The Horror

There was a time when I never could have imagined I'd be reading stuff like this about my own country:

At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.

Read the whole thing; I don't really have the heart to make a witty remark.

Comments

I agree, Matt... so tragically wrong that it belies sarcasm or much reflection at all...

I learned about this story on 60 Minutes last night and had the same reaction as you in real time... and when juxtaposed with the interview with Al Gore (in which Leslie Stahl wastes half of her time asking about US Presidential politics...) and the piece about Bill James the Baseball Stats wizard (and yes, I'm a Red Sox fan...), all I could think was this:

Why not get Bill James and Al Gore together with terrorism and climate change experts of all flavors and have them cooly reduce the "facts" into conclusions that even the most reluctant Mets fan could understand...

... in other words, help us all understand that the FUD disseminated over Islamo-Fascist extremism is being perpetuated by our ourselves... and the ostrich-like stance of some with regard to the environment is equally obtuse (though with the opposite collectively self-destructive effect...).

PS: My condolences for the passing of your grandmother... my dad (1913) passed away about three weeks ago and I have similar sentiments that I will limit to this expression of mutual sympathies...

Posted by batondor | March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

Hang Bush. Pretty much sums up my reaction.

Posted by steve duncan | March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

The hor-ror... the hor-ror...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 10:48 AM

Thanks, socctty, that was fucking hilarious.

Posted by stoneyforest | March 31, 2008 10:50 AM

The sad thing is that if you ask a typical Republican- an ordinary American and not even a Jonah Lucianne type fascist from the Corner - he/she would say that this is no big deal, just the cost of securing us from the Muslims. At least that was my personal experience when I discussed the case of the Syrian-Canadian who met the same Kafkaesque fate in the name of anti-terrorism.

Posted by gregor | March 31, 2008 10:53 AM

gregor - Those are the sentiments of my boss. We were talking about the issue, and I argued that he as a conservative should be against it, as it was a very statist thing to do.

He countered that it was inherently conservative, since "conservatives are willing to do what it takes to win." It's amazing that partisanship elicits such stances. I mean, the fact that people adopt such stances simply because the people they tend to oppose on legitimate issues are against them...

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 11:01 AM

The "60 Minutes" piece was the most disturbing thing that I have seen. (I have not had the heart to go see the documentaries on torture.) I just kept shaking my head. We're going to have a lot of explaining to do to our children.

Posted by G Money | March 31, 2008 11:07 AM

I can somewhat understand the position of Socctty's boss - his wish that the authorities could be trusted with such power becomes a belief that the can be trusted with such power.

The Fourth Amendment (not to mention habeus) is meant to keep our politicians from taking advantage of this misplaced trust. For the moment, the safeguards have faied.

Let us hope that they reassert themselves soon.

Posted by heedless | March 31, 2008 11:11 AM

I can somewhat understand the position of Socctty's boss - his wish that the authorities could be trusted with such power becomes a belief that the can be trusted with such power.

But Soctty's boss is explicitly supporting flagrant abuses of said power. That's not the same thing. It's not a "belief that they can be trusted with such power"; it's an endorsement of their actions after it's been clearly shown that they can't be trusted with it. It's significantly further down the slippery slope to acquiescence in totalitarianism.

Posted by live | March 31, 2008 11:17 AM

heedless - Another thing that amazes me is that his defense of the issue was a parroting of the Bush Administration: "You can't prove it happened, so we're not guilty." Which, ironically, is the defense that a lot of these detainees would have, if they were allowed to present a defense.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 11:19 AM

Wow, that was stunning. I've read a fair amount of what our country has done before and the methods we have used, but the specifics in this case are personified. perhaps the perversion of the law and invented crimes, etc....it makes me feel ill, truly.

Posted by Rich | March 31, 2008 11:19 AM

gregor, another (not so) curious reaction from Republicans relates to the 4th Amendment. When I discuss issues such as wiretapping, opening of mail & warrantless searches and seizures their very typical response is "If you don't have anything to hide why do you care? If you're not doing anything wrong what does it matter?" Quite literally they're advocating the 4th Amendment be repealed. This drivel from the same lot that rails against government intrusion into their private lives. When pressed to reconcile these two competing philosophies the obvious retort is to accuse the person examining their attitude of being a treasonous elitist liberal in league with Jane Fonda and the devil. Oh, and this one: "I suppose you're going to vote for that Muslim terrorist sympathizer Obama?!" A testament to the debilitating effect on the mind when getting your education from wingnut chain e-mails.

Posted by steve duncan | March 31, 2008 11:20 AM

And anyway, the "power" in question (to torture detainees, etc.) is not one our government legitimately has, so the question whether they can be trusted with it shouldn't come up in the first place.

Posted by live | March 31, 2008 11:21 AM

That article makes me physically ill. What is wrong with these people?

Posted by Felix Holt | March 31, 2008 11:22 AM

As damning as the report is, the silence of the conservative blogosphere about this story is truly telling. The house of cards that was their defense of the detainee regime has come crashing down.

I want to hear Andy McCarthy defend the treatment of Kurnaz.

Posted by Civilized Crank | March 31, 2008 11:32 AM

This is also another example of the massive lack of oversight over our government, and lack of accountablity by our government.

Accountability? At best we get fingerpointing. Abu Gharib? It was the soldiers' fault. No WMD? It's the CIA's fault.

Oversight? Zero. Blackwater running amock? No answers. Millions of dollars missing? No answers.

I'm not sure why all of this is "okay" with conservatives as well. I think the Republican Party has lost all perspective on what "conservative" means.

Posted by AKBY | March 31, 2008 11:33 AM

We are damned & doomed. We can not escape our crimes, our penance, with Obama the fucking Conciliator. He lacks the Claw. And the crimes belong to all of us, as slavery and its legacy belongs to all of us. There must be blood. The good must battle the frightened and complacent to avenge the victims and punish all torturers and enablers. There will be more innocent blood.

Or someday soon the ghost of Faulkner will haunt us with:"It isn't even past."

Posted by bob mcmanus | March 31, 2008 11:38 AM

AKBY - Exactly. Yet we're stuck in this "left vs right" kind of discourse. You oppose this treatment of detainees? Must be one of those wacky liberals! Time to invoke Ronald Reagan's name and mutter something about tearing down a wall, lest any conservatives get antsy...

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 11:39 AM

I want to hear Andy McCarthy defend the treatment of Kurnaz.

I want to hear what Al thinks of it. McArdle too. Best guess: they decry, deplore and denounce it. They also have completely forgotten how they supported policies that led to and contributed to this when it was safely abstract.

Posted by Cyrus | March 31, 2008 11:42 AM

socctty writes: You oppose this treatment of detainees? Must be one of those wacky liberals!

The hippy liberal argument is so infuriating. I mean: Newsflash! The 60's are over.

I think the leadership---in both parties---needs to retire. Time for a new generation to step in and tear apart the partisan arguments. Won't happen overnight, and of course a level of bitterness between the two parties is expected, but it can't get any worse than it is right now.

Posted by AKBY | March 31, 2008 11:49 AM

We're number 1!

I wonder if they haven't impeached this mother fucker yet because they're just as guilty or because they're scared of putting Cheney in power.

Obama has vowed to restore habeas corpus and close down Gitmo on day 1, and has consistently opposed torture. That is almost reason enough for me to vote for him.

I agree though, he'll be too soft in going after these criminals who should spend their days rotting in jail.

Posted by We're number 1! | March 31, 2008 11:58 AM

I wonder if they haven't impeached this mother fucker yet because they're just as guilty or because they're scared of putting Cheney in power.

They haven't done it because they (the Democrats) don't want the Republicans doing it to them. What a terrible precedent that would establish! Politicians being impeached for criminal behavior. Liberal fascism at its worst.

Posted by Felix Holt | March 31, 2008 12:06 PM

I think the leadership---in both parties---needs to retire.

Right, those who approved torture and those who opposed it are equally to blame.

I think AKBY has probably got the preferred defense-of-torture talking point.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 31, 2008 12:08 PM

I want to hear what Al thinks of it. McArdle too. Best guess: they decry, deplore and denounce it. They also have completely forgotten how they supported policies that led to and contributed to this when it was safely abstract.

"Al" is a composite of several different posters here, most of whom are authoritians to their cores. McArdle is a security-state "libertarian," so I doubt she'd have any problem with this, other than the standard tut-tutting. If a tax had been levied on this guy, however, she'd be apoplectic.

Posted by SavageView | March 31, 2008 12:10 PM

Is this the first time the case has come up in the mainstream US media?

Posted by novakant | March 31, 2008 12:16 PM

AKBY - That's a large motivator for the base - label detractors as hippies, alluding to naivity. Or, to label them as communists, alluding to brutal statism. That was the fuel for the modern conservative movement, and now it's down to just fumes, but gosh-darnit, that's what they've got.

The new left needs to make sure it doesn't get caught up in this; to always be idea and ethics-oriented.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 12:16 PM

I agree though, he'll be too soft in going after these criminals who should spend their days rotting in jail.

Maybe take the pragmatic view. Yes, the next President could launch indictments of our current war criminal-staffed administration. And yes, they could be proven guilty and receive the personal justice they deserve. But no, this would not "heal the wounds" caused by such criminality; it would worsen them. No matter how just, a partisan prosecution of that magnitude would only deepen polarization. The only thing that will steer us further away from polarization is a President who leads by example, restores accountability, and causes enough Americans to contrast such leadership with what they sorely lacked before. In other words, as imperfectly just as it is, the future is best left to winning future elections in a positive way, and not punishing previous ones in a negative way. Bush was half right when he said that the 2004 election was his accountability moment. Until enough Americans come to accept how unacceptable Bush really was, in the historic sense (and it appears they've begun to) they'll be just as likely to elect someone much like him, i.e. equally prosecutable, in the future.

Posted by Bill | March 31, 2008 12:16 PM

... on further reflection, all this talk about how the Right will defend this is a mistake. It's just another way of averting our eyes from how awful this really is.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 31, 2008 12:20 PM

Time for a new generation to step in and tear apart the partisan arguments

Won't happen. There will be effects from the "Dean revolution" or whatever, but it won't be of that extent. The only way to do that is to institute Instant Run-Off voting, which would allow third parties to emerge as legitimate options. Until then, we're doomed to Us vs. Them.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 12:22 PM

Bill - No way. If the next administration (which you presume to be a Democratic one) makes a legitimate case about why these things deserve such prosecution, there won't be much fallout, other than the ridiculous talking heads on the EIB network. People got irritated with the right-wing because no one gives a shit about blowjobs, and they didn't make a compelling case that the crime was Clinton lying under oath (or, people understood that he was goaded into lying). Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath, as it sets a precendent that such a crime can't be committed without repercussions.

You think the next kind neo-cons are going to "learn their lesson" from people NOT taking action against these crimes?

The problem with Dems is that they're all too willing to draw a line in the sand, tell people not to cross it, and then once it's crossed, they wag their finger and say "Well, you know it's wrong... just don't do it again." It's why Hillary Clinton is still hanging around, in fact.

Posted by socctty | March 31, 2008 12:31 PM

Bill writes: "Yes, the next President could launch indictments of our current war criminal-staffed administration. And yes, they could be proven guilty and receive the personal justice they deserve. But no, this would not "heal the wounds" caused by such criminality; it would worsen them. No matter how just, a partisan prosecution of that magnitude would only deepen polarization. The only thing that will steer us further away from polarization is a President who leads by example, restores accountability, and causes enough Americans to contrast such leadership with what they sorely lacked before."

So you want to "restore accountability" by letting war criminal assholes get off with no punishment?

You're an idiot.

After WW2 some argued that war crimes trials would be a bad idea because they would humiliate the fallen nations of Japan and Germany. It didn't work out that way - the trials laid bare what had been done and helped create a fresh start.

America needs to regain its stature in the world and coming clean about what the Bushpigs have been about is crucial to doing that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | March 31, 2008 1:16 PM

socctty, I completely agree with you. The only problem is that while the senate and house were both controlled by republicans, Bush had a bill passed that proactively immunized him from any criminal prosecution in regards to torture. unfortunately, he's already gotten away with it, as much as I'd love to see cheney hang for war crimes. (and let's not kid ourselves here, bush may be president, but he's stupid and weak. cheney is the strong and forceful type that bush's type clings to. cheney's and rumsfeld are the ones most at fault for this fascist shadow-government stuff. i'd love to have bushed tried in a lesser extend though, to put the fear in him.)

Posted by GottSchreit | March 31, 2008 1:22 PM

Right, those who approved torture and those who opposed it are equally to blame.

Well, I agree this is a system failure. The collusion between the judicial and executive branches of government is one problem, and the lack of oversight and utter failure by the legislative branch to hold government accountable is the other.

Posted by AKBY | March 31, 2008 1:35 PM

Worse still is the likelihood Bush will eventually profit from torture and abuse. Gitmo will get sold or leased to Carlyle or Bechtel and Bush will be on one or both of their boards. Or he'll end up a consultant to some security company's cattle prod and rendition division.

Posted by steve duncan | March 31, 2008 1:51 PM

The only thing that will steer us further away from polarization is a President who leads by example, restores accountability, and causes enough Americans to contrast such leadership with what they sorely lacked before.

Sounds like Jimmy Carter. And then we had Reagan and Central American torture squads. It has been like clockwork, every twenty years America kills 100s of thousands of people overseas.

The comparison of Obama and Carter has been made before.

Posted by bob mcmanus | March 31, 2008 1:52 PM

What a horrifying story. Those responsible for this in the Bush administration should be tried and sentenced for war crimes.

Posted by Korha | March 31, 2008 2:09 PM

I tend to agree with bob. The answer is not to "lead by example" and hope that others will follow. The answer is to crush the malefactors under your bootheel and ensure they never work in government ever again.

If Nixon had died in jail while Rumsfeld and Cheney had been exiled from government for life, we'd have been a lot better off. Instead, we just allowed them to bide their time until they could return.

People seem to think that "accountability" means "acknowledgement followed by forgiveness." It actually means "pursue until justice is done." It also means calling every single last administration support to account for their moral failure in life and making sure they do not passs their gutter ideology and moral failure on to the next generation.

Posted by Tyro | March 31, 2008 2:14 PM

The only way to do that is to institute Instant Run-Off voting, which would allow third parties to emerge as legitimate options. Until then, we're doomed to Us vs. Them.

But not on all issues. For example, the younger generations don't view environmental causes from a Left or Right perspective. Progress can and will be made here.

I think the partisan bickering is worse when the government moves too far to the right or left; I'm hoping both parties move more toward the center; this should help somewhat, on some issues.

Still, I agree we need a legit 3rd party, ultimately, in order to completely end the stalemate between the 2 parties.

Posted by AKBY | March 31, 2008 2:16 PM

The commentators on the cbs site bug me almost as much as what happened to this guy. Many seem to be resorting to fake-ass, tired arguments against cbs for publishing "propaganda". Endangering the troops, yadda, yadda, yadda. When an American gets tortured and murdered by the enemy, however, the enemy doesn't usually cite propaganda as justification. They cite Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the black sites, which the media did not invent, and do not operate. A small point, perhaps, but I am genuinely perplexed about why these people either don't understand or can't concede it

Posted by jimmybiscuit | March 31, 2008 2:26 PM

The trouble with impeaching Bush (or any of the various war crimes suggestions) is that he is responsible for making law in addition to obeying it.

Our treatment of Murat Kurnaz has been barbaric, unfair, and un-American, but it is not necessarily illegal. Jim Crow was legal too, so please don't misinterpret this as somehow excusing Bush.

The Constitution gives the President wide latitude in his treatment of foreigners overseas (which is why Guantanamo is not on US soil). Congress has been more concerned with protecting its collective re-election chances than in protecting justice or transparency, so there is very little legal restriction on Bush's actions. On this issue, he essentially gets to make his own laws.

The only way to stop it is to elect someone else.

Posted by heedless | March 31, 2008 2:32 PM

What are they teaching kids in history these days? America has been doing "stuff like this" for years. What exactly was it that made you think that America was somehow immune to injustice? Plenty of American citizens get similarly lost and mistreated within our own criminal justice system everyday; what made you assume that we would do any better when we went to Iraq? I mean really, where does your incredulity come from?

Posted by Thomas | March 31, 2008 3:26 PM

Thomas - How many times has America lost its innocence? Many. Indeed, most countries have torture in their history. But what is the advantage of cynicism? Looks like a non-sequitor here.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | March 31, 2008 4:19 PM

jimmybiscuit-

Exactly. The cynic is the status quo's best friend.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 31, 2008 4:25 PM

Chris Ford and Mixner will be in here in a minute ranting about how it's all perfectly good because we blow up people on the battlefield and being blown up on the battlefield is as bad as being tortured to death.

Which is why they advocate actually skipping the torture "middle man" and just nuking all the Ay-Rabs.

Because, them Ay-rabs are just so bad people...being brown and all...plus they hate us for our freedoms, like the freedom to bomb them.

Bottom line: Chimpanzees have two reactions to this sort of thing:

1) They approve of it because they think it's being done FOR THEM (or at least not TO them.)

2) They disapprove of it to establish how much "morally better" they are than the chimps of 1) above.

Both reactions are incorrect.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 4:34 PM

Because, them Ay-rabs are just so bad people...being brown and all...plus they hate us for our freedoms, like the freedom to bomb them.

Except I might point out that Murat Kurnaz wasn't an Arab. He was from Germany.

Posted by AKBY | March 31, 2008 5:10 PM

This is a glaring example of an America that's only "good for the Jews".

The real issue is not Palestine. Unless they are neutralized, Israel lobbying groups, Israel advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite.

Murat Kurnaz yesterday. If Joe Lieberman's boy John McCain gets in - it's you or me tomorrow.

Posted by Trevor | March 31, 2008 6:04 PM

AKBY, according to the article:

"His parents emigrated there from Turkey. His father works in the Mercedes factory. Kurnaz wasn’t particularly religious growing up, but in 2001 he was marrying a Turkish girl who was. And he decided to learn more about Islam.

"I didn't know how to pray. I didn't know anything," Kurnaz says. "So I had to study more about Islam so I could go to the mosque and pray."

So he might have been German - but he was still "brown" - since a right wing nut will assume a Turk isn't "Caucasian" despite the fact that according to Wikipedia Turkic peoples range from Caucasoid to Mongoloid in appearance.

Plus he was actually studying Islam.

That's enough for the right wing nuts to assume he HAS to be a "terrorist".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 10:43 PM

Moe writes:

So you want to "restore accountability" by letting war criminal assholes get off with no punishment?

You're an idiot.

No, I don't "want" to.

After WW2 some argued that war crimes trials would be a bad idea because they would humiliate the fallen nations of Japan and Germany. It didn't work out that way - the trials laid bare what had been done and helped create a fresh start.

That's great, if you actually think Bush et al are the literal, moral equivalents of the Nazis and Japanese. And yes, some did argue against war crimes trials at the time, wrongly. One tiny, key difference is as you stated: some were concerned, legitimately but wrongly, about humiliating an entire nation for the crimes of their leaders. Whereas in the present case, I would be concerned about not humiliating, but infuriating a very entrenched 30 percent who don't happen to be recent and utter losers in a total war for world domination. I.e. virtually EVERYONE in Japan and Germany realized the magnitude of the wrongdoing. Today's Republican base does not and won't under any circumstances, barring Bush himself being caught sticking a knife into an innocent terror suspect's vitals. So in a perfect world, Bush and Cheney etc. would of course go to jail for their crimes. But as democratically elected leaders with acres of (quasi, pseudo) legitimacy from the strictly legalistic standpoint...no. My comments were meant to address the imperfect world we live in, where any prosecution of them would almost certainly be insufficiently bipartisan to escape the "partisan witch-hunt" charge from a substantial minority. Even if 60-70% of the country went along with it, that ain't enough. A supremely pissed 30% minority is more than enough.

America needs to regain its stature in the world and coming clean about what the Bushpigs have been about is crucial to doing that.

Well, the rest of the world can read Bush's low approval ratings, too. There's been plenty of coming clean for all to read about, but unfortunately we live under a political system where outright crimes are pretty easy to get away with -- "legally"! -- when you're Commander in Chief Guy. The best bet is to elect leaders who take their responsibilities to our core principles more seriously, and try to work toward greater accountability in an organic way -- not in the forced, colonic way you advocate. JMO.

Posted by Bill | March 31, 2008 11:31 PM

Bill,

So the 30% of flat-Earthers who still support the criminal Bush should have a veto and prevent the perpetrators of these unspeakable offenses from being brought to justice?

That is the logic of the weak-kneed, hapless democrats of Weimar Germany, who failed to confront organized thuggery until it was too late.

Any laws passed to immunize the criminals retroactively are patently unconstititional. Any law passed to legalize torture is barred by the Eighth Amendment. Whether Bush-packed courts will honor these principles is another matter, however.

Posted by Eric | April 1, 2008 2:29 AM

Eric,

I thought only neoconservatives loved to invoke Weimar etc. The analogy is not appropriate, to say the least. Unless of course you consider a country with over 200 years of relative constitutional stability and relative order to be equally on the verge of dictatorship with the very new and very unstable Republic of Weimar.

So the 30% of flat-Earthers who still support the criminal Bush should have a veto and prevent the perpetrators of these unspeakable offenses from being brought to justice?

No one's talking about giving them a "veto." And I wasn't referring to any flat-Earthers, rather to those already holding elected office, who are, you know, by and large clever & disingenuous partisans operating as a unit, not confused, backward bumpkins. The point is they would in essence already have a veto, i.e. the ability to grind things to a halt, and spend our time plotting their revenge. Maybe you'd like to indict all of them for obstructing justice. Whatever, prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes isn't going to happen, so I guess you'll have to resign yourself to living in a modern-day pre-Nazi Germany. Perhaps you should repatriate?

Posted by Bill | April 1, 2008 6:41 AM

About the only way Bush and co. would be prosecuted for war crimes is if OBL becomes a world-recognized statesman or America loses an intercontinental land war with Iran and a cadre of revolutionary guard sleeper cells take over the White House and China and Russia agree to apply the gears in recognition of Iranian power on the ground. In which case Bush and co. would argue that they were right, that they had simply been trying to protect America from a civilizational threat (which seemed fantastical until they produced it) and more Americans than do currently would agree that they had been right all along, and a weakened America would bide its time, nursing its wounds, going asymmetrical until strong again. Around and around we go. More likely historians will agree that Bush and co. committed war crimes, and two hundred years from now there may be a kind of consensus among Americans that Shit, you know, we did some dirty things back then. But right now no one has the power to make America feel this against its will.

Posted by jimmybiscuit | April 1, 2008 9:13 AM

Bill, I'm not an American. I'm from Canada. I've been astounded to see how poorly Americans understand the odium with which your country is held now in The Rest Of The World. While the US is happy to lecture moralizingly about The Right Thing To Do, it has been well understood by everybody else who's paying attention that there are no grounds whatsoever upon which the US can stand on to deliver those sermons.

The US is no longer viewed as the city on the hill by anyone other than its own misinformed citizenry. Best estimates are that the US has app. 57,000 secret prisoners scattered all over the world, and that the strong likelihood is that they are all undergoing torture, not to mention the complete disregard for their basic civil rights like a fair trial, ability to face their accusers, ability to see the evidence against them and to argue against it, and the ability to be seen by an independent judge to contest their detention.

After 9/11, the world was with you, and your country has managed to squander that with unbelievable rapidity. Your leadership is made up of war criminals that explicity authorized torture (the newly released Yoo memo proves that) and they need to be brought to justice. If your country refuses to do that after the nightmare of the Bush years is over, then there will be no going back to the high opinion of the world before. Actually, it's too late for that... but at least the US might be able to at least be considered as among the civilized as opposed to rolling around in the sewer with the likes of Pinochet and Pol Pot like you are now.

Jimmybiscuit, that's just not true. Here's a plausible scenario for you... Bush or McCain attack Iran, citing their nuclear program as justification. If that happens, nobody but NOBODY will be willing to help you, and many countries will be forced to conclude that the US is just flat-out dangerous. All that they have to do is to decide to put their US dollar denominated debt on the market at once to crash the US dollar. Oil goes from a hundred dollars a barrel to a thousand dollars a barrel overnight... for the US, but not for anyone else (well, except probably us up here in Canada). 90 days later, you run out and your military machine literally runs out of gas. What do you do then (other than invade us to force us to give you our tar sands)? What's that you say? They'd be hurting themselves by crashing the US dollar? Why yes, they would... but OTOH they may be forced to decide that ON BALANCE it would be worth it to render a rogue US less dangerous to the community of nations.

You have to put these people on trial. The appointment of Yoo to UCB is a travesty; you're not only failing to punish prima facie war criminals... you're rewarding them!

Posted by Jack | April 5, 2008 4:42 PM

Jack, I'm from Canada, too, but there's no way that Bush or whoever is going to get brought up on war crimes charges. Bush and Co. look like losers to us. Are the Americans that dumb, that blinded? Certainly America went crazy after 9/11 in a way that is not obvious to most Americans and perhaps not even to anyone under 50 today. But in the grand scheme, Bush and Co. are winners. Bush is no Eichmann or Milosovic. The scenario I outlined above was meant to sound unlikely. America will never lose a civilizational war, and Bush, though retarded, though the kind of guy who winds up talking drunk to a camera at a wedding even though he was older than 40 at the time, and yet somehow goes on to become president, while the clip winds up on youtube - a drunk man with a case of arrested development busting on the bride and groom for all the world to see - is nevertheless no tin-pot dictator that the world turns on to maintain the fiction that it can act in concert out of shared outrage. Never happens, and Bush and Co. are not that vulnerable. Who has enough power to bring war crime charges against them, and yet simultaneously has nothing to lose?

Posted by jimmybiscuit | April 5, 2008 10:07 PM