PhotoDude.com

That is pretty far out there. These guys really need to relax. Maybe somebody should get them a blow-up doll or something.

“Maybe somebody should get them a blow-up doll or something.”

You dang lawyers, always pointing to the loophole. If there were a law, people would begin to infer “Nazi” with an added degree of separation and deniability, as you have above. Because, you, of course, know that Nazis invented the blow-up sex doll.

I hear that Prescott Bush funded that project.

While I don’t like the exaggerations involved in the comparisons with Nazis and gulags and so on, I do think there is a huge difference between words and actions. Amnesty or Durbin used the wrong words but it is the US government which is guilty of torture (which is something terrible and not just a word). Somehow, I am disappointed in the focus on specific words rather than the actual facts of US behavior.

Just goes to show that you can cover up the facts by using over-the-top rhetoric almost as well as you can cover them up by denying them.

“Somehow, I am disappointed in the focus on specific words rather than the actual facts of US behavior”

I don’t blame you. Those who question our treatment of detainees have legitimate points. Those who say some Democrats are obstructionists may have a legitimate point. Those who are worried about the growing influence of the religious right have legitimate concerns. But when those people use the words “gulag,” “Nazi,” and “American Taliban,” they willingly throw their legitimacy in the dumpster.

By the very use of those words, they insure the discussion will not be “on point.” And they willingly do it to themselves.

In the words of Gulag survivor Pavel Litvinov, “Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word ‘gulag’ to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty’s credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.”

And yet, it would appear that an Amnesy staffer directly asked Mr. Litvinov in advance if he’d have problem with the director of Amnesty using that word with regard to Guantanamo. Mr. Litvinov asked him if he didn’t see the “enormous difference” between the two, and was told “Sure … but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees.”

Oh, it attracted attention alright. Nothing but the wrong kind.

Reid, re-read what Durbin said. It begins with an “If”, goes on with that hypothetical, and makes a reasonable conclusion.

We can not make a key part of 20th century off limits to comparison or analysis because of a stupid UseNet dictum. We’re not talking about chat rooms, we’re talking about the Senate. If the shoe fits, and it does in the limited way Durbin describes, he’d have been remiss in his duty to this country not to point it out.

“We can not make a key part of 20th century off limits to comparison or analysis because of a stupid UseNet dictum”

Nor can we lower the reality of those historical events, the greatest horrors of modern times, by comparing them to every legitimately bad thing our current government does. My tongue-in-cheek point is drawn from “a stupid UseNet dictum,” but the core of my real disagreement is purely historical.

You ask me to “re-read” his words, like I must have missed something, or just quickly pasted this from some right wing newsletter going around, The Daily Talking Points. But a review of the archives shows that over the past three years I’ve “called Godwin” on Republican pundits, European playrights, Yasser Arafat, the Catholic Church, Ayatollah Khamenei, and German Ministers.

Clue: I’ve long been a student of history. And I can’t stand to see it being abused.

But forget all that. How hard is this: it ought to be abundantly clear to anyone in politics (from Durbin to Santorum, as well as at Amnesty International) that if you, for whatever reason, decide to add Nazis or Soviet gulags to your rhetorical kit bag … you will get pasted for it!

That ought to be a simple matter of observation and conclusion. It is reality.

Now, do Durbin/Santorum/Amnesty, et al, have a right to say these things, even claim they are accurate historical comparisons? Why, sure. And then Gulag survivors have the right to point out “Words are important,” or as Gelertner said, “Ignorance of history is undermining Western society’s ability to talk straight and think straight.” It’s the two way street of freedom of speech.

Here’s the real measuring stick: did Durbin’s use of that comparison result in everyone talking about the abuses of Guatanamo? I’d say “quite the opposite.”

But it is his, and everyone’s, right to continue doing so. Just don’t be surprised at this kind of reaction. Some of us have been this way for many years, no matter who “brings it.” It is entirely predictable, and therefore, easily avoided.

This just doesn’t sound like a substantive criticism, merely an esthetic one. Don’t use all caps, don’t mention Nazis; it’s bad form, and Reid and the ‘moderate,’ ‘reasonable’ folk will ignore you.

There’s a post-war German phrase “wehret den Anfaengen”—“fight the beginnings.” That’s what I think, or wish, Durbin was trying to do. Of course “Gitmo NE Holocaust.” But he didn’t say it did. He said “Gitmo abuse incident EQ prison torture/abuse incident elsewhere”, done by the worst history had to offer.

If that shoe fits, it doesn’t mean all the others do—millions dead, wars of conquest, genocide, etcetera. Just that one: torture, abuse, rightlessness, accountable to no review. That shoe fits. If Durbin saying that (and that is what he said) hurts your feelings—good. That’s a start towards “fighting the beginnings.”

“This just doesn’t sound like a substantive criticism, merely an esthetic one. Don’t use all caps, don’t mention Nazis; it’s bad form, and Reid and the ‘moderate,’ ‘reasonable’ folk will ignore you.”

So, I spoke of “historical events,” said “my real disagreement is purely historical,” and “I’ve long been a student of history” ... and you reduce that to a mere “esthetic” complaint.

I think we’re just going to have to disagree. I’m not even sure we’re talking about the same thing. But I think it should now be a clear test of intelligence for both sides of the aisle from here on out, given the preponderance of evidence; like it or not, your intended point will be completely drowned out in the aftermath of such comparisons. Like it or not, you do yourself a disservice.

And I’m no longer expecting anyone in either party to worry about moderates. So use ALL CAPS all you wish.

“We’re not talking about chat rooms, we’re talking about the Senate.”

Is there a difference? It doesn’t matter if you’re a kook on UseNet/Blog or a kook warming a seat in the Senate, if you say something like that, you’re inviting a flame war. The whole “let’s be polite and civil” thing went out the window with Clinton and has been continued and worsened under Bush. When people in Congress don’t think twice about spouting the same junk spawned on Free Republic and Democratic Underground, then they’ve surrendered any special consideration they may have been due before. If you want to act like you’re on the internet, then you should expect to be treated like you’re on the internet.

As an aside, it’s interesting that as the technological barriers to mass comunication have decreased, the barriers to effective dialogue and communication have increased until the entire political debate seems to be one big flame war. Hmm, perhaps rec.arts.politics.usa.moderated would do the trick.

Anyway, Durbin’s cry for attention was just typical politcal hyperbole and theater. It’s no different than “mushroom clouds in America” and Saddam being mere moments away from pulling the WMD trigger. Like every other politician, he’s performing this little bit of theater to rile up the deluded Party faithful to raise funds while the Democratic Party continues to vote lockstep with the Republicans on almost every bill, save a handful of high-profile ones where they pretend to disagree for quarterly fund-drive purposes (before hitting on a compromise, of course).

It also pisses-off those who believe themselves to be on “the other side,” which in turn fills the pockets of the Republican Party, so it’s a win-win situation for both Parties at the expense of P.T. Barnum’s favorite people.

no different than “mushroom clouds in America” and Saddam being mere moments away from pulling the WMD trigger.
Actually it is very different. Durbin cited actual FBI evidence of prisoner mistreatment, (and then said if you didn’t know it was the FBI saying this, you’d suspect it was some notorious criminal regime of old.) There was nothing speculative about it.

So, I spoke of “historical events,” said “my real disagreement is purely historical,” and “I’ve long been a student of history” ... and you reduce that to a mere “esthetic” complaint.
I guess I do if you use all that interest in history interest to just decorate your misrepresentation of Durbin’s point, which was not “lampshades of human skin” or “worse than murdering 6 million Jews” or “Nazi equivalency.”

Durbin’s point was that we are using techniques that strongly resemble those used by criminal regimes of the past. He mentions stress positions, and extreme temperatures. Students of Gestapo methods would add cigarette burns, beatings to death, and near drownings, and the extralegal, unaccountable way it all was done. The shoe fits. No, we haven’t done as much as the Gestapo. Yes, we seem to be ramping up.

like it or not, your intended point will be completely drowned out in the aftermath of such comparisons.
Seems to me like you’re helping with the drowning out.

Like it or not, you do yourself a disservice.
Don’t worry about me doing myself a disservice. If Durbin and I’m wrong, that’s your point, not whether we’ve picked the right words to tickle a focus group’s fancy.

You seem to say here that the main thing about comparing American prison practices to those of criminal regimes of the past is that it’s ill advised. You talk about ‘lampshades’, but not about the specific techniques Durbin mentions, or that you can find in detail at the ACLU FOIA files about Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

You want a decorous debate about an indecorous subject. But I’m going to be bitter about seeing my country’s standards fall so low I have to read about one abuse after the other in the papers all the time, and disappointed to find “but we’re not making lampshades out of them” counterarguments to comparisons with past regimes that did much the same to many of their prisoners. They did worse, too, but we’re already not different enough from them to suit me (or you, I think.)

Durbin echoes that, and I think he’s right.

Durbin’s actual statement

Meant to include that in the comment above, sorry.

It’s no different at all. For all the abuses that have taken place, what’s happened is nowhere near the level of Pol Pot, the Soviet gulags, or the Nazis.

He did what any politician does: employ theatrical hyperbole in service of an agenda. He took facts from one FBI agent’s email and then fabricated a theme around that singular email, just as Bush took facts from shady Iraqi dissidents, UN files, and other sources and then fabricated a theme of imminent peril around those.

Durbin’s theme was the Gulag.
Bush’s theme was the mushroom cloud.

Both were hyperbolic fabrications built upon a shaky foundation of half-truths, misperceptions, and a wanting for it all to be true. And that’s what all politicians, and by extension their ideological foot-soldiers, do: create and manipulate perceptions through the creative use of factual and not-so-factual information in order to gain and maintain power.

Durbin’s theme was the Gulag.
Bush’s theme was the mushroom cloud.

This makes me want to scream. Didn’t your mother tell you when you were little that somebody else doing it doesn’t make it okay? It sounds like nobody’s mother ever says that anymore. Or at least nobody listens.

You don’t get to lie or exaggerate just because George Bush lied and exaggerated more. Gitmo guards don’t get to torture their prisoners just because terrorists behead their prisoners.

Those who question our treatment of detainees have legitimate points. Those who say some Democrats are obstructionists may have a legitimate point. Those who are worried about the growing influence of the religious right have legitimate concerns.

I don’t consider obstructionist politicians (of any party) or political influence of religious groups (within some reason of course) to be of the same level as torture. But that’s just my opinion.

But when those people use the words “gulag,” “Nazi,” and “American Taliban,” they willingly throw their legitimacy in the dumpster.

I don’t care much for the legitimacy of Durbin or any other individual politician. What I care about is the actions of government and people. Living in the US, I find some of these actions to be troubling to say the least.

“Didn’t your mother tell you when you were little that somebody else doing it doesn’t make it okay?”

Yes, but she was talking about jumping off the Empire State Building. Not politics.

I’m not sure if my Empire State Building reference is too obscure or not, but Mothers used to use it in the 60’s (“But, mah, Jimmy did it first” ... “If Jimmy jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building, too?”).

Yes, sometimes I want to scream, too. But I’ve found that all it does is startle the cats.

So that’s why my cats keep running away. . .

Where did I even say that one doing it makes the other okay? I merely pointed out the obvious: all politicians and ideologues do this to advance their own respective agendas. Right or wrong, that’s what they have done, are doing, and will continue to do until the race dies out.

If you want noble, honest men rationally debating the challenges facing this country for the good of the citizenry, perhaps you’ll find them in the fiction section of your local bookstore.

Bookstore? Nah, you can watch NBC at 9pm on Wednesday, and see the politicians on West Wing resolve major problems in less than an hour.

Including commercials.

Crap, I forgot about that. Never watched it, although I am a fan of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Zack: “Living in the US, I find some of these actions to be troubling to say the least”

So do I. Given your comment and those of Thomas, perhaps I haven’t made that clear. I’m not suggesting that Durbin is wrong for expressing deep concern. Arlen Specter has. So has Bill Clinton. No one is condeming them for their concerns or what they said, yet they generated headlines for saying it, and left people talking about Guantanamo, not Nazi’s or gulags.

That is my point, not that Durbin should shut up and sit down. I mean, it’s not like I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad because the men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less.

That would be asking a bit much, wouldn’t it?

No, I agree with Durbin, Specter, and Clinton, in that something is wrong at Guantanamo. And you don’t have to take the word of detainees (since apologists point out Al Qaeda members are trained to lie about their captivity). You can get Americans to provide clear evidence. “Spc. Sean D. Baker, 38, was assaulted in January 2003 after he volunteered to wear an orange jumpsuit and portray an uncooperative detainee. Baker said the MPs, who were told that he was an unruly detainee who had assaulted an American sergeant, inflicted a beating that resulted in a traumatic brain injury. Baker, a Gulf War veteran who reenlisted after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was medically retired in April 2004. He said the assault left him with seizures, blackouts, headaches, insomnia and psychological problems [...] The Pentagon initially said that Baker’s hospitalization following the training incident was not related to the beating. Later, officials conceded that he was treated for injuries suffered when a five-man MP ‘internal reaction force’ choked him, slammed his head several times against a concrete floor and sprayed him with pepper gas.”

I believe that you are concerned about the abuses and torture. My point was just that a lot more column inches (or browser screens) have been filled on outrage over the gulag and Nazi comparisons (which after all is just bad rhetoric nothing more) than on outrage over the torture, abuse, killings and disappearings done by the US.

You’re exactly right. And that’s exactly why I’ve said that you do yourself and your cause a disservice when you use such hyperbole. Because the hyperbole becomes the “column inch” eater, not the cause you hoped to promote.

It’s self-defeating.

And since Thomas misunderstood above, when I say “you,” I don’t mean Thomas or Zack, I mean those who use this heated rhetoric … the “Durbin You” or the “Santorum You.”