Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 21, 2009

THE TWISTED LOGIC BEHIND 'KEEP WALKING'.... It was pretty painful over the weekend to see/hear so many political pundits whitewash torture. To hear many of the leading conservative media voices, the problem wasn't with the Bush administration's illegal policies, which embarrassed the nation and undermined our national security, but rather with the Obama administration's transparency.

While most of the nonsense came from the usual suspects (Rove, Armey, Kristol), perhaps the most striking argument came from Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter turned Wall Street Journal columnist.

"Sometimes in life you want to just keep walking," Noonan said, adding, "Sometimes, I think, just keep walking.... Some of life just has to be mysterious."

It was, to be sure, one of the more ridiculous arguments of the debate. Noonan wasn't prepared to defend the Bush administration's abuses, but she suggested accountability is necessarily a bad idea because ... well, apparently it has something to do with walking.

Today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), after criticizing the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute alleged Bush-era crimes, marveled at Noonan's absurd argument.

[T]he Senator took a swipe at some of the rationalizations for avoiding prosecution that have been voiced by Washington lawmakers and pundits.

"If you want to see just how outrageous this is, I refer you to the remarks made by Peggy Noonan this Sunday," he said, referring to the longtime conservative columnist's appearance on ABC's This Week. "I frankly have never heard anything quite as disturbing as her remark that was something to the affect of: 'well sometimes you just have to move on.'"

The more one sees the clip of Noonan's comments, the harder it is to understand what she was even trying to say. Apparently, if someone you like commits a heinous act, and thinking about your friend's misdeeds makes you uncomfortable, the smart thing to do is pretend like you didn't hear about the heinous act in the first place.

That's not just wrong, it's dangerous -- it's the kind of attitude that says anyone can do just about anything and get away with it, because "some of life just has to be mysterious" and there's no point in holding people accountable.

If you're ever facing felony charges, give this a shot and see how well it goes over. "Your honor, I could offer a defense, and we could explore the charges against me, but sometimes in life you want to just keep walking. Some of life just has to be mysterious."

Jon Stewart was about as impressed with Noonan's argument as Feingold was.

Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Slate's "XX Factor" has a similarly good take-down of a similarly bad argument by Mornin' Joe.

One gets the impression that these folks thought Jack Nicholson's character was the hero of A Few Good Men and that Tom Cruise's character was the villain.

Posted by: zeitgeist on April 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Peggy Noonan's outlook permits all manner of wrongdoing. Noted.

Posted by: Measure for Measure on April 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Some of life just has to be mysterious

This is what you say about the sexual chemistry between lovers, the cool Secret Santa present that appears on your desk, an expertly executed magic trick or the way that good samaritans sometimes show up in odd places when we most need them. THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT OUR COUNTRY HAVING FUCKING TORTURED PEOPLE! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WOMAN?!

Sorry, rough week. But for crying out loud, why do we have to share a country with these people?

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't this the same approach they took with Libby revealing the identity of a US intelligence agent during wartime? Hey, he's one of us Villagers, so let's not get too serious about the crime.

Posted by: Wapiti on April 21, 2009 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Noonan is a spooky idiot. But how much more absurd is her argument, really, than Obama's "We have to look forward, not backward"? Essentially, Obama wants to "keep walking" too.

Posted by: gradysu on April 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't this the same as a witness to a crime saying to police "I just didn't want to get involved" when asked why he/she didn't try to stop or report it?

Sounds VERY much like it . . .

I don't know many who react to that excuse with anything but shame for the individual who says it.

Posted by: AfGuy on April 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Some people call it sticking your head in the sand. It sounds to me like she just can't bear to think about it for too long.

Posted by: CDW on April 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bush lied. Surprize, surprize!! Bush Co. broke the law. You don't say. Democrats are giving lip service to caring, but doing basically nothing. NO! Say it ain't so Joe. yada yada yada. SSDD.

Posted by: Get Real on April 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Being familiar with conservatives, I completely understood what she was trying to say.

Basically, it is the old argument that we have to pay some people to do some very bad things to live in safety. We don't want to know what they do, so when we see it out of the corner of our eye, we should just keep walking.

It is the Jack Nicholson argument from "A Few Good Men".

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Yes, conservatives really believe that.

Posted by: DR on April 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

On Sunday I was watching when Ms. Noonan said this and it was beyond belief, I almost dropped a good cup of java and her histrionics are something to watch. I was reminded of someone walking past a bleeding, unconscious person beside the road, holding her nose and looking the other way. "...sometimes you just keep walkin'"

The sheer shallowness of Peggy Noonan is an amazing thing.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on April 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK
The more one sees the clip of Noonan's comments, the harder it is to understand what she was even trying to say. Apparently, if someone you like commits a heinous act, and thinking about your friend's misdeeds makes you uncomfortable, the smart thing to do is pretend like you didn't hear about the heinous act in the first place.

I think republicans are stunned at the number of times KSM and Zubaydha were waterboarded. It is indefensible on it's face. And the lizardly thinking behind the "insect" method of torture adds to the pathos slowly being perceived by the public at large.

They are sputtering nonsense, because there is no real defense for these actions. Maybe another example of Obama softening up the public by releasing these memos first? As these revelations soak in to the national conscience, further actions should be easier to take.

Posted by: Mr. Stuck on April 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

"That's not just wrong, it's dangerous --"

No, it's a form of tribalism, the impulse and even the necessity of forgiving wrong done by your own kind.

We don't even have to speculate about what the reaction would be if these tactics were used against U.S. personnel -- we know -- because we prosecuted Japanese personnel who used some of these same tactics against American soldiers.

Peggy Noonan knows she can't defend the indefensible but neither can she condemn her own kind, so there you are.

Posted by: Barbara on April 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WOMAN?!

Drunk or mentally ill. Perhaps both.

Posted by: DJ on April 21, 2009 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Peggy Noonan is one of those impossibly arrogant people who sincerely believes that every single word that comes out of her mouth is a sweet jewel of inspiration for all ears that hear it. In reality, she is a bloviating hypocrite.

And, by the way, why is exposing and prosecuting a real crime (domestic and international) like torture not good for the country, and yet it was so very appropriate to go after Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky? I mean really, which is more important? These Rethugs are just unbelievable.

Posted by: PS on April 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

I'm confused. Isn't Noonan saying the same thing Obambi is saying? Mainly that he isn't interested in "looking back, but looking forward"? And doesn't that make him a war criminal for failing to prosecute?

In fact, it could be argued that he's even more of a war criminal than Bush. Because, unlike Bush, Obambi truly believes that what happened was "torture" and therefore "illegal" under existing law and yet he is not going to prosecute.

Should John Connor schedule a hearing to see if this constitutes an impeachable offense? Or should we just ship him off to the Hauge and let the ICC handle it? LOL

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Some of life just has to be mysterious" --- ????

This is the language of romance, starry-eyed giggly silly romance.

Has this person no sense of reality? Or is torture and all its hideous forms and implements her idea of romance?

The words deranged and deeply screwed up come to mind. Also, and I say this without sarcasm or snark, bondage and sadism and a really convoluted, painful understanding of love.

Posted by: Sf on April 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Hold it, please! Hold it! This is Sir Launcelot from the court of Camelot -- a very brave and influential knight, and my special guest here today."

"He killed my auntie!"

"Please, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."

Posted by: Stephen Stralka on April 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I am surprised she can walk after all that Grey Goose.

The woman is an embarassment. I enjoy reading takedowns of her, but it sickens me that she is still employed as a writer. Actually, I would like to sit Michael Gerson in front of the tv when she is on and tell him: This is you in twenty years. Although in fairness Peggy has better hair.

I swear her brain has to be mush after such active denial of reality after what she saw at the revolution...

Whiskey Fire has a wonderful collection of Peggy's Greatest Hits:

http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2009/04/noonan-and-the-triumph-of-the-good-guys.html


Posted by: Andrew on April 21, 2009 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel, speak of him with the respect due the President of the United States, or do not expect a serious reply...

Actually, many of us are very concerned about the "looking forward" comments. That is because we do not defend every move Dear Leader makes. I would suggest conservative scum could learn something, but then, they would not be conservative...

Posted by: Andrew on April 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM |

Answer the question, Chicounsel: did you get your legal degree out of a nickel gumball machine, or did you have to shell out a whole quarter?

Posted by: DJ on April 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel wrote: "Isn't Noonan saying the same thing Obambi is saying?"

Referring to Obama as "The One" and "Obambi" is Chicounsel's way of saying, "Hey, look everybody! I'm a Ditto-Head! I'm a right-wing stooge! I know all the right-wing stooge code words!"

We know, Chicounsel. We know.

On the other hand, Chicounsel's point has some merit.

If the Obama administration will not prosecute the Bush officials responsible for torture and other war crimes, well, that's exactly what the International Criminal Court is for: to prosecute such crimes when national governments are unwilling or unable to do so.

There are quite a few former Bush administration officials who would be well advised not to travel outside the country.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hear hear, SecularAnamist!

Posted by: MR Bill on April 21, 2009 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, Noonan wasn't in the "just walk on" mood over Monica Lewinsky. Ah, that old Republican double standard in action.

I remember back in early 2002 when the left was just getting organized on line. Some of the early on-line discussion threads involved people in the left predicting that the Republicans not only would torture but would try to make it openly acceptable. This wasn't a hard prediction as Alan Dershowitz was on TV trying to provide a legal basis for torture, and the watchdog reports from Afghanistan indicated that torture was already routine (something that the American press still hasn't revisited).

But the online wingnuts back then complained bitterly. They would never justify torture, they said. The captured Afghanis were getting better treatment than they'd ever had in their life, the wingnuts said. Of COURSE they didn't agree with torture.

Fast forward a few years and the same wingnuts were arguing that OF COURSE torture was necessary.

Evil people, wingnuts.

Posted by: Cool on April 21, 2009 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't that pretty much the rationale given by a college student about ten years ago who saw his friend rape and murder a little girl in Las Vegas, but didn't intervene to stop the murder because he "didn't know that little girl, but I did know my friend, with all of his great potential . . . "
The creep unfortunately hadn't broken any law (and as the saying goes, "there OUGHTA be a law!"), but he was thoroughly ostracized by the other students at his university. Noonan deserves much the same.

Posted by: T-Rex on April 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

That is the odd point, SecularAnimist. Chicounsel does have a point. On several areas, I am very disturbed by decisions Obama has made. State secrets and now this. OTOH, it does appear that Congress and just maybe the AG will step up to the plate on this.

What so many conservative scum do not understand is why we would be disturbed by some of Obama's decisions. Jules Crittenden, asshole extraordinaire, expressed confusion about the left a few weeks ago. In his mind (if you can call it that), we won. So why aren't we happy?

He does not get that we actually BELIEVE in the ideas we are fighting for. Electing Barack Obama was not the end, it was the means to the end: the establishment and furtherance of a truly just society. As respectable as President Obama is, we cannot just drop the issues that matter and say "Anything he wants, we get behind!"

The fact is I do get annoyed at assholes like Chicounsel with "Obambi." Barack Hussein Obama came out of political nowhere to destroy a better-known Republican rival effectively, and Obama did this with the last name of Bush or Clinton. Dubya's only real accomplishment, aside from the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, was to be born with the name "Bush."

Posted by: Andrew on April 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

I kinda perceive it as a threat.

Ever been in a situation where you see an unholy amount of guys gang up on one victim? Maybe one of them there colored fellas, or a girl wearin' too short a skirt and needs to be taught a lesson? You want to step in and stop something awful from occurring, but the gang makes it clear to you that the awful thing is going to happen no matter what, and to try to stop it, to even try to delay it, will make it happen to you, too?

Even if you've never been in that situation, can you imagine it? The sense of impotence, of helplessness, the shame...but at least you're still standing?

That's what I get out of Peggy Noonan's comments. You're better off not knowing.

Of course, we're not talking about just one victim who is outnumbered (to quote the lunatic, WE outnumber THEM) and we're not talking about one witness we're talking about the whole country, so even if you can sympathize with the aforementioned hypothetical ethical quandary...Peggy can go eff herself.

Posted by: slappy magoo on April 21, 2009 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

and Obama did this with the last name of Bush or Clinton.

Sorry. I meant "WITHOUT the last name of Bush or Clinton."

Posted by: Andrew on April 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel and SecularAnimist, you're both making an assumption that I don't think is warranted. Has Obama issued anyone a blanket pardon, the way Ford did to Nixon? Has he said in absolutely ironclad language that he won't prosecute anyone? Ever heard that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" Because we may hear him use that quote before the year is out. I think he's left himself lots and lots of wiggle room to change his mind, when the evidence of wrongdoing becomes too overwhelming to ignore, when the public clamors for legal action, etc. etc.

And don't you think he's releasing the evidence of that wrongdoing for the specific purpose of building that public support? I don't know for sure, but I do know that he has demonstrated his ability to play a "long game," which is how he ended up winning both the nomination and the Presidency. And he is a pretty shrewd guy. If he had plunged ahead immediately with prosecutions right after taking office, wouldn't the right have screamed "Partisan witch hunt!"? They'll still scream that, but they'll have a much harder time making their case as the details of the Bush administration criminality become public.

Posted by: T-Rex on April 21, 2009 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

I saw the smoke rising from Bergen Belson, Dachau, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald and decided the best thing to do for all involved was for me to just walk away, just walk away, some of life just has to be mysterious.

Posted by: grinning cat on April 21, 2009 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Noonan often acts as the American political establishment's "airhead" non-concern troll.
BTW, speaking of Reagan, do we have any scoop on his thoughts at all about torture? AFAIK the USA didn't do it under his watch ...

Posted by: Neil B ◙ on April 21, 2009 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

For conservatives, the reprehensible behavior at Abu Ghraib was that someone brought a camera. Noonan's comment was just a variation of that sentiment. For conservatives, as long as the outward show is maintained, as long as no one pays attention to what was actually done, it doesn't matter; George Bush may be the worst POTUS in US history, but, gosh, he wears a flag pin. What a patriot!

Personally, I make a very big distinction between the behavior of individuals in awkward social circumstances ("oops, we'll all just ignore the fact that Aunt Em just farted" or "don't notice that your father is drunk again") and the stated policies of nations. I don't think that any good can come when systems of abuse are ignored

Posted by: PTate in MN on April 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

I love how these self-righteous moral scolds like Noonan and Lieberman think that torture is just fine.

Posted by: Speed on April 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

The question in my mind is, who ordered waterboarding six times a day for a month?

What pathological cretin did this, who gave them this ability to play out their cretinous and most base impulses and under what rock do they live, Cheney/Rove/Bush?

Posted by: IntelVet on April 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

I saw this on This Week, and thought "What the HELL is she talking about?"

What the HELL was "mysterious" about the torture OR the torturous logic of the torture memos?

Yeah, she wants to "keep walking" and not look at the bodies lying in street. They were put there by her beloved RePukelican Party.

This one of the kool kids needs to be driven from the pages of the so-called newspaper that hires her.

Posted by: Impeach Jay Bybee on April 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

On the larger point of who should or should not be prosecuted for the torture that DID occur, I'm not totally with Obama, but I'm a big girl and I do understand that the CIA maybe have to be the bad guys every once in a while.

I think that I, too, would hesitate to put any of them on trial, given the legal advice they were given.

Of course, that does not give immunity to those who ignored the actual law in giving such crapola as "legal advice."

I think it is on point that the Europeans have put prices on the heads of those who AUTHORIZED the torture, and that's where I think it should be, too.

Others have gone into detail about the travesties in these "advice" memos, but suffice it to say that when you IGNORE both the law and the history of the application of the law in the drafting of a legal memo, you're committing malpractice. And when you do it in the context of allowing torture, you're committing a war crime, too.

Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee and Addington should NOT be off the hook, and I don't think Obama HAS put them off the hook.

Posted by: Impeach Jay Bybee on April 21, 2009 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel wrote: "Should John Connor schedule a hearing to see if this constitutes an impeachable offense?"

Oh, and by the way, Chicounsel: I think you are referring to Congressman John Conyers.

"John Connor" is a fictional character from the Terminator movie series.

I've often had the distinct impression that Chicounsel posts comments here when he gets really drunk.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 21, 2009 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Like Barbara Bush, Noonan doesn't want to bother her beautiful mind.

Posted by: ChristianPinko on April 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

T-Rex wrote: "Chicounsel and SecularAnimist, you're both making an assumption that I don't think is warranted."

I'm not assuming that Obama won't prosecute those responsible for authorizing torture and developing a systematic policy that not only approved of, but promoted torture -- including everyone up the chain of authority, up to and including Cheney and Bush.

I hope that he will.

All I am saying is that if he does not -- if the US government does not -- then it is my understanding that that's exactly what the International Criminal Court is for: to prosecute those responsible for war crimes in cases where their own national governments are unable or unwilling to do so.

And in that case, if Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld et al were to travel abroad, they would risk being arrested and sent to the ICC for trial.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK
If the Obama administration will not prosecute the Bush officials responsible for torture and other war crimes, well, that's exactly what the International Criminal Court is for: to prosecute such crimes when national governments are unwilling or unable to do so.

The ICC has jurisdictional requirements, and under those would not have personal jurisdiction unless it was granted by the US (as the nation of whom those accused are nationals, and in which most their acts at issue took place) or perhaps the nation in which the actual torture took place, referred the cases to the ICC.

And the ICC doesn't generally have subject matter jurisdiction over torture except insofar as it is a war crime or crime against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute; now, torture in the context in which these allegations arise may be such a crime, but there is more required to establish that than just torture as prohibited by the UN Convention Against Torture.

Torture, qua torture, is subject to universal jurisdiction by all states, but is not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the ICC.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

These boots are made for walkin',
And that's just what they'll do.
One of these days these boots
Are gonna walk all over you.

Posted by: Nancy Sinatra on April 21, 2009 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK
... from Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter turned Wall Street Journal columnist.

"Sometimes in life you want to just keep walking," Noonan said, adding, "Sometimes, I think, just keep walking.... Some of life just has to be mysterious."

She's right of course. It just doesn't help when the issue is something as wicked as torture. I guess everybody has to make their own decision when to 'keep walking' and when to change direction.

Posted by: MarkH on April 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Apparently, if someone you like commits a heinous act, and thinking about your friend's misdeeds makes you uncomfortable, the smart thing to do is pretend like you didn't hear about the heinous act in the first place."

Hey, it worked for Germans in the Nazi era, didn't it? Didn't it? DIDN'T IT?

--- "If ve choost pretend it didn't happen, maybe it vill all choost go avay!"

I love the ostrich approach to life: Hide your head in the sands, and when you feel something being shoved up your ass, pretend that isn't happening, either.

(Should the GOP symbol change to an ostrich?)

Ignorance is bliss?

How many truisms can we come up with on this?

Posted by: SteveGinIL on April 21, 2009 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

DR quote A Few Good Men

... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. ..."

Posted by: DR on April 21, 2009

How can a soldier value 'the code' and not think it matters to all of us 'the manner' in which he does his job? Inherent in 'the manner' is what we as a people stand for...not just the soldiers, but all of us. Nicholson's character was saying the soldiers aren't a part of US. He repeats it by saying the lawyers won't post up. I think today's volunteer army fully refutes his idea.

Posted by: MarkH on April 21, 2009 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

DJ, way up there @17:something...

You keep asking Chicounsel about his legal bona fides... I think you mistake... It's not Chi Counsel; it's Chico Unsel. Good old Chico has no law degree (be it from an accredited law school or a gumball machine) and no legal expertise; all he has is his own opinion, just like the rest of us.

Posted by: exlibra on April 21, 2009 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose I should just keep walking, but I keep getting caught wondering about life's incomprehensible mysteries, like why the hell Peggy Noonan is on TV in the first place.

When Peggy Noonan offers an opinion, THAT'S when you want to just keep walking.

Posted by: biggerbox on April 21, 2009 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

just keep walking

Tacky, in the context of torture. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March


... a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week (for the slowest survivors) in tropical heat. Falling down, unable to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure.

Posted by: il dude on April 22, 2009 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK

But how much more absurd is her argument, really, than Obama's "We have to look forward, not backward"? Essentially, Obama wants to "keep walking" too.

Yes, I've also been bothered by that language, but yesterday he was already explaining that he wasn't letting the higher-ups off the hook, or anyone who acted outside the guidance given to them by Bush's lawyers. He basically said he was leaving it to DOJ to investigate, which is how I think it should be.
The fact of the matter is we tortured people, which is a violation of our law. We ratified the treaty, and we have to abide by it like we would with any other law passed by congress. The constitution requires this. You don't get to pick and choose whether to enforce it just because you think we should be looking forward.
Ignoring the requirements of a treaty that we signed could do just as much to damage our reputation and standing in the world as anything Bush did.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on April 22, 2009 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly