I absolutely guarantee Sullivan will write a middle of the road response..And now he has revealed the depth of his centrist wisdom..
Two days after the Senate compromise, it appears pretty clear that few know exactly what it prohibits, allows or changes. Some of this is inevitable. It's a very complicated legal balancing act. But some of it is deliberate: obfuscation as a way to give the executive complete lee-way. Under these circumstances, it seems clear to me that, barring absolute clarity from both sides, this bill should be shelved till the next session. No bill this complex and this unclear and this important should be rushed into law.Classic Sullivan.. His response was essentially "Big words make my head hurt.. make it stop!!"
Centrists suck..
6 comments:
Classic Sullivan.. His response was essentially "Big words make my head hurt.. make it stop!!"
That's not at all what he was saying. He was saying that the torture bill is too important to rush through and then end up with some ambiguous law that really does nothing.
Holy cow you are a centrist...
Now go read Glenn Greenwald. See the difference, and the point I'm making?
So Sullivan says the bill is vague.
And Greenwald says, It's true that the "compromise" takes the indirect, cowardly path towards legalizing torture by relying upon vague standards to define torture and then vesting in the President the sole power (unreviewable by courts) to determine what techniques are and are not allowed by those standards.
Hmmmmmm...
By the way, my point was that you were paraphrasing Sullivan incorrectly, not whether I agreed with him or not. Other than what he wrote and Greenwald's article, I don't know much this bill. Since I don't have the facts, I haven't made up my mind. That must be something Centrists do. Sometimes I wish I had a party that could tell me what to think.
Exactly, Sullivan does not understand the point of the intentional vagueness in the bill. Greenwald does, and so while the bill goes on towards approval, Sullivan merely says "stop", whil Greenwald raises the alarm of sanctioned torture.
By your comment wishing you had a party to tell you what to think, the implication is that I get my opinion from the "party" or the "left".
On the contrary.. I'm not a liberal because I need them to tell me what my position is. I'm a liberal because they match up closely with my point of view.
Sullivan wrote, But some of it is deliberate: obfuscation as a way to give the executive complete lee-way.
He knows as well as Greenwald does why the bill is the way it is: to give the President more authority and power. The only difference between them is the way they presented and said it. And if you want to argue that that is the difference between a centrist and a non-centrist, then I would like to point out how much you argued that "style" doesn't matter, it's the truth and facts that matter, and the truth is that both Sullivan and Greenwald came out against the legislation.
Chris you're mistaken. Sully's point is that it is too important and that we must spend more time trying to compromise on the bill.
Greenwald flat out says that there can be no compromise only complete rejection of any bill that allows torturing of prisoners.
That is the difference. Sully is floating in the middle with no clear point on what side he stands for other than to say he doesn't like the bill as is and we need to work on it more. Sully does nothing but define the issue without taking a stance, and that is why Tom is calling him out as a centrist.
Greenwald makes it perfectly clear:
No matter where one stands on the ideological spectrum, there is nothing confusing or unclear or ambiguous about the so-called "compromise" on torture, nor is there a lack of clarity about who won. It couldn't be any clearer. On the interrogation issue, there was only one simple issue from the beginning -- the Bush administration, through the CIA, has been using an array of "interrogation techniques" (induced hypothermia, long standing, threats to harm families, waterboarding) which most of the world considers to be torture. The question was whether the U.S. would be a country that uses these torture techniques (as the administration wanted) or whether it would ban them. That was the only issue all along.
Steve.
Post a Comment