home

Sunday Reading

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jun 12, 2005 at 09:26:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

New York Times Sunday Magazine

  • Joseph Lelyveld: Interrogating Ourselves. I found it difficult reading and disappointing in its lack of a firm stand against torture and accountability. He seems to be saying (and I didn't read the entire 13 page article) that the American people didn't demand a full investigation because they weren't willing to take a firm stand against torture-lite - and either is he. Plenty of us have called for a full investigation into torture lite. Congress just isn't listening. It's so much more convenient to buy into the "few bad apples" meme.

Time Magazine's Series on Guantanamo

The Sunday Times On Line

Bloggers on the Sunday Times OnLine Article:

< Sign the 'Howard Dean Speaks for Me' Petition | Live 8 Update >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Reading | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#1)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    It simply amazes me how far to the right the New York Times has gone. Rationalizing torture while in Europe they are reporting the issues that took America to the phony Iraq war. A war so phony that we need to torture people to get them to admit that we are right. [text of Sunday Times online article deleted. Please use this space for comments only. Also, urls must be in html format]

    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#2)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    off topic comment deleted. What Atrios said.

    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Here's a pearl, from section 5 of the DSM (titled "The Goal"): Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Let's try this one, from section 10, titled The Conditions Necessary for Military action: 10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion. The italics are mine. Anyone care to analyze that statement in the context of conditions needed in order to justify action?

    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Clarification. My two above posts were referencing the briefing paper written by the British Cabinet Office on 7/21/02. The brief was distributed to the members at the meeting on Downing St.

    Re: Sunday Reading (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    I have a (relevant, nothing to do with "ooh, why is this coming out now") IMO very incisive post on this topic up at The Ape Man. Please visit if you have a moment. I highlight a crucial piece of the emerging evidence that has so far been underappreciated, even among BBA members. Thanks The Ape Man

    Sunday Reading | 6 comments (6 topical)