Category: Awards

"After gay marriage, the most religiously committed Americans will be effectively marginalized as a public force—because they cannot act or support the idea that gay unions are marriages. Such people will, if we lose the marriage debate, be treated the way we treat bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Imagine: All it will take to make, say, a judicial nominee unconfirmable will be to establish that they are indeed Catholic," – Maggie Gallagher, NRO.

A reader writes:

I think you may need to withdraw that nomination.  Morrissey explained in an addendum what he’s really getting at:

“Bybee and the OLC were asked what interrogators could do within the law, and instead the OLC reverse-engineered a legal opinion to allow them to violate it. I understand why they did, but it still violated the statute…If we foresee a need to work outside the law, then change the law to make sure it covers those situations.”

If I’m reading him correctly, Morrissey doesn’t object to torturing prisoners at all.  He just doesn’t like the tortured legal reasoning in the Bybee memo.  He thinks we should openly legalize torture, loud and proud.  Maybe that’s less hypocritical than some of the other torture supporters.  But surely it doesn’t deserve an award–unless you also want to nominate Lavrentii Beria.

At this point, even a tiny shard of intellectual honesty on the right in defense of torture is worth celebrating.

"If Bybee had rejected the notion that a subject felt the fear of imminent death in waterboarding, then his approval of it might be defensible.  However, that’s not the case.  Bybee specifically states that it does meet that definition.  But because it only last a few moments or minutes, depending on the number of times the procedure is applied during a single session, the “imminent death” clause is supposedly immaterial.

This makes no sense at all. 

Using Bybee’s reasoning, the “threat of imminent death” part of the statute would have to last for months or years in order to qualify as torture.  What could possibly qualify in section 2 (C)?  We’d have to make a subject smoke for several years and threaten him with cancer.

Imminent threats, by definition, are short-term situations.  If one ignores that, all sorts of actions commonly considered psychological torture would be approved.  False hangings, for example, could be permissible as long as they didn’t cause serious physical injury.  Faked firing squads would also be permissible.  Gas chambers, injections, one could go on and on, and all of it would be legal because it doesn’t last for “months or years”.  The more obvious conclusion from the statute is that procedures creating an “imminent threat of death” in and of themselves create lasting severe mental pain, which is what makes them torture.

I’d like to defend Bybee, but in this case, with this memo, I have to agree with the critics.  Bybee turned 2 (C) on its head in order to justify the waterboarding request.  Given the deep fears of further attacks, one can understand why Bybee wanted to give interrogators the greatest latitude possible, but this reasoning is insupportable," – Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.

"Slapping is a nasty business, but if you tell me it’s torture I’ll slap myself to make sure I’m awake. Though chances are I am, seeing as I’m regularly sleep-deprived. And confession by bee sting simply must be used in the next Austin Powers movie," – Abe Greenwald, Contentions, who claims that the OLC memos "completely vindicate CIA interrogators and expose the hysteria of anti-Bush fanatics."

"I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns…Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose," – Matt Taibbi, True/Slant.

"Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but what the hell happened to “The buck stops here”? President Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. I certainly don’t agree with a lot of his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t — at the very least — respect the office and give him congratulations when it’s deserved. And when the US military succeeds in a critical mission, the CinC deserves congratulations.

There is way too much mean-spiritedness in modern politics, and I for one am totally sick of it. And disappointed in those few LGF lizards who can’t find it in themselves to be gracious and say, “Well done.”

Take a step back from the brink, folks. Oppose Obama’s policies all you like, but be the loyal opposition, not a bunch of ranting haters. The Internet already has more than enough of those. And that’s my screed for the evening," – Charles Johnson, LGF. His commenters were very supportive on the whole.

"I don't know why community organizers in Somalia would fire on a fellow community organizer … they could like the guy if they just had a sit-down with him," – Rush Limbaugh, on Somali militant attacks on Democratic congressman Donald Payne.

"So there it stands: a naked, pigeon-chested old man, random strands of white hair on its boney shoulders; its swollen-knuckled hands clasped over its dead genitals, looking at once forlorn and menacing, shivering with self-loathing and xenophobia, raging pathetically at its timely and appropriate defeat at the hands of Reason. Ladies and gentlemen: The Republican Party… The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with," – Steven Weber, HuffPo.

"Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance – before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans – helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions… Is this what Sen. John Kerry meant when he once suggested that American policy must pass a "global test"? Or what Barack Obama meant when he said last week that we have failed to "appreciate Europe's leading role in the world"? Or when he spoke of "change we can believe in"? And just who are "we"?" – Rick Santorum.

"… the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders," – Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, in a post titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders."

(hat tip: Jim Burroway)