Regarding recent incidents of crazy talk involving Dick Durbin and Karl Rove, we here at Mossback Culture don’t endorse the current trend of calling for apologies and resignations on the basis of insensitive remarks. We believe that all Americans have an obligation to toughen-up a little and not take words as if they were actual, you know, bombs or something.
If you don’t like what these bastards say, vote them (or in Rove’s case, their boss) out of office. But don’t tell me how freaking “offended” you were by some asshole’s “insensitivity” in a time of war or I’ll kick your ass.
Now if you want to complain about beheadings, I’m with you.
Sorry, but Rove’s got to go.
It’s time that traitorous sob was shown the door.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is nothing less than treason.
Today’s Dallas Morning News says, after quoting his remarks:
“Karl Rove saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and exploited it for political gain.”
They also said this in the same Opinion(‘s are like a-holes) column:
It’s good that Congress is trying to penny-pinch, but we can’t afford to lose the CPB’s noncommercial, diverse reprieve from the dizzying din of American consumerism. Try to read their web site with the phrase “dizzying din of American consumerism” firmly in mind.
I’m actually starting to learn to enjoy the flaming death-spiral of the MorningSnooze. First their circulation lies, now Defender of Big Bird and Scolder of Rove. That’s a sure-fire way to get more readers in Dallas — pile on the libruls!
BTW, Richard, when are you or your kids going to sign up?
Remember, you can’t use the excuse you’re “too old” to be in Iraq- you can always go there as a “contractor.”
And, if you’re going to kick anybody’s “ass” why not put some integrity behind those words and get that chickenhawk butt over to Iraq?
It’s just a suggestion.
Yawn.
Nonetheless, Durbin’s remarks demand his resignation and a public apology.
In the past, we hung traitors. There was a reason for this. Simply, the people themselves were the ones imperiled by treasonous actions. Now the lives of those who have the best right to call themselves Americans are slandered by a partisan hack. As they cannot exact justice for the slander by their sworn duty (and would you want it?), we must–it is our duty.
In the case of Rove, he spoke he truth. We should expect candor from our politicians.
Yes, I am calling Durbin a traitor.
There was at least as much truth in Durbin’s remarks as in Rove’s. The treatment of prisoners described in the FBI report Durbin read is not the way we like to do things in America, and probably was more characteristic of a left-wing regime like China.
But nobody needs to resign over any of this; they were both political hacks making political points, and in ways that are very appropriate. Durbin said, in essence, “we Democrats are people who need people, the luckiest people in the world” and Rove said “yeah, they are – and too damn much so for my taste.”
I don’t see why this is such an uproar, they say variations on this theme everyday.
I’m for washing their mouths out with soap, myself.
Funny. As Richard notes, behind Durbin’s remarks is a truly bad situation our country has gotten into in Gitmo, and the fact that things going on there are not only not in our best interests, but violate standards this country has long stood for. That he used too charged language is obscuring that issue.
Of couse, Rove’s remarks had no such context, partaking of the classic Agnewism ‘effete intellectual’ Dems flavor. Gotta denigrate those highbrows, to appeal to the base. If ‘therapy’ is now a term of denigration we’ve just erased aeons of civilizing trends.
Likening our troops in the field to Nazis is a rhetorical device of propaganda. It is about as far from the truth or constructive criticism as you can get.
Richard, I think part of the problem is a huge historical lack of knowledge. I recommend that you do some reading about the Nazis on the Eastern front and the Holcaust. Holocaust Photos Also, definitely read “The Killing Fields”.
After you catch up with your history, maybe you will be able to appreciate the true nature of Durbin’s remarks. If someone objected to Rove’s remarks, the correct response would be to disprve him by counterexample, not to demand his silence. This is just politics while statements about the troops that jeopardize their safety or mission (those troops that Durbin and his colleques sent in harm’s way) is treason. Criticisms of military operations must be extremely circumspect annd confined to internal channels, not used for political purposes and never against the in the manner that Durbin used them.
Richard, you should know better.
His statement was treasonous. He should resign (in this present day world). My preference would be to try him for treason.
Rove was correct. There is a division among the electorate that is fundamental and falls along fight or flight lines. For more on this: Conections and Consistency
Likening our troops in the field to Nazis is…
not really the point.
Some prisoners were mistreated at Abu Ghraib and at Gitmo. We can do better.
That’s the point.
Similarly, Rove was saying that some liberals didn’t react to 9/11 in a serious way. That’s also true, and they need to do better.
Nobody needs to resign, and the notion that either remark was somehow “treasonous” is disturbing from a mental health perspective.
Treason is the betrayal of a commitment to common cause and common trust in the defense of the coutry against a common threat. When we are faced with a threat and ponder the decision to send our countrymen into harm’s way on our behalf, we ought never to make that decision lightly. Once that decision is made, what was once permissible rhetoric is no longer tolerable. All speech must be moderated so that it does not “give aid and comfort to the enemy”.
Durbin’s remarks gave aid and comfort to the terrorists that are at war with the US. He is particularily culpable as he is a member of the Senate–that same body which committed us to this war.
Durbin could have expressed his concern to the DoD and to the executive. He could have conferred behind closed doors with his collegues and drafted legislation designed to prevent further problems. Instead he decided to score cheap propagandistic points at the expense of our common cause. In fact, Durbin’s remarks were vile slander against people who have all sworn to uphold the Constitution. Their conduct is not an acceptable object of political criticism for the same reason that we do not allow our military forces to inject themselves in domestic policing (posse comitatus). Our military forces are subordinate to the civilian branches of government. As such it is never appropriate that their conduct become a matter of partisan politics. So I find that Durbin’s remarks are treasonous on several levels.
On the other hand, Rove’s remarks were not only true in their characterization of the political opposition, they were just the type of remarks that we expect in a democracy. Political parties should criticize each other. The people will ultimately decide on who has made the better point. This is a democracy.
So I hope you see the differences here. We debate in a democractic framework in a nation that we have a superior loyalty to — a nation of the people (singular).
In fact, Durbin’s remarks were vile slander against people who have all sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Sorry, but the remarks were anything but slanderous, consisting as they did mainly of an FBI report. Your main argument here is that critical remarks shouldn’t be made public in a time of war, but then you go on to dispute the remarks from the FBI report that Durbin reopeated as false statements.
You need to decide what point you’re making so we can set you straight.
From Durbin:
If I read this to you and did not tell
you that it was an FBI agent describing
what Americans had done to prisoners
in their control, you would most
certainly believe this must have been
done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags,
or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—
that had no concern for human
beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This
was the action of Americans in the
treatment of their prisoners.
The statement is clearly a defamation. It is false since I would not most certainly believe that the aforementioned accusations would be commited by Nazi, Pol Pot, or others that have no concern for human beings.
The statement is false also on many levels. First, I am not so stupif to believe that Pol Pot is handling terrorist prisoners (nor are the Nazis) my sense of history is better than that. It is false in that it infers that Pol Pot et al. would have the moral character required as to detain terrorists. It is also false in inferring that our troops are treating these detainees as Pol Pot, the Nazis, or “others with no concern for human beings.”
Not only is the statement slanderous, it is treasonous. We should try him first for treason and only latter for libel. For this the Congress should pass a law allowing servicemen and women to sue government officials for defamation.
That has to be the most idiotic comment I’ve ever read on a blog.
At worst, Durbin’s comment was hyperbolic and exaggerated; it most certainly was not libelous. To suggest it’s anywhere close to treasonous is ridiculous.
Read your history.
Paul Deignan,
That’s certainly one of the most reactionary comments I’ve ever read on a blog.
What’s up with this madness of folks crying “Treason!” on every corner?
Hardly. The fact that Durbins’s remarks are treasonous are his own doing and preceed directly from the reasoning I provided.
When we commit troops to harms way, we owe them our support regardless of what good or bad they may do. After all, we are the ones that direct them and discipline them. They are our fellow countrymen and women.
When we embark on the path of war, we are crossing a Rubicon. Some public debate must be cut off. This is the reason for investing the declaration of war authority in the legislature.
Richard, this is all civics 101. The crime of treason is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Do you think that it doesn’t exist?
I’m amazed, Paul: every comment you post is even more absurd than the last one. Where will it all end?
Arguing that because treason exists, Durbin is guilty has some interesting implications; like we’re all guilty since it exists for all of us.
Hats off for the most ridiculous item of the day.
You have the opportunity to analyze Durbin’s remarks yourself and propose a principled argument on how or how not his statements are treasonous.
You once offered that they were not slanderous because you claimed that the statements were not false. Now we know that the defamation was false, therefore a slander.
You could try the same approach to defend against the charge of treason. The definition has to do with giving aid or comfort to the enemy. It is defined in the text of the Constitution.
Or, you can throw up your hands and cry, “Outrage, when will the insanity end!?”
Well, the insanity will end when there is discipline imposed and justice prevails.
Go read Cramer v. US to see how treason is defined by the law and stop yapping like a dog.
The Constitution is the authoritative source and sufficient to make my case.
Notice that your inclination is to censor and silence. That’s not a debating technique that works well in a democracy or one that ought to be respected.
If you cannot construct a defense for Durbin, I will take it that you concede the debate.
The issue, Paul, is that your reading of the Constitution is not only non-authoritative, it’s silly. The Supreme Court explains to us what the Constitution means, and their interpretation carries weight, while yours is hot air.
The essence of the Cramer holding is that you need to be on the payroll of the enemy to be convicted of treason, and nobody is saying Durbin meets that test. This test was created to resolve the conflict between the treason language in the Constitution and the First Amendment. You’re aware of this conflict, and invented your own “Rubicon” rule to resolve it. But you see, your rule isn’t the law, Cramer is.
It’s perfectly fine, as a legal matter, to criticize the behavior of government officials and soldiers in time of war or otherwise. You may think it tasteless and daft, but it’s certainly not treasonous. Cramer is the law of this land until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and they haven’t.
So why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself?
Paul,
Are you dating Ann Coulter?
The issue, Paul, is that your reading of the Constitution is not only non-authoritative, it’s silly. The Supreme Court explains to us what the Constitution means, and their interpretation carries weight, while yours is hot air.
They also gave us Plessy and Dred Scott. In fact, the text of the Constitution itself provides that it may be amended and ratified by the people, not some gaggle of robed wisemen who lately should give all pause to deferring to their wisdom.
Laws are meant to be understood by the electorate–that’s why we write them down. In a democracy, it is the people who decide what the laws should and should not be and, ultimately, how they are interpreted as well.
So, as a good democrat, I have made my reading of the Constitution and you are welcome to make yours. The issue is simple. Did Durbin commit treason? We will decide for ourselves. If you can give a reasoned argument that holds water, I will likely be swayed. (I don’t have an axe to grind against Durin).
So here is your big democratic opportunity to sway me. Your defense?
Kim,
Not to my knowledge. That must be another Paul Deignan.
BTW, this is interesting:
In Thompson v. Gleason the Administrator based forfeiture of disability benefits on findings that the beneficiary had published pamphlets and made speeches sharply critical of the United States military involvement in Korea. The majority of a three-judge district court thought that the Administrator acted within the statute, for — citing treason cases — “It is well settled that aid and assistance to the enemy may be extended in the form of verbal utterance alone, as was the case in this instance.” Circuit Judge Fahy (who as Solicitor General had presented the government’s case in Cramer before the Supreme Court) dissented strongly; it was not claimed that the Administrator had found acts of treason here, and in the context of the statute’s reference to treason, it should not be interpreted to penalize domestic political opposition.10 Reversing the district court, the Court of Appeals (1962) ruled that to avoid a serious question under the First Amendment the statute should be construed to require a finding that the beneficiary had committed a crime in aiding the enemy, and since the record did not show a crime, the benefits must be reinstated. The Court of Appeals did not mention treason, but in the whole context of the case its opinion in substance agrees with Fahy’s dissent below.11
So the crime is libel or slander. As I read it, my analysis is consistent with even the reasoning of SCOTUS.
Here is a link
So now you’re claiming that libel is the same thing as treason?
Sorry, but that’s silly too. Your reasoning, if we can use that word in relation to your mental product, doesn’t approach that of the Supreme Court in the case you cite, which doesn’t go to the definition of treason as much as to the standard for finding someone treasonous in relation so some benefit that’s denied by law to the treasonous. The court said you need a conviction for treason before you can conclude guilt; it’s a due process case, and actually weakens your argument because you’re been slinging that word around wildly against people who’ve been charged with no crime.
There is a serious conflict between “verbal treason” and the First Amendment. You tried to get around it by suspending the First Amendment in wartime, but the Constitution doesn’t permit that.
So you’re still stuck in the same old predicament: the Constitution contradicts itself here and in several other places, and alas, only the robed gentlemen and ladies can resolve these contradictions for us.
Here’s a clue for you: if a politician has committed an illegal act recently, treason or otherwise, why hasn’t the Attorney General charged him?
Hopefully, if anyone, be he soldier or civilian, commits a crime, that person will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Then it can’t be treason to state the facts, can it? This recalls the Nixon statements, that respect for the presidency should preclude accusing the president of committing a crime.
Truth or falsity doesn’t have much to do with it. It can be treasonous to state facts if they’re material to some secret military operation; but it’s not treasonous to state opinions about the performance of the military or any other branch of the government, and especially so if the opinion is “we can do better.”
We lie to our enemies and make it a point not to advertise our weaknesses.
We certainly do not say, “This unit here on the front is low on supplies and poorly trained–they certainly can do better”.
Richard,
Referring to the court’s opinion that an actual crime is necessary to convict for treason, libel suffices as the crime.
They determined that there should be an overt act. That logic seems fine to me.
(This is the second time you went off on wild flights of fancy in the discussion. I am focusing on responding to your points. When I do that, please try to focus yourself on the answer).
…the court’s opinion that an actual crime is necessary to convict for treason, libel suffices as the crime
Nope, that’s not what they said. The case (Thompson v. Gleason) was about a guy who had his VA benefits cut off because an Administrator determined he’d committed treason:
The only cases cited to us by appellant are criminal cases. But the case at bar is not a criminal case. It concerns the forfeiture of benefits, which fall within the legal principles respecting gratuities. – 317 F.2d 901, Thompson v. Gleason, (C.A.D.C. 1962)
The court said that for the Administrator to do this, there had to be a finding of a criminal act. The reasoning was about due process and the first amendment: “…to avoid a serious question under the First Amendment the statute should be construed to require a finding that the beneficiary had committed a crime in aiding the enemy, and since the record did not show a crime, the benefits must be reinstated. ”
Can you read the English language? The whole point of the case was that there wasn’t even a prosecution, let alone a conviction for treason.
Here is the quote from the analysis:
the Court of Appeals (1962) ruled that to avoid a serious question under the First Amendment the statute should be construed to require a finding that the beneficiary had committed a crime in aiding the enemy.
This is about treason and only indirectly about VA benefits (which were theatened to be withdrawn due to treasonous activitities–circulating pamplets. The Court raised the bar on treason to require the commission of an actual crime so that there would be a better distinction between treason ans permissible 1st Amendment activity. While this doesn’t change the fact of whether treason occurred or not, I have no problem with this extra requirement.
In Durbin’s case, this requirement is satisfied by the crime of libel.
In Gleason’s case, he did not commit a crime, hence no conviction for treason. But we have the reasoning of the court to guide us as to what constitutes prosecutable treason. Durbin satisfies this criteria.
Once again, Deignan, the court wrote in Gleason: “But the case at bar is not a criminal case. It concerns the forfeiture of benefits…”
What part of “not a criminal case” do you fail to understand?
The other point that Gleason raises through citation is that the crime of treason involves the intent to aid the enemy, which Durbin clearly didn’t have, and nowhere does it say that libel is a proxy for treason.
Richard,
The case is provided as a criteria for treason.
For all I care it could be a case of jaywalking where the court decided to append an opinion as to what constitutes prosecutable treason.
I am fairly certain that if you visit the link provided, you will see the context.
Nonetheless, as I urged before, you need not rely at all on precedent when you have the Constitution itself as guidance. Anyway you cut it, I notice that you have still not provided any defense for poor old Durbin. Give up?
There’s no need for a defense until you make a case against him. All you’ve done so far is demonstrate ignorance of the law and a reading comprehension problem.
Gleason was about Due Process, not the definition of treason, and it’s not even a Supreme Court case.
Get serious or go away.
On to intent.
If Durbin’s remarks can be reasonably predicted to provide aid and comfort to the enemy, intent is inferred. Durbin’s remarks were prepared, they were not off-the-cuff and they did in fact provide propaganda fodder for our enemies.
I’m satisfied on intent. This is about the same stand we use for criminal negligence.
…intent is inferred
Nope, you need to actually show that Durbin intended to aid the terrorists. If he made his remarks with the intent of aiding America in any way – by correcting a wrong course of action, for example – there is no intent to aid an enemy.
This is a very crucial part of the meaning of treason under the law, and you don’t satisy this test by closing your eyes and fondling yourself.
The case against Durbin is that his remarks gave aid and comfort to our enemies.
Undermining the moral authority of our forces in the field who are supporting the legitimacy of a nacent government against ideological foes gives these enemies aid in recruiting and comfort in maintaining their will to fight.
I thought that was clear.
Durbin called attention to a problem in order to correct it. He intended to aid the US in so doing. This is heroism and patriotism, because he knew morons would criticize him.
The soldiers who tortured the prisoners are the ones who really aided the enemy.
If a grown person carries a lit match into what he knows is a pool of gasoline, we say that he was responsible for the conflagration that ensues whether or not we can prove that he is aware of the vapor pressure of the gasoline and the oxygen content of the atmosphere.
We use a reasonable man standard to prove intent. Why should it be any different for Durbin? As a Senator he should have a much higher standard for political neglect than any common man. He is an expert in the field of politics.
Intent is clear.
Durbin had other avenues of approach to correct any problems. Rumsfeld does read Durbin’s correspondence. His rhetoric was libelous. Libel does no one any good.
So, no. I do not believe his intent was constructive.
You’re missing the point again. If it was treasonous for Durbin to talk about the FBI report from Gitmo, it was even more treasoous for the FBI to write it, and super-duper treasonous to torture the prisoners in the first place.
There’s also an interesting conflict between your concept of treason and the Nuremburg standard of war crimes: “following orders” doesn’t cut it.
Given a choice between treason and war crimes, what do you pick?
I don’t believe so.
We continually evaluate our troops to fing their weaknesses and strengths. After incidents we write up after action reports for the purpose of improvement.
What we don’t do is publicize those findings to our enemies nor do we publicize poor performance of units to the population. That would have the effect of undermining the war effort.
The population trusts the government–its elected representatives–to correct all these problems and so has put the military under the control of civilians. We judge the civilian leaders by the effectiveness of the war effort.
We don’t insist on seeing how the sausage is made. We elect leaders that we can trust that the sausage is kosher.
After the war, we can all review what was done and what was not. This is the strength of a representative government over a pure democracy.
What we don’t do is publicize those findings to our enemies nor do we publicize poor performance of units to the population.
The First Amendment says otherwise.
That would have the effect of undermining the war effort.
Au contraire, eliminating excesses and improving operations helps the war effort. And don’t believe that the people of Iraq only get their news from the US media, little fellow. In war, the truth always comes out.
Ever hear of something called My Lai?
As you can see from the previous discussion, the First Amendment is not absolute in this area.
Nor is the First Amendment absolute in other areas as well. For example, libel is not protected speech, neither is shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, or shouting “Nazi–Koran Flusher” in the streets next to a squad of GI’s after Friday prayers in Baghdad.
I thought you were setting yourself up as the voice of moderation?
On My Lai, absolutely, I am very familiar with it.
From Wikiedia:
A US Army scout helicopter crew famously halted the massacre by landing between the American troops and the remaining Vietnamese hiding in a bunker. The 24-year-old pilot, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr., confronted the leaders of the troops and told them he would open fire on them if they continued their attack on civilians.
While the other two members of the helicopter crew — Spc. Lawrence Colburn and Spc. Glenn Andreotta — brandished their heavy weapons at the men who had participated in the atrocity, Thompson directed an evacuation of the village.
This incident when made public resulted in collapse of American support for the war effort and the eventual extermination of 2 million people in SE Asia.
The last para is my commentary.
So your position is that it’s perfectly fine for the US military to commit any old atrocity it feels like in wartime (even without an actual declaration of war) and nobody is entitled to talk about it until the war is over, under pain of death (the penalty for treason.)
I can’t decide if you’re crazy or stupid, but I’m pretty sure that one of these choices applies.
There are two ways to deal with government excess: sweep it under the rug or bring it to light. The founders of this Republic decided a long time ago that the second way is the American way.
Your attitudes are more compatible with some Marxist or fascist state than with America.
This is also from Wikipedia:
he carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour’s letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted. Eventually, Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. It was another two months before the American public learned about the massacre and trials.
The point being that no good came of making the matter public during hostilities. After the war, is an entirely different matter.
The US pull out from Vietnam allowed the North Vietnamese to latter overrun that country (about 500,000 killed) and for the Khmer Rouge to go on their rampage in Cambodia (1.5 million).
Which leads us back to Durbin’s remarks.
So your position is that it’s perfectly fine for the US military to commit any old atrocity it feels like in wartime (even without an actual declaration of war) and nobody is entitled to talk about it until the war is over, under pain of death (the penalty for treason.)
Richard, this is the third time you went off on an extrapolation in an attempt to lauch an ad hominen attack.
Three strikes and you’re out and still no defense of Durbin.
I’m merely summarizing your position. Did I do so wrongly?
Durbin, of course, doesn’t need a defense from your imaginary charges. In America we’re free to criticize the government, especially from the well of the Senate, whether you like it or not, whether it’s wartime or not, and whether the speaker’s attitudes align with yours or not.
I wouldn’t have used the language Durbin used, and in fact I criticized him for excessive hyperbole, but there’s not any doubt that he’s entitled to speak out as he did with no fear of prosecution. He’ll get the reprisal, if there is one, at the ballot box.
That’s the way we do things here in America.
Crazy or stupid? No.
Dangerous.
He’s just a voice in the wilderness, most likely not harmful to anyone but himself.
Just like those who say Rove is traitorous or treasonous.