Apr 17 2009
Why protect CIA Interrogators?
How about because we’re still waging two wars? It occurs to me that even people utterly repulsed by the torture memos would want to ensure that we didn’t have a sudden brain drain, or sudden disruption in the rank and file of the CIA. The higher ups should be fall guys to protect the overall CIA, because I’m not sure we can actually afford the great disruption inherent in the threat of prosecutions at the lower levels.
QT
7 Responses to “Why protect CIA Interrogators?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
QT,
I wanted to continue our discussion from Bob’s blog. I copied and pasted my reply to your last commen here.
“As is noted on my blog, for which a link was provided directly to the story I wrote, the accident was caused by the illegal immigrant, who lost control of his vehicle, crossed the center line, and slid into oncoming traffic.
“and the bit thrown in about what country they are from (would illegal immigrants from Russia have been better?) was racist.”
No, QT, it wasn’t racist. If you were from Oklahoma, or Arizona, or California, regardless of your race, I would seriously question, and in many cases (before harm was actually done), joke about your ability to drive in icy conditions. That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with race.
In Wisconsin, during any winter storm, if we see a license plate from the South, we steer clear of it if we are in a position to do so, and otherwise, give that car a very, very wide berth. I suppose now you are going to accuse me of being a Statist.
You are seriously reeeeeeeaaaching to play the race card. I suppose I could turn around, and accuse you of the same thing, because after all, assuming that I am making a racist comment just because I said they were from Mexico is somewhat racist itself. You are assuming the worst of people of my color. Would you call that racist?”
Hi PPP. Thanks for commenting here. I am out of town, getting ready to board an airplane home, so I’m sorry I’m not going to provide a longer response. I will respond, and I still sharply disagree with you, and find some of your argument profoundly distasteful. However, I want to concede one point – it is sloppy wording, and I knew it at the time, but went with it anyway, to argue “racism” in this case. You are right. It is not racism – which is only one of many kinds of xenophobia. It IS xenophobic, though – you are blanketly indicting Mexicans (and others from warm climes, but that’s a side point) with your statement.
More when I get home.
QT
Yes, QT, I am “indicting” people from warm climates; I admit that openly. It’s not a hate thing, though, and I don’t know that it’s xenophobic, either. It’s just the truth, QT. People from warm climates have a very, very difficult time driving in snowy or icy conditions. Why is it in any way wrong to say that, or anything like that? Have we become a nation too afraid to tell the truth for fear someone will label us?
I won’t allow that in my life. I find it absolutely hypocritical of a nation founded on principles of freedom, truth, and justice that we label someone as a racist or xenophobic if they tell the truth about an issue, no matter how uncomfortable that issue is.
I spent eight years of my adult life protecting those who could not protect themselves, in places no American visits for vacation. I put my life at risk for people of all ethnic backgrounds and I did it gladly, willingly, because I knew they could not protect themselves. I served in locations and for peoples that others like GItheJoe scoff at and believe we should leave undefended. I am offended that I would be called racist or xenophobic by anyone who has not done the same, and with the same spirit of service that I did. We fought against people whose main purpose in life was to destroy the one thing most Americans take for granted; FREEDOM. Most can’t even define freedom, much less see far enough beyond their own selfish wants to pray for it, to hope for it, and to deliver it to a people who cannot fight for it themselves. But I’m the one labeled “racist”.
Racism isn’t words, QT. Racism is a verb. It’s an action, a deed, a way of a hate filled life, and the remains of how that hate has acted are strewn about for the world to see. Many at the GDAB are as hate filled as the very people I fought against. I see it in their single-minded purpose to isolate and attack anyone who disagrees with them. Do you not see that this is the way oppression breeds? Do you not see the hate? Look at the way Bob stirs up the nest, QT, and see what he uses to do it. “Us against Them, and they’re ALL the same”.
If you are going to focus on a few words in your judgment of people, you are going to end up hating all people not like yourself.
You make pretty words, PPP, but you seem to continue to want to duck the implication of some of them.
Here’s the bottom line. I don’t throw around the word “racism” lightly – I used it then as short hand for the larger phenomenon of xenophobia – a synecdoche, if you will. That said, until you admit that the legal status of the driver had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident, I’m not backing down.
You correctly point out that people who have little experience with icy conditions have trouble driving in those icy conditions. That’s all well and good – but the fact remains that you put out that point as proof positive that the drivers caused the accident by virtue of being illegal immigrants. I’ve been fair in this conversation, PPP – why can’t you? I’d be done with this discussion altogether, if you’d admit that the illegal status of the driver was an unfortunate aside.
Consider my other point – that people from warm climates, including from Mexico, need not be here illegally. If that’s the case, then what’s with the conflation of warm climate and illegal status? It’s got to be one of two things – sloppy wording, or xenophobia. Or it could be sloppy thinking – you conflated all those things into one big belch against illegal immigration, without thinking fully about whether the two things had anything to do with each other. Whatever it is – it is on you to explain. I’ve stated unequivocally, that I think it’s a form of xenophobia – an unfair stereotyping of certain people – even if kindly intended.
PPP says:
In order for me to hate someone, they’d have to do something more heinous than what’s going on here. Racism is absolutely words, though that’s not all it is. One’s words, how they express themselves, reveals one’s thinking. I think you are distraught over illegal immigration, and have sunk into a xenophobic mindset toward some illegal immigrants, that leads you to conflate “Mexican” with “illegal.” I’m calling you out on it, because its false, wrong, prejudicial, and xenophobic. Which, doesn’t make YOU a racist, but it does make that thinking xenophobic – and the sooner you confront that and correct it – the better. You don’t have to change ANY of your opinions – I’m not asking you to… except the unfair conflation of things that ought not be conflated.
That there is hatred amongst all sorts of people is clear. I have a hard time posting when some at the GDAB can’t wait to start bashing religion in general, and Christianity in particular. I find it hurtful and uncomfortable. When I can, I try to speak against this. I also am not a partisan – so the effort to blast someone in the most hurtful ways when they happen to be republican bothers me – but then again – I don’t find that to be usually the case. Rather, I find people showing up and picking fights with folks at Bob’s blog. I think it’s rude, and while I wouldn’t treat anyone showing up at my blog or website that way, I can’t rightly say I totally disagree with them for doing so.
As to your indictment of Bob – I disagree entirely, and think you should perhaps reconsider. You’re still on the blog – you’ve been able to make your points without censorship. So, on what grounds are you indicting Bob? My first knowledge of you was of you being utterly ugly to someone who hadn’t done anything to you. What ought I think of you, and what does it say that despite the initial ugliness, you’re now a respected and welcome member of the community?
QT
Hi QT,
Sorry, it’s been a while since you responded, and I ask your forgiveness for my tardiness.
Anyway, I see your point about xenophobia, and I”’ consider it. I’m stupid, but not stupid enough to think I don’t have lots to learn.
The only “evidence” I have regarding the cause of the accident is the “if they aren’t there, the accident never occurs” path. There is much logic in that argument, QT, and yes, blame is also always assigned to victims who were there, as well. Your insurance company can explain that better than I can. To be certain, ice caused it. The road itself caused it. All of these things played a part, but it takes an actual presence for you or me to be involved in an accident. If I’m not there, I’m not involved in an accident. Further, if I am there illegally, then by default, QT, I am where I have no reason to be, I am in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If “illegal aliens” aren’t a part of this story, it isn’t a story at all. I would remain saddened by the loss of life, but I would have no recourse to call this anything but an unfortunate accident. However, QT, the inescapable fact remains, an illegal alien was driving this vehicle. He is clearly making a choice, every day, to be here illegally. He made a choice to be there, that Sunday morning. He further made a choice to drive in weather conditions he had to know would be troublesome for him. All along this path, there is choice after choice to make. The driver made a choice to live here illegally, QT. While the outside conditions are an influencing factor, the overwhelming factor is that he was there at all.
The victims were there, too. But they were not there illegally, QT. Does that make a difference? If that causes some conflict, maybe another scenario helps explain it. If a thief breaks into my house, and i shoot him defending my family, does he get shot if he isn’t there illegally? The idea that he might be there legally changes everything. The idea that he might not be there at all changes everything. It is my position that if the driver could not be there illegally, he would not have been there at all. Nobody dies crashing into a truck that isn’t there. That’s all I have, QT. That is the entire basis of my argument. The icy conditions were merely a circumstance that added to the probability of disaster. If that argument isn’t enough, I have nothing else left, at which point, I cede the issue. ;o)
“”As to your indictment of Bob – I disagree entirely, and think you should perhaps reconsider. You’re still on the blog – you’ve been able to make your points without censorship. So, on what grounds are you indicting Bob? My first knowledge of you was of you being utterly ugly to someone who hadn’t done anything to you. What ought I think of you, and what does it say that despite the initial ugliness, you’re now a respected and welcome member of the community?”"
It might surprise you to know that I privately asked Bob for his forgiveness for that article a while ago. I wrote it at a time when I was very, very frustrated with the state of the American media. I voted for President Obama, but throughout the campaign, I felt as though he was being shoved down our throat by the media. Those of us on the outside of political parties see very clearly that there is a media bias, QT. You might not want to know that, or see it, but we see it.
Bob and I actually correspond via email from time to time. We respect each other, but we also are not afraid of calling one another out on certain issues. I don’t attack Bob, any more than he attacks me, or anyone else. I may jibe him from time to time, but I am sure you have noticed, he jibes me as well. I don’t think he appreciates my Independent stance, and I respect that, especially because he puts his time where his mouth is by being an elected official in the Democratic party. But I have thanked him several times for allowing me to be a part of his discussions. I am grateful for the opportunity to be there, even though I am sure he knows what my purpose is. I don’t hide it. i think political parties are the scourge of this nation. I would love it if Bob declared himself an Independent, as I cannot think of a better voice to spread the word about how corrupt the two political parties have become.
I also recall, QT, that you can be spiteful as well. You told me you could see why my wife had left me, and you based that on a few words written on a comment thread. I have forgiven you for it, QT. Maybe you didn’t think it was wrong, heck, maybe you were even right; who knows. But I don’t hold it against you. I respect you. I think you are wise. I am glad to know you in whatever medium available. I am also still trying to figure out how to pronounce your name (Queen Tiye). The QT fits. You are a cutie.
“”I think you are distraught over illegal immigration, and have sunk into a xenophobic mindset toward some illegal immigrants, that leads you to conflate “Mexican” with “illegal.” “”
Distraught? Not really. Perplexed, definitely. I simply do not know what can be done about this issue. I have clients who came here illegally, QT. I haven’t called the INS about them. They are working on their citizenship now, and work hard for their children and a better life. The thought of children being ripped away from their parents over this issue is heartbreaking to me. I know the problem isn’t the border. I know the problem is poverty. Some days, I think it would be better if Mexico and the US of A just merged. I know that right now that’s not a real solution, but I think some day, it might be, if it could be done peacefully and willingly.
The way in which I spoke about the icy conditions, and where the drivers were from was the wrong approach. It was sarcastic, and I regret it. But I stand by my argument, QT. If they hadn’t been here illegally, they wouldn’t have been here at all.
PPP – I think we are at a place of understanding one another, if not agreeing. I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge the potential xenophobia, and I also acknowledge the validity of the argument “if you aren’t there it doesn’t happen.” I just don’t actually view that as a reasonable argument against illegal immigration – for the obvious reason that one needn’t be an illegal migrant to be on icy roads.
The Iowa Supreme court addressed this issue similarly with gay marriage – that the arguments are either too broad or not broad enough – if the same can be said of everyone, then it’s not grounds for holding it against one class of people. Where the argument DOES work is in discussion of deportation or not. Someone who causes involuntary manslaughter should have a harder time making an amnesty case than someone who stays on the right side of things all around. So – I hope that’s some sort of meeting in the middle.
I do want to clarify one thing, which is the harsh words you referenced. I think if that post could be found, you’ll notice that it was very conditional. What I said was “if this is your attitude, then I can see why your wife would leave.” I stand by that one. I would hope, though, that the words that provoked that are in fact NOT typical of you at all… I said it to raise your awareness of how unkind and hurtful you were being at that moment, not as an actual indictment of your overall character.
I guess because I’m absolutely an Obama supporter you suppose me to be in the democratic party. I am not. Like you, I’m an independent – by choice and by faith – Baha’is do not join political parties. And media bias is something that I find utterly shocking and upsetting – I’ve blogged on it before. I do think the media’s effort to quell charges of bias by bringing up false equivalencies constitutes its own bias and failure. I’d like reporters to report the news, and if on any given day or issue that favors one or another side – so be it. It troubles me that the work of investigative journalism seems to all but disappear. I’m very grateful these days for the Atlantic – which provides as balanced coverage as one could expect, and does it well.
Anyway – Obama was hardly shoved down our throats, or rather, it is certainly a subjective opinion. If you read Bob’s blog during the campaign, you’ll have noticed that there was plenty of criticism of how Obama was covered. The rock-star glitz was a media creation that often overlooked the candidate’s real message – and some of the left’s opposition to Obama today is also because the media simply conflated his positions with the left, unfairly. (Obama has not ever been a pacifist – he’s been arguing for expansion of the Afghanistan war as long as he’s been any kind of voice of opposition to the Iraq war – that’s an example). And then there was the complete undercoverage of the absolutely disgusting racism of the McCain Palin campaign, and the wacky refusal to address the fact that Clinton had no real way of winning when that became mathematically true… these were ways in which coverage was skewed against Obama – the net of any true nonpartisan has to be to notice that media served itself during the campaign – feeding whatever story drove the ratings, without any regard whatsoever for balance or fairness in coverage.
Finally – Queen you already know how to pronounce….
Tiye is an English rendering of an Ancient Egyptian name. Like many Semitic languages, the vowels are not readily known – so it is sometimes rendered Ty, or Tiy. I chose Tiye for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it allowed me to use an East African pronunciation scheme – so it is pronounced “Tee Yay.” Thanks for asking, and thank you for the compliment upon my appearance. 
QT
QT,
“I think we are at a place of understanding one another, if not agreeing”
Don’t let anyone at the GDAB know; they all think I’m contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian. We mustn’t disappoint them.
I, too, am still very much an Obama supporter. I think his hands are tied somewhat by his own party. Hearing him speak, especially after the convention, made me think he was an independent trapped in a political party. He is, as far as I can tell, all about getting things done regardless of party affiliation. He’s the rare Washington politician who actually thinks things can get done using common sense. I don’t agree with everything, but I don’t need someone to agree with me on everything. I just want someone who cares more about doing the job than getting the job.
“I’m an independent – by choice and by faith – Baha’is do not join political parties. ”
I know very little about the Baha’i faith, except what I just Wiki’d. Not much, but the principle seems pretty straightforward. Me? I’m what you’d call a Universalist Christian. I believe in Jesus as God, I believe every man is redeemed regardless of deed, and I believe God is so huge, (powerful, good, and intertwined?) that he cannot possibly “feel” threatened by us or our deeds. I believe he is part of us all, and we spend most of our time not realizing it, or denying it, because if we ever really believed it, Good God, the things we would all accomplish! I believe we are all spiritual beings having a physical experience.
“so it is pronounced “Tee Yay.” Thanks for asking, and thank you for the compliment upon my appearance”
You are welcome. By the way, my bark is far worse than my bite. I can, at times be very irrational in my writing, but it used to be a lot worse. I’m beginning to grow up. I used to be very dogmatic, but age and experiences have tempered that quite a bit.