebody in front of a computer typing away. They can post whatever. Not deleting certain comments doesn't necessarily say anything about her own views. Not to mention moderating a comment section would take time and I have a feeling Althouse's time is precious enough to not spend a whole lot of time deleting certain comments.

Quoting bjkeefe: "... of Ann Althouse and Her Commenters."

The Anchoress: now competing to be an Althouse commenter. (Will Lial develop a crush on her, too?) Bonus: Roy also weaves in notice of the Flailing Pantload of Fail. (cf.)

Haha... see Althouse is not alone. People just having fun; but progressives need something to pout about so they get angry over a photo being talked about. Classic. I think First Lady Michelle Obama hates polyandry and is giving the plastic Frenchy a deserved dirty look. Maybe the escargot Frenchy served Michelle earlier was bad. Maybe she's just mad France doesn't do as much to help the world as the United States does. Who knows?

Quoting Lyle: However, how is she responsible for what people write? It's somebody in front of a computer typing away. They can post whatever. Not deleting certain comments doesn't necessarily say anything about her own views. Not to mention moderating a comment section would take time and I have a feeling Althouse's time is precious enough to not spend a whole lot of time deleting certain comments.

I don't think she's responsible for what everyone writes. I think she should be clear and consistent re the kind of thing she moderates and do it fairly, and if you claim to delete certain types of comments but do so in a one-sided way, I think you can be blamed. (I'm not accusing Ann of doing it unfairly, just speaking generally about the question of whether comments reflect on a blogger.) My further point is that when a blog post is clearly intended to elicit certain types of responses and you get them, I think it's disingenuous to deny responsibility by saying "I just posted a photo" or whatever. But again I'm speaking generally, not about Ann and the photo, which, having looked at, I don't see anything to get

I agree, but what I wrote was all in the context of Althouse's blog post. I guess you should know (maybe you do), but Ann Althouse isn't very popular with a lot of the commenters here at bloggingheads. Those who are liberal or progressive tend to shun her. They have a longstanding disdain for her and routinely poop poop her. I was coming to her defense. She just posted the photo. If people who don't like Michelle Obama want to say something nasty, that's up to them. Althouse, however, wasn't looking for nasty comments I think.

Yeah, I am somewhat aware of the reaction she often gets in this comments section, and she annoys me quite a lot at times too. Partially because it just feels like she's straining too hard to be contrarian or outrageous at times, and to justify casual gossip or mocking as Intellectually Serious. I mean, I think the photo in question was amusing and all, but given some of her past stuff, I expected her to be trying to make some kind of tenuous political point based on it and to justify it as Serious Commentary. But a caption contest, eh, I can't complain about that, so my bad for the mistaken expectations. Anyway, I liked her pairing with Hanna Rosin pretty well.

I think Althouse is great actually. I understand why people can be annoyed by her, because at some point she will pick at something you believe in or support. She's an opinionated fence sitter, and those not on the fence get burned by her from time to time. She's a lot like Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion. Different and not as impressive perhaps, but gets more love from conservatives than liberals, just like Hitchens (in the recent past at least). Camille Paglia is someone else she's similar to as well, I think. I'm a fan of all three.

Quoting Lyle: Haha... see Althouse is not alone. People just having fun; but progressives need something to pout about so they get angry over a photo being talked about. Classic.

I think First Lady Michelle Obama hates polyandry and is giving the plastic Frenchy a deserved dirty look. Maybe the escargot Frenchy served Michelle earlier was bad. Maybe she's just mad France doesn't do as much to help the world as the United States does. Who knows?

Hard to believe the amount of time and energy you waste trying to top the last all-time stupidest thing you ever said, but you do keep succeeding.