Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Torturing to Prove Torturing is Wrong is Never Okay: A Note to Keith Olbermann
Although it has been several weeks since Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC show as a platform to call for the public water boarding of fellow commentator Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, my concerns about Olbermann's former campaign have not diminished, and this pains me because I'm a big fan of his. But in the interest of media accountability, someone needs to point out to Olbermann that on this issue, he has been nearly as exploitative and irresponsible as his colleague on the right.
As progressives, we commit ourselves to several principles, one of which is the simple belief that the ends never justify the means. Olbermann has even used that terminology to take issue with the claim of Hannity (and Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and several other prominent neocons) that torture "worked" in the "war on terror" because it produced "actionable intelligence." That may or may not be accurate (the reports on this are mixed), but for progressives, it should be utterly beside the point. We do not do unto others as we would not have them do unto us, not just because it's an ethically higher position (which is consistent with the jurisprudence that underlies the concept of the rule of law-which itself is the foundation of political democracy), but because reducing our actions to the lowest common denominator ultimately produces the worst possible results.
Given that, Olbermann's hypocrisy on the issue of torture confounds me. By calling-pushing, even-for the water boarding of his rival talk-show host Sean Hannity (who, in a moment of exceptional foolishness volunteered to be water boarded in order to demonstrate that it's "not that bad"), Olbermann gave away the moral high ground on this issue, undermined his otherwise unassailable argument against torture, and trivialized the very thing he wants us all to take so seriously. I would go so far as to say he's "normalized" it, if the ability of Olbermann supporters to twist themselves into logical and moral knots in defense of his campaign is any indication. Let's examine each of the main arguments behind the campaign:
1. Making the point that water boarding really is torture.
There are two serious problems with this justification. The first is that it presupposes that were he actually water boarded, Hannity would admit-finally-that he was wrong. Anyone who has followed Hannity over the years has surely noticed one overriding consistency in his commentary, regardless of the subject matter. He is never wrong. Facts have no effect on Hannity's conclusions. If anything, he will go out of his way to misrepresent reality in order to make it fit with his pre-drawn conclusions. Even if Hannity's mind was changed after the experience of water boarding, history tells us that he would never admit to it, ever. So the exercise is pointless if the objective is to get Hannity to admit to changing his mind.
The other problem here is more philosophical and even more serious. It is impossible to bring about constructive ends through destructive means. Even if the torture-condoning segment of the audience of Hannity's hypothetical water boarding session were themselves converted to the view that yes, it is indeed torture, it would be at the expense of our collective dignity. Surely we are capable as a people of understanding when an act is horrific without needing to witness it first-hand (which, ironically, might work in the just opposite way by desensitizing us to its brutality). Simply put, you cannot make a legitimate point that torture is wrong by advocating torture. Even if it's Sean Hannity on the board.
So not only is Olbermann's campaign hypocritical, but it is ultimately ineffective. It might even be dangerous because instead of shifting the underlying consciousness that tolerates a culture of violence, it reinforces it. While the outward message on Olbermann's part is "torture is never acceptable", the meta-message is "torture is never acceptable, except when I say so (or when I say it's not really torture)." It's a slippery slope.
2. "Holding Sean Hannity accountable" by shaming or humiliating him.
On his show on many occasions, Olbermann has referenced the wisdom of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. While Olbermann has never (to my knowledge) claimed to be an adherent of principled nonviolence, he has made it clear that he sympathizes with both the moral and pragmatic arguments that underlie the philosophy advanced by MLK Jr. and others like them. In the world of nonviolence, the second most important rule after "the ends never justify the means" is to always respect everyone, including your opponent and yourself. Don't get me wrong, I find most of what comes out of Hannity's mouth to be totally abhorrent, but when we accept humiliation (of ourselves or others) as a tool of conversion, everyone is degraded and genuine conversion becomes impossible. And while it may be true that Hannity's behavior and views are consistently egregious -even dangerous- and must therefore be addressed, by lowering himself to a tactic that Hannity himself would have used given the opportunity, Olbermann is not just disrespecting his opponent, but is more importantly disrespecting himself. In doing so, he loses credibility on the subject and should not, therefore, be taken seriously on it. Olbermann - if he is to be consistent with his proclaimed values- must be the bigger person in this discussion. Only then is his message likely to resonate with those whose minds are not already firmly fixed on one side of this debate or the other. And isn't that the real point?
And as an additional note, I have heard many justifications for this objective of Olbermann's campaign by fellow progressives. The most common are: a) it's not really torture since Hannity volunteered for it, b) Olbermann knew Hannity wouldn't accept the challenge anyway, and c) the need to hold Hannity accountable outweighs concerns about the hypocrisy of water boarding him. Each of those arguments is so weak that they hardly deserve mention. Suffice it to say that when you find yourself espousing a rationalization that any fifth grader could craft, it is time to take a closer look at your position. I expect better from the sophisticated media consumers that make up a large segment of Olbermann's audience.
3. Ratings.
Ironically, this is justification that concerns me the least. After all, Olbermann and Hannity are rival talk-show hosts, competing in an increasingly-growing market during a highly politically volatile time. I even have to wonder if Olbermann's past experience as a sportscaster contributed to his obviously competitive instinct here. In the era of the Fox News Channel and ubiquitous reality shows, it requires some serious provocation to keep an audience's attention. And what could be more provocative than calling for the public humiliation by torture of your most obnoxious professional rival?
Given that Olbermann's campaign seems to be motivated by a sincere desire to do the right thing in checking irresponsible members of his own profession, I would simply ask Mr. Olbermann to ponder this question: You have been compared- justly in my view- to Edward R. Murrow. Can you honestly imagine that Mr. Murrow would have condoned-much less engaged in-a campaign like the one you've run against Mr. Hannity? Murrow went up against the vilest of the vile, Senator Joe McCarthy, and never once did he reduce his tactics to those of his opponent. He found a way to reveal the logical weaknesses in McCarthy's views and the pathetic and desperate political motives behind it without sacrificing his own integrity. He simply gave McCarthy the rope with which to hang himself.
Trust me, Mr. Olbermann, that is all you need to do. The American people-your audience-want our public figures to help us access the better angels of our natures, not to continue exploiting what mystics call "the lower vibrating emotions"- anger, fear, judgment, envy, and in this case- a voyeuristic sadism wrapped in crude humor. You have apparently called off your campaign against Hannity, but it would be helpful to explain why (beyond noting that Hannity is a coward), and acknowledge that perhaps you were a little too human. That's what Murrow would have done, and it's what the Keith Olbermann I've come to respect would do as well.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
88 Comments so far
Show AllIs this post a joke? I don't follow Olbermann all that closely but I never took this "campaign" of which she speaks seriously. I cannot imagine that any sane person - Progressive or otherwise - believes that Hannity is actually going to let himself be waterboarded as Erich Muller has (Muller admitted that it IS torture).
Secondly, what is wrong with letting the obnoxious Hannity suffer a little humiliation - or even a lot? It's not like the fool is suffering from an excess of meekness.
As for Progressive ideals, I need to point out that first, Hannity put himself in this situation and, second, Olbermann is not what I consider to be a Progressive.
One of the best ways to encourage people to "access the better angels of [their] natures" is to expose the devils that are ravaging their souls.
Please calm down, Cynthia, and have a cup of herbal tea. Better yet, have a couple hits from the bong.
Peace.
q
took the words from my fingers, good point. It is just a TV show
Kudos to Keith on his brilliant and powerful "Special Comments" defending the Constitution and demanding the impeachment of Bush and Cheney (you can You Tube most of these). KO put his career on the line when most every other tv personality was terrified of speaking out.
However, there's really no evidence Keith is a liberal.
A lover of the Constitution and the rule of law? Yes. Liberal? No.
If he were a liberal he'd of given at least some time on his show to the truly progressive presidential candidates: McKinney, Nader, Kucinch, Gravel. To the best of my memory he shut them out entirely.
Instead he went full throttle support for the candidate with the far-right Senate voting record: Obama.
If Olbermann was a liberal he wouldn't regularly have Jonathan Alter on more than Jeremy Scahill. Or Richard Wolf over Naomi Klein.
At least Bill O'Reilly and Hannity aren't afraid to have the most extremist of right-wingers (Coulter etc.) on their shows.
Maybe that's why they double Keith's ratings nightly and he must resort to time-wasting waterboarding gimmicks on occasion.
A good analysis by Boaz, but I tend to agree with quickstepper.
Yes, Hannity bragged about volunteering for waterboarding, and Keith just held him to his words as any sports-oriented person would do.
I agree with Boaz that Keith has way overdone the showing of waterboarding as he talks of the subject. Thanks Keith, but I know what it is, and I DON'T NEED to see the video anymore.
Nobody made you look at the video, whiner.
And in spite of the fact that you're oh-so macho, there many people that need to see it.
It seems to me the real issues here are the lies and obfuscations of the Obama Administration and their loyal band of followers:
Chris Hedges two click up noted this in Suspend the Applause:
"The Obama White House tortures and pretends not to. Obama may have banned waterboarding, but as Luke Mitchell points out in next month's issue of Harper's magazine, torture, including isolation, sleep and sensory deprivation and force-feeding, continues to be used to break detainees. The president has promised to close Guantanamo, where only 1 percent of the prisoners held offshore by the United States are kept. And the Obama administration has sought to obscure the fate and condition of thousands of Muslims held in black holes around the globe. As Mitchell notes, the Obama White House "has sought to prevent detainees at Bagram prison in Afghanistan from gaining access to courts where they may reveal the circumstances of their imprisonment. It has sought to continue the practice of rendering prisoners to unknown and unknowable locations outside the United States, and sought to keep secret many (though not all) of the records regarding our treatment of those detainees."
Why the surprise? Mister Obama is just the next CEO of corporation America and as such will carry on its business plan.
Did anyone seriously believe he would change things?
He would never have gotten close to the presidency if he had any plans to actually change the things that actually matter.
Has he taken any 'actions' (not just words) to end torture? The wars in the Middle East? The aggressive stance against Iran and N. Korea? The continued mindless support of the Israeli government in its (technically illegal) occupation of Palestine? The incredible level of public corruption in our political system? Any sign of a realistic health care system covering everybody as a right - and not as a commodity?
The owner/operators would never allow real change and he would never have been elected or re-elected which is, my guess, what he wants.
What a totally useless article! The question that should be addressed is the tactics that Imperialism will employ as it tries to control the world, not some silliness about a dispute between 2 talking heads working for the corporate media.
A better angle would've been why Olbermann came out strongly against torture taking place under Bush yet he remains silent about the torture taking place under Obama.
Does Olbermann support Obama's torture?
Jeremy Scahill reported on this story approx. two weeks ago.
There's been complete silence since.
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill05152009.html
Is Cynthia Boaz running for Worst Person this week? It goes without saying that Keith is shaming Hannity precisely because he knows that Hannity would never in a million years put his mouth where Keith's money is (ummm... that sounds weird) and submit to waterboarding. Neoconservatives are one thing above all... cowards. They talk tough about war while skipping, ducking, or otherwise avoiding military service; they say badass things (like "Tiller the Baby Killer" - Bill O'Reilly) then duck out on responsibility for the horrors that result. Hannity repeatedly has backed US torture and said out loud and on the air that waterboarding is no big deal and that he'd be willing to undergo it himself - that is, reinforcing the first claim with "evidence" ("It's so safe I'll do it myself") knowing that this "evidence" would be accepted by his audience as proof when it's an obvious lie and he never had any intention of actually doing it. Olbermann called him out on this (because no one else will) and proved him a liar, and good for him. Pick your fights, Cynthia, and get off the high horse.
Ms. Boaz completely misses the point about what constitutes torture. As long as the person (a) knows that he isn't going to die and (b) has a "safe word" to stop the procedure, it isn't "torture." It's just a stunt -- or an S&M activity.
The whole idea of torture is that the victim is afraid that he will die and that he has no control over the proceedings.
Sioux Rose
RURAL: Good point.
Hannity made his own problem with his big mouth, so he got what he deserved. He and his kind are dragging this country down to destruction.
"...someone needs to point out to Olbermann that on this issue, he has been nearly as exploitative and irresponsible as his colleague on the right...."-- Boaz
I'm pleased to see faculty Boaz starting to wake up to Olbermann's modus operandi. This is the first step. The second step would be admitting to one's self Olbermann's countdown isn't a vehicle for the masses, but is an entertainment apparatus, something entirely different than an 'ideological state apparatus'... or maybe not. Could his show be representative of one institutional agent?
When one combines the educator and the media entertainer and the two reinforce ideological preferences, regardless if uncritical or critical, intentional or unintentional, what are the risks? One risk would be what we would witness if Boaz's accepted to participate with what she identifies as the practicum of the opposition. If Boaz uncritically, or unwittingly, or perhaps simply for ideological allegiances, accepted Olbermann's chauvinistic manipulations and acted upon them, would she be subject to blinding herself to the exploitative relationships of her ideology?
There are many more steps before Boaz can dissociate from the institutional agents defining her place. Can we do the same?
Cynthia Boaz is the sort of old school mushy liberal fuddy duddy that conservatives lampoon and love. They are prime targets of satire and the first to sign up for the circular firing squad detail (which is what the above piece is), and still cling to the quaint notion that American political discourse has Marquess of Queensberry rules (when it is a bare knuckle, no-holds barred brawl). Thankfully, her type of voice is increasingly becoming irrelevant and ignored. Thus, in the vain hope Boaz might actually be reading this board to gauge the reaction to her piece, "GET A CLUE!"
Wow, it's a good thing I've developed a thick skin. Ya'll are harsh. :-)
No, the post is not a joke. Many of Olbermann's viewers took him very seriously, and an key member of the MSM, he a has a big responsibility to his audience.
ruralbear, you make a good point that I am conflating torture and sadism. However, if one opposes torture as roundly as Olbermann claims, then they also oppose making a show of it to sate our sadistic demons. Either way, it's a pretty thin argument because Olbermann himself has called for "torturing Hannity." And perception is everything.
Thanks all for the very impassioned feedback.
If Olbermann opposes torture he will report on and strongly condemn the torture taking place RIGHT NOW at Guantanamo, under the Obama administration, as documented by Jeremy Scahill.
If Obama continues with the Bush policy of torture I expect Keith to call for his resignation and/or impeachment.
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill05152009.html
Harsh? I'm being polite. Good thing you don't know what I'm thinking about you, only what I'm permitting myself to say.
Your post is astounding for a professor. Olbermann is not "calling for" torturing Hannity; that's the sort of thing conservatives do. That is a gross misrepresentation, and you know it.
I wonder if that thick skin keeps you from feeling shameful.
Nate, did you do your research? I've been called a lot of things, but "fuddy duddy" make me laugh out loud.
I'm sorry, but you're one of the old-style DLC-type Liberals.
You can only be a stumbling block at this point.
Well put.
Professor Boaz,
You may have gotten a chuckle from my characterization of your viewpoint, which has the hallmarks of the much derided stereotype that I referred to earlier, and are not of the actual age of a prototypical fuddy duddy (if you were 21 in the year, 1992, in which you earned your Bachelor's). But to paraphrase the late Aaliyah, "Age Ain't Nothing But a Number," and it cuts both ways.
Like it or not, your criticism of Olbermann reeks of the tired old mass media posture that naively assumes from the cushy academic ivory tower at SUNY-Brockport the existence of a reasoned dialogue with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. Excuse me while I laugh out loud.
Professor Boaz,
While I understand the point you are making about Keith Olbermann's crusade to challenge Sean Hannity, there is one thing worth keeping in mind. Although Olbermann is calling out Hannity for his foolish agreement to prove waterboarding is not torture, if you look at the cast of characters who comprise our mainstream media, Olbermann is one of the few journalists calling waterboarding what it is: torture. He is one of the few journalists who offers great "commentary" to expose the truth about our corrupt and bought politicians, when the majority of other journalists are directed to say what their corporate bosses tell them to say on television. Even though Olbermann might be taking the waterboarding challenge to Hannity a bit too far, given the few choices viewers and readers have to access truthful reporting, I am willing to give Olbermann that much to take on the offensive, arrogant, deplorable, (fill in your own adjectives here) Hannity any day of the week. To many progressives, Hannity is that much of a monster (just ask Cindy Sheehan her feelings about Hannity). I am not entirely defending Olbermann, because I have some suggestions for him. But when it comes to taking on morons like Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck, I am willing to defend any journalist who does it.
Peace,
A Sonoma State University Alumnus
Point taken.
Perhaps this phenomenon says more about how degraded our collective culture has become (just look at the verbal violence directed at me just based on this essay!) than it does about media responsibility. Either way, while I agree that Olbermann is amongst the best hopes we have in media, we/he can still do better.
Did our paths cross at SSU??
I want to thank you for writing this article and sending it out for discussion. It indeed, is healthy to have debate (in my opinion there is not enough of it), and I agree that there is no need for ad hominem attacks. The quality of journalism has suffered (look at what we get on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, NPR, etc.) and it is very disheartening to see the mainstream media cover for the atrocious crimes committed by the current and previous Administrations. At the same time, there are terrific journalists like Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, and others who have not been bought by corporations, and consistently maintain high quality and ethical standards to which the other mainstream media talking heads need to recognize and aspire. I agree that progressive journalists also need to be held to a higher standard, but until we have a greater number of journalists like Moyers and Goodman, we will continue to be stuck with the other corporate news lackeys who will continue to spew what their corporate bosses tell them to.
I graduated from SSU in 1996.
Cynthia, I too disagree with your assessment. BUT, if you read CD for any length of time you'll see there are quite a few rabid "my way or the highway" liberals that post here. I just chuckle. I see your heart's in the right direction though.
I think the more important point to discuss is at what point do progressives realize they have to fight fire with fire. So you have a kid at recess in school, who constantly gets beat up by the bullies. He tries dialogue, he tries just making friends, "conflict resolution", gathers his own group of friends etc., all the things we teach our kids to be more civil. None of that works. So at what point does he pick up a bat and swing back?
Gosh - not kow-towing to the old-style Democrats is "my way or the highway" now.
Oooo... those MEANIES!
If by "not kow-towing" you mean don't even try to be realistic, and simply hold your breath and close your eyes until something gives...then yes, that's what I call "my way or the highway" approach. And it's just like the Righties.
'Nother glass of Kool-Aid, my Obama-Liberal friend?
So if anyone gives any credit to Obama, you consider them having drunk the Kool-Aid? I think you've become what you hate Wanderer. Sorry to hear that. BTW, if Hitler thought kittens were cute, would that mean they're not?
Huh. Make a modicum of sense, wouldja?
I never said that if anyone gives any credit of Obama etc., but if you hold up Obama as some sort of progressive politician instead of a disaster, you're on such a sugar high from the Kool-Aid, you can't see straight.
Pretty irrelevant and silly about the kittens, too.
I think so called "progressives" give entirely too much attention and credit to for-profit media.
What exactly are you expecting, a reasoned opinion from each side? Have you seen what passes for news on either of these stations?
C'mon. Like I tell the democrat, Obama kool-aid drinkers, "Less hope, more action."
How funny-- am I "the sort of old school mushy liberal fuddy duddy that conservatives love to lampoon" or a "DLC-type liberal"?
I want accountability and integrity, and I understand that may be asking too much from MSM figures whose job it is to pull down a check. We (progressives/liberals/etc) spend most of our time holding the other side accountable, but we need to check ourselves as well. I'm guessing Olbermann is fair-minded enough to get that, even if he'd take issue with my premise(s).
I'm happy to see my essay has provoked some energetic responses, and while I enjoy healthy debate, is it really necessary to get personally hostile? Isn't that one of the genuine advantages we have over, say, neocons-- that we don't succumb to ad hom attacks at every turn?
I've noticed that the same people have pointed out that a) since Hannity volunteered, water boarding him would not really constitute torture, AND that b) Mancow was voluntarily water boarded and actually admitted it's torture. This is a big logical inconsistency. Either volunteering to be water boarded constitutes torture or it does not. It can't be both. If you stick with a), then you can't use b) as additional support for your argument. And vice-versa.
Bottom line as I see it: volunteering to be water boarded OR advocating the (voluntarily) water boarding of someone else in order to make a point about torture *both* trivialize it. The political views of the person making the case are irrelevant. Hannity is openly responsible for the dehumanization of classes of people he sees as political or social threats. Olbermann, in this case, was complicit in a less heinous and more humorous version of the same thing. And for the record, this was not a conclusion I came to easily.
Boy, you really are tap-dancing around the question. And you don't see why you've lost all credibility here.
Olbermann was in no way trivializing torture - HE WAS DOING THE OPPOSITE.
And he made the point.
There is no way in heaven that you can miss this, except that you just refuse to see the point.
And because you just cannot see the truth, what? We're supposed to pretend that you're not next in line in the dinosaur list?
"am I "the sort of old school mushy liberal fuddy duddy that conservatives love to lampoon" or a "DLC-type liberal"?
Both.
Frankly, you're worse than that. You should be ashamed of yourself.
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS PIECE BY CYNTHIA BOAZ:
Cynthia Boaz: "If Obama were to come out openly advocating the seeking of legal retribution for the crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others, it could not but be regarded (accurately, in my view) as a political maneuver. Such an event would degrade the president's legitimacy by rendering his tactics no better than those of the people he would seek to prosecute. While the president certainly can (and should) not hinder the prosecution of his predecessor and his administration should another state (who can use the ICC) or entity (such as an organized group wishing to file a class-action suit against the previous administration for harm to the group as a whole - e.g. taxpayers organization, veterans groups, etc.), it is not the job of the president himself to seek such "justice." Directly punishing their predecessors is something done by tyrants in authoritarian regimes, not by legitimate, democratic leaders in an open society."
Full article here: "http://www.truthout.org/021809J
Hey, Kane Jeeves - want to comment on this one?
I read a few of her other articles. Yep - Republican Lite.
You have managed to accuse me of being too far left and too far right simultaneously. I can see that you are very comfortable with putting labels on things --and people-- in order to write them off, but would you please try to examine the logic on it's merit, not on whether - at first glance- it reinforces your worldview?
Would you be so angry if I hadn't struck a nerve?
Since all my accusers get the advantage of knowing my identity, how about extending me the same courtesy?
Wanderer is a perfect example of what I was talking about up a few posts...head in the sand so-called liberals. I have a little question when I encounter types like this, though usually they're Righties: "If Hitler thought kittens were cute, does that mean they're not?". Same with these types...no matter what Bush did, for example (and I'd say 99.99% was dead wrong) if he accidently did something right they wouldn't admit it. So too with Obama. They've pre-determined that he's Bush-lite. Sad little world.
I have never accused you of being too left.
You and Jeeves have nothing left but distortions and flailing.
And indeed you have struck a nerve - as Republican Lites always do.
What same courtesy? You're just flailing. I'll make a deal with you - you get Commondreams to post an article by me (like you have done) and I'll reveal my identity. Otherwise it's false equivalency, totally irrelevant, and plain whining.
If you write something worthy of publication-- whether I agree with it or not- I'd be happy to endorse it, but I have no power over what the editors choose to run. You seem to be very impassioned. Why don't you turn that energy into some constructive essays rather than wasting your time picking silly fights on a comment board?
And I suppose the irony of your statement, whoosh, went right over your head.
And where is the statement that I made saying you're too far left?
'Nuff said on my part.
Where'd I pick a fight?
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Gotta have the last word, eh?
Continue to defend Sean Hannity.
Maybe you can negotiate an appearance on his show.
Hannity is scum and must be called out.
Oh, boo hoo, can't we all just get along?
Who accused you of being "too far left"?
Being "the sort of old school mushy liberal fuddy duddy that conservatives love to lampoon" does NOT make you "too far left". Understand?
It just makes you a joke. The kind of person that honest progressives cringe at being associated with. Why? To use labels, it's because you are a "DNC liberal" and not a "progressive".
"Since all my accusers get the advantage of knowing my identity, how about extending me the same courtesy?"
Go ask Big Brother, he's been granted immunity.
You could write your pieces as Anonymous and it wouldn't change the content of your writing. Everyday in these forums people exchange ideas on an anonymous basis. It works. We are more concerned with the exchange of ideas than someone's personal identity.
Are you this uncomfortable with having your own work quoted?
You question my use of labeling you a "DNC liberal" yet you are comfortable saying that those of us who want Obama to support either a "truth commission", or call for the criminal prosecution of Bush officials, "invoke images of villagers wielding torches and pitchforks". To feign outrage at the use of labels is utter hypocrisy on your part.
You expect us to except the claim that "the Obama administration has taken as its primary goal the mission of reconciliation, not retribution" as a good thing. Rather than seeing this as being an ACCOMPLICE to the crimes of the Bush administration by continuing it's policies of torture, extraordinary rendition, massive spying, ignoring habeous corpus, environmental devastation, and continuing the Iraq war while expanding the Pakistan and Afghan wars. We demand justice. Not vengeance. We just demand accountability and the rule of law. Our demands are reasonable, are they not?
We call for justice and yet you defend Obama by again saying "this president to seek the same sort of "justice" desired by the pitchfork-wielding villagers."
Cont.
Have you forgotten that Congress has a duty to impeach the President if the has committed crimes against humanity, and that, as a Senator (and again as President) Obama refused to perform his constitutional duty?
You say that "punishing wrongdoers runs the risk - especially in this very politically contentious climate - of only promoting divisions and inflaming precisely the wrong emotions necessary for a culture of healing - namely, anger, hostility and the desire for vengeance."
How do you determine that our desire for "justice" is merely "vengeance"? And by what token should high crimes not be prosecuted by OUR attorney general in the interest of not "promoting divisions and inflaming precisely the wrong emotions necessary for a culture of healing"?
Is that a legal defense? No. Is that an defense at all? Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed in our name. Was that not "divisive" enough?
What division are you interest in protecting us against? Those you feel it is alright to break the law and those you don't? If the division is between those who feel Bush did not break the law, and those who believe he did, then let them make their arguments in court.
Let's examine your recommendation that we accept Obama's call for NOT punishing those who have committed crimes.
What is the result? Is it justice? No.
The result is more war, more torture, more spying, and more destruction of the environment. Criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle etc... (and those are just Republicans) move on to lucrative careers, write books, and sell speaking engagements.
All of this is what you ask us to except while we wait for your suggestion that "another state (who can use the ICC) or entity (such as an organized group wishing to file a class-action suit against the previous administration for harm to the group as a whole". Are you even aware that no one can form a class action suit against the administration due to Bush and Obama's use of state secrets and (in the case of telecoms) retroactive immunity? And your suggestion that the US will be effectively prosecuted by ANOTHER state is laughable and totally without meaningful precedent.
How can you expect us to seriously except the claim that if Obama so much as called for the prosecution of Bush that "such an event would degrade the president's legitimacy by rendering his tactics no better than those of the people he would seek to prosecute. "
In what world is prosecuting injustice through the rule of law equivalent to breaking it?
"it is not the job of the president himself to seek such "justice."
Not when he continues to commit the same crimes as his predecessor. But even in the strictest legal sense, you are still wrong. The President has a legal responsibility to uphold the laws of the co-equal branches of government, if he has any awareness that high crimes have been committed (even by a previous administration) it his constitutional duty to disclose them and recommended prosecution to the attorney general (which he nominated). He has NO legal authority to cover-up his knowledge (also participation) in crimes against humanity.
"Directly punishing their predecessors is something done by tyrants in authoritarian regimes, not by legitimate, democratic leaders in an open society."
Again, are you serious? We are demanding that these Bush be put on trial without the shield of state secrets (the tool of tyrants). You response is an absurd non-sequitur. Putting a predecessor on trial for acting as a "tyrant" is not tyranny, it is a return to the rule of law. Your doublespeak is amazing.
And, of course, as the readership here is well aware (more than you, Ms. Boaz), to speak of Obama recommending the prosecution of Bush is beside the point. He won't support prosecuting them while he continues to support the SAME ILLEGAL POLICIES as the Bush administration. Something you have conveniently ignored in your column.
Wow. I'm not the enemy here. Why are you so angry? I appreciate your close reading of my work, but you attribute motives and draw conclusions that are totally erroneous. I really don't want to make this all about me as opposed to the points in the essay, but you've got me completely wrong. As I noted in an earlier post, I believe we want very similar ends, but the means by which I think we should to them must be guided by the principle of ahimsa. Both because it's the more ethical and more rational approach.
The question about identities was rhetorical. I wonder if folks would be as uncivil in person or if they didn't have the safety of anonymity.
Yes, in fact you ARE the enemy.
In Jurassic Park, what was dangerous about the dinosaurs is that they were intelligent. That's what made them really dangerous.
I'm not concerned about Limbaugh supporters. To keep them in line, they need daily hours of propaganda, and they need to be isolated from the truth and facts. If you start giving them the truth, the extreme right starts falling apart. In the last election, in spite of what Hannity and Limbaugh told them to do, they bucked and voted for an African-American with a Muslim name who promised change.
But you? You don't need daily hours of propaganda. All you need is every four years for someone to make some speech with things like "Audacity of Hope" or "Change you can believe in" (even though they vote FISA against your civil liberties) and you so internalize it that you're good to go for four years!
Not only good to go, but generating their propaganda for them, in the face of even worse loss of civil liberties and huge theft by the economic elite. Astounding. And that makes you the problem.
Why so angry?
Three wars, torture, spying, the shredding of the Constitution, and the destruction of the environment - followed by no accountability and no justice. I'm angry because Bush was not impeached. I'm angry because Obama is continuing and expanding Bush-era policies. And I'm angry at you for defending Obama's refusal to support prosecuting any Bush-era crimes, as well as your willful ignorance regarding Obama's complicity, and your insulting depiction of those of us who demand accountability as "pitchfork-wielding villagers" who seek not justice but "vengeance". Do you understand?
"but you attribute motives and draw conclusions that are totally erroneous"
Back up your assertion. You offer a blank defense. Which of my conclusions are "totally erroneous"?
"but you've got me completely wrong."
Really? Then tell me how. Again, you offer a blank defense.
"I believe we want very similar ends"
I don't. At all.
"but the means by which I think we should to them must be guided by the principle of ahimsa."
Then live by your principles. Harm has be done. Harm is being done. By not ending the murderous and illegal policies of Bush/Obama by using the (nonviolent) rule of law YOU ARE DOING HARM. Does your counterargument extend beyond Cass Sunstein-style apologies "oh no, prosecuting them would be too divisive and have the appearance of partition retribution". When I first heard him say that, all I could think was "how stupid does he think we are?"
"The question about identities was rhetorical. I wonder if folks would be as uncivil in person or if they didn't have the safety of anonymity."
As you have proven yourself, your lack of anonymity did not prevent you from calling people like us "pitchfork-wielding villagers" who seek not justice but "vengeance".
I appreciate the PR. Like this one, that piece provoked a lot of reflexive hostility, virtually all of which was based in a complete misreading of my point. It's interesting that you cite that article in particular, because it was motivated by the same principles as this one-- adherence to integrity, accountability, and nonviolence in both deeds and words.
What am I to be ashamed about-- that I'm not comfortable using vengence to guide our decision-making? I think that we want more or less the same ends, but the means by which I'm willing to get there are more constrained by what Gandhi called ahimsa.
Thank you at least for not calling me a name...the labeling is getting tired.