»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
My head is spinning
| The Alley |
|
My head is spinning |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
I can't keep up with this administration. Between releasing CIA advanced interrogation techniques, saying they have no plans to investigate former administration officials, changing their mind and leaving that decision up to the Attorney General, and then changing their mind again and saying they won't support a call for an investigation, they do this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042303469.html Why would they want to weaken/limit defendants' rights? |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry that my availablity has been limited lately to participate -- but, maybe you want to look at the particular case involved before you make up your mind.. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-1529_Petitioner.pdf or a good summary of the facts and question http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1529/ The trip-wire in question appears to be, according to Solicitor General Elana Kagan superfluous to a defendant's right to not speak at all. The salient points from Sherman's article: quote: and quote: Now the Constitutional right in question is afforded by the 6th Amendment: quote: So is the JD actually seeking to limit this right? While I'm personally steamed at Obama over the wiretapping issue (that is to continue the Bush wiretapping policy) I can't find myself getting too wound up over this one -- and I don't think Sherman's article accurately portrays the issue that's before the court. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, The information about the torture used by US forces and The CIA in the interrogation of prisoners is not new. It was mentioned in a New Yorker article in 2005 and in this article, whose link I'm providing below. The details of [i]The New Yorker Article[i] are provided in that. The Bush administration has apparently been modest. It's torture policy cannot actually be shown to have done anything. If it could have been, the Bush folks would have released that information themselves. Now they can challenge the Obama folks to release non-existent information and make they look guilty for being unable to do so. I would also like to congratulate the Bush administration, and Donald Cheney or Richard Rumsfeld or whomever for using enhanced interrogation techniques to prevent the United States from being taken over by dolphins, and for completely crushing the Polar Bear Conspiracy. We aren't able to tell you how or why, but we are rooting the last of those foul creatures out of their hiding places atop the last of the ice flows remaining near the north pole. Not one of them will remain alive. The interrogation techniques we've employed in questioning the rain forest allies of these fur clad terrorist disciples of the devil must remain hidden. We can tell you that they haven't blown up a single oil well or damaged a single foot of Alaskan oil or gas pipeline. We call that a real victory in our war against the environment. . ., rather, against the muslim extremists. It shows how important it will be to restore Republicans to office to ensure the apocalypse. I'm sorry —‚ to prevent the apocalypse. Sincerely, Bob Kaven http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz05292007.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's torture policy cannot actually be shown to have done anything. Actually, Bob, it cannot be shown because Obama refuses to show it. The records are there and have gotten a fair amount of press as of late so I'm not sure how you missed it. In one case, for example, a terrorist group in Asia had plans in the works to hijack an airliner and fly it into an LA skyscraper. The group was dismantled and plans eliminated based on the information received by our "torture" policy, which could mean anything Obama would label it to be. Being forced to watch Bedtime for Bonzo would fit into that category, I'm sure. Perhaps purists would rather see the skyscraper come down with a thousangs or two Laker fans inside, as long as the terrorist had not been placed in discomfort but I have a feeling it would be a hard sell to the tens of thousands of people who would be affected by such an act. We aren't able to tell you how or why, but we are rooting the last of those foul creatures out of their hiding places atop the last of the ice flows remaining near the north pole. Not one of them will remain alive. What is that ink-blot test, Bob, where the psychoanalyst asks you what you see? That appears to be the case with you and polar bear pictures. It would behoove you to look for the facts behind the picture so that your attempt at sarcasm does not fall so woefully short. Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive) April 6, 2007 - 12:05 ET Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is? Well, ABC television in Australia, on a show called “Media Watch,” recently debunked the entire issue (video available here, h/t NB member dscott). It turns out -- as NewBuster Jake Gontesky reported on March 20 -- the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.” The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy: Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed: You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun. Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings. That photo was published not only in the Sunday Telegraph. It made it onto the front page of the New York Times. And the International Herald Tribune. It also ran in London's Daily Mail, The Times of London and Canada's Ottawa Citizen - and that's just to name a few. All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear. But the photo wasn't current. It was two and a half years old. And it wasn't snapped by Canadian environmentalists. It was taken by an Australian marine biology student on a field trip. And in what month did she take it? “The time of year was August, summer.” That's not how Al Gore saw it. He used it in a presentation on man made global warming. "Their habitat is melting... beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. "They're in trouble, got nowhere else to go." Audience members let out gasps of sympathy… http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11879 The tactic is not new, Bob. Democrats and environmentalists used the same attempt while trying to derail oil exploration in Alaska, showing pictures of cute little Alaskan creatures frolicking around pristine landscapes, all which would be destroyed by an evil exploration of oil. Problem is, those pics were not taken anywhere near where the oil exploration was to take place. Fact is, the area of the oil exploration was completely barren and void of wildlife and the companies had spent fortunes NOT to change the landscape or environment. Those frolicking polar bear and seal pics, though, are the exact way to get past a person's brain and right into his heart. There's really nothing wrong with injecting a little sarcasm, as you have attempted here. I do it myself (believe it or not!). It is, however, important that the sarcasm has an actual base or it takes on a silliness factor. It would appear Al Gore and his deceptions and selective picture showing have bypassed your search for actual truth....but then, those polar bears ARE cute, aren't they?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
One more point to put the bears to rest... Global warming fraudsters dismayed by growing ice and expanding polar bear population January 6th, 2009 | Global Warming This last year has seen the expansion of the polar ice caps and glaciers throughout the world. In fact, the sea ice today is equivalent to the sea ice first measured by satellite in 1979 the year record keeping began. The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions. Despite the questionable science and dire predictions of the social engineers posing as environmentalist glaciers from Norway to California are growing. Just another article of many from actual research centers disagreeing the the Gore rants. This particular article ends with a statment that I find to be completely right on the money.... Don’t expect any amount of good news about the environment to please this special interest group. The real prize for these fake environmentalist is to establish social and economic controls on the Earths population through regulation and taxation. http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/01/06/global-warming-fraudsters-dismayed-by-growing-ice-and-expanding-polar-bear-population/ |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Bob- Due respect, do you actually read what you are writing? Do you honestly believe it? quote: Back in the days of WWII, there was a phrase "Loose Lips Sink Ships"... When I was in the Marine Corps, and stationed over seas, we were given classes about not saying ANYTHING that dealt with specifics about troops movements, maneuvers, or operational techniques... even to each other... lest the words and information find themselves to the wrong people. Obviously, that is not the way things are supposed to work these days. Operational security is fine as long as it doesn't: ~Keep people from learning all about what is going on ~Prevent everyone in the world from knowing our business ~Prevent a reporter from spreading it all over the newspapers ~Stop a bunch of screaming Liberals from blaming everything on someone they don't like, or who disagrees with them. Plain and simple: The reason the Bush administration didn't splatter our business all over the press is because we are at war. Like it, don't like it, don't care about it... that is the fact as simply as I can make it. When one does not want the enemy (enemies) to know what we are doing, so trhat they can train/counteract the specific procedures, one does not brag about the successes. Period. Actualy, let's go back a couple of years and play this out the exact way you say it should have happened: Dana Perino: The Enhanced Interrogation Techiniques have proven successful in the following ways
Huffington Post, Daily Koz, MoveOn.Org, NYTimes, etc: Well, just what is it that you are doing that is creating such a success? Perino: We can't discuss that due to operational security. Liberals all over the freakin' world: THAT'S NOT FAIR!! YOU WON'T TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN SECRET TO WIN THIS WAR!!! YOU ARE LYING TO US ABOUT THIS!!! THERE ARE NO SUCCESSES, BECAUSE YOU WON'T TELL US WHAT IS GOING ON!!!!! Fast forward to this week: Former Bush Administration Officials: Since you are releasing information that involves operational security, and are giving aid and comfort to the enemy (which is the definition of treason, thank you very much- me), at least release the papers that show the successful interrogations and that show what we were able to prevent from happening by doing such. Liberals: Why are you hating PResident Barak Obama? He is the best thing that has ever happened to this county? If you had any successes, then you would have been the one to release Top Secret papers to the public, and not us. Plain and simple: In my opinion, and in many of the Vets that I deal with on a daily/weekly basis, the President is one of the worst things that could have happened to our national security, and time is going to prove that he is not the savior that the liberals have announced him to be. But this one goes to eleven... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ringo, the vets I associate with say the same thing. Obama is destroying our national security, all for the sake of his Bush (it's not me!!!) crusade. We will have another 9/11 and Obama's current tactics will have gone a long way in allowing it to happen. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Do you mean the Library Tower Mike? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's a real pity, Denise, you had to throw so many ingredients into this pot. What could have been a good discussion is just murky and without any distinctive taste. FWIW, I agree with your concern regarding the link you posted, even though that's hard to do with all the other stuff in your pot. Until the government wants to also overturn "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," they have absolutely no right talking directly to the ignorant without prior counsel from the educated. Sure, that means a few guilty people will skate. That's a small price to pay for one innocent person to remain free. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well put Ron, I agree. I think this is a bad idea, they openly admit that the number of cases where this would actually improve the investigative process is miniscule. My worry would be the probable consequence that they haven’t mentioned - that the number of cases where the possibility for abuse exists would be somewhat less miniscule. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm feeling kind of murky, Ron. That was part of my point. There is just too much going on all at the same time making it difficult to really absorb any of it. Maybe that's the intent. It brings to mind one of the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals": RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.) But this attempt to limit defendants' rights really took me by surprise. What is the possible benefit, other than perhaps making it easier for the prosecution? I'm just not understanding why they would want to do that. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Is it better that a guilty person be set free than an innocent person convicted? Is it better that ten guilty people be set free than one innoncent person convicted? Is it better that one hundred guilty people be set free rather than one innocent person be convicted? Is it better that all guilty people be set free rather than one innoncent person be convicted? That is really not the question. The more proper question is whether a guilty person be set free rather than have his or her constitutional rights violated. Or the next question, is it better a guilty person be set free rather than have his or her constitutional rights be violated when the violation by law enforcement was totally unintentional and had absolutely no effect on the determination of guilt or innocence? This is a complex area of the law. Both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments involve right to counsel. The right attaches differently according to which amendment applies. (or both) You obviously do not have a right to counsel every time law enforcement talks to you. Equally obvious is the fact you have a right to waive the right to counsel I was struck by the statement to not overule the prior decision because it set clear standards. Not that the standards are necessarily agreed to as being correct, but something that can be comprehended and followed. The law is not black or white, nor is it static. The vast majority of law enforcement officers attempt to follow the law, but that is not always the simplest thing to do when lawyers, trial judges, and appellate judges can't come to agreement on what the constitution requires and change their minds on a regular basis. So we will wait and see what the Supreme Court does and attempt to apply their rulings in situations never contemplated by the Justices. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Benefit? I think the idea is more like “what’s the harm”. My understanding is that they’re proposing that anyone who agrees to answer questions without a legal representative present should be able to do so if they so choose and that any information obtained during such questioning should be admissible in court. It actually doesn’t remove the right to stay silent until your lawyer arrives, but personally I still think that the present system that’s used in the US is safer. Don’t get me wrong, the sky won’t fall in if this new rule is introduced – after all it’s worked pretty well in the UK for the past few hundred years. I just like the idea of having legal counsel present to ensure that due process is adhered to. . [This message has been edited by Grinch (04-26-2009 06:06 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Okay, okay. I'll talk. I'll say whatever you want me to say. Bush was the best President in American History. Trickle Down Economics works. Just don't make me read this thread. Please! Where I think Sherman and the Post really miss the mark here is that the ball is entirely in the Supreme Court's, er, court. There's nothing the Obama Administration can do regarding the case in question. Likewise -- the Congress and the Justice Department have the charge of investigating any alleged crimes regarding the interrogation of WOT detainees. Obama overreached when he said and when Emanuel said that they weren't going to pursue it. And, if crimes were committed -- there is no choice but to prosecute -- or else another crime is being committed. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Interestingly enough, cases are targeted by prosecutors and defense counsel to reach the Supreme Court. A case that has facts either the defense or prosecution feel will be more favorably received by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes the decision, but as a wild old Judge used to tell me, the most powerful person in the Courtroom is most generally the prosecution because they are the ones who get to decide what gets to Court in the first place and can always dismiss. If no one appeals or seeks to have a case reversed, then the Court does nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court does not take cases willy-nilly. Only a minute number are taken for consideration, and the deciding factor is going to be of significant legal import. The ruling handed down last week on search and seizure was being discussed in courtrooms and law enforcement circles across the entire country the day it was issued. I ruled on a case the next day because of the ruling. If the Supreme Court makes a constitutional ruling on right to counsel, it will have significant and immediate impact. The Department of Justice is not an uninterested bystander in the proceedings. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
How guilty can a person be if his or her constitutional rights are violated? Guilt being determined by legal proceedings, if those legal proceedings have been flawed, even though guilt may be determined, can that determination actually be said to be valid. Might it not be fruit of a poisoned tree? The whole nature of guilt in those circumstance seems called into question on a very basic level, except for perhaps Texas and other third world countries, where once guilt is determined it doesn't seem to matter if Jehovah himself is willing to swear your innocence. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
But, the petitioner, Montejo, is the petitioner. The DOJ can't make anybody drop this case nor did it prosecute Montejo. Kathryn Landry represents the State of La. and the Supreme Court accepted the case in October 2008. Is it your suggestion Tim that the Solicitor General's brief carries more weight than that of the petitioner? And, as I said before, I can't get too excited about this case because stare decisis makes it doubtful that the Court will reverse Jackson -- but even if it does I think Kagan's argument that Jackson is redundant to other protections is valid -- and we don't need the belt and suspenders. But, since we already have both I don't really see the point in taking them off for aesthetics. Kagan wasn't confirmed as the Solicitor General until March 19th -- so how much of her fingerprints are actually in this brief and how much is a carryover from the previous SG? I don't know. It's true the SG argues the President's position -- but has Obama actually had the time to be taking a position on this given his rather active first 100 days as President? And -- I can hear the howls in my head coming from conservatives in the event the administration had filed a brief supporting the Jackson ruling -- "Obama is turning convicted murderers free!" |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Interesting comments on the polar bears. I know you dislike Al Gore, and are disinclined to believe or listen to anything he says, even if it's about polar bears. I don't think they're cute, by the way; they scare me because they're big predators whose major interest in me is as an appetizer. But I do have some quarrel with your facts. It doesn't particularly matter to me that the pictures were taken — the pictures you're talking about that were "debunked" in your article — in August. I checked, and found some data about the initial consideration about putting the bears on the endangered species list. From a U.S. Government Department of Dirk Kempthorne 2006 release quote: In case you missed the part about decline of late summer ice being part of the problem (and not extraneous, as you and the Aussie debunkers would seem to imply, I will repeat, "Scientific observations have revealed a decline in late summer Arctic sea ice to the extent of 7.7 percent per decade[.]" It doesn't particularly matter if the bears in question were using inflatable Mel Gibson appetizer rafts to paddle back and forth to shore where they held weenie roasts and drank Pina Coladas. Their populations were still apparently shrinking. I did find some references to the stuff that you were talking about, however, and I do appreciate you steering me in that direction. The Sunday Telegraph especially has a very fine reputation, and I needed to do some in depth checking before I felt comfortable disagreeing with them, and I had to turn the notion over a lot and consider it from a lot of different angles as well. I'll have to add them to my list of papers to check out when I'm looking for references myself, and I'm glad you turned them up. I turned up some other possible references on the subject, if you're interested, and if I can get them into this thread, I'll do so. I hope your belly is backing off on Giving you a hard time. I hope you're getting better fast. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Decline+in+polar+bear+populations&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Decline+in+polar+bear+populations&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/061227.html All my best, Mr. Bob |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ringo, I think I'm reading what I'm writing. Are you? I said that the information that was released on torture was not new information. I said" The information about the torture used by US forces and The CIA in the interrogation of prisoners is not new. It was mentioned in a New Yorker article in 2005 and in this article, whose link I'm providing below. The details of The New Yorker Article are provided in that." Check for details. Not only were the details of what tortures being used described, but also on whom they were being used, as long as the claim that they were being effective. If the Bush administration had actually wished to prevent the Loose Lips Sink Ships scenario, they would not have allowed that information out, would they, since knowing whom we had captive immediately let enemies know what information was at risk. If you plan on information at risk not being lost, you are hardly a wise commander, are you? You may well notice, however, that these principles didn't stop the President and Vice President from Blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, who was in charge of much of the espionage on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, for us in the middle east. This may well have crippled our incoming flow of intelligence on Iran and who knows what all other important conflict areas. This was, apparently, for momentary political gain and petty partisan revenge. There are specific intelligence blogs, and blogs focusing on counterinsurgency that try to politically neutral, as they should, since their mandate is policy not politics. I have made reference to one or two over the past year, but I won't repeat them here. I'm afraid that you'd find them tainted by my mention of them and might not be if you stumbled across them on your own. On one occasion I made a point of referencing a journal that had a point of view that disagreed with me but still had a well written and fascinating article on weapons sales, drugs, the spread of gangs and other such things. Nobody followed up, probably because I'd made the reference. Check for yourself. Beg your pardon, guys, but the Bush administration was always floating reports about how astute torture or investigative work was going to lead to the conviction of X or y, or had headed of this or that thing, but they never came through with the details that would actually produce the convictions, just like they never came through with those weapons of mass destruction or the mobile laboratories or the airplanes that had been sent to Iran for safety. Their entire administration was one long series of promises like that. Remember when they said that the United States didn't torture Prisoners? Richard Cheney and Scooter Rumsfeld are simply at it again, with more, larger and stickier lies for your consuming pleasure. Eat your fill, but please don't try to talk me into picking up a spoon too. It was never to my taste. And if you actually read those memos, by the way, you realize that there are very strict limits as to the number of times these things are supposed to be done, and that they are all suppose to be done under direct supervision of Psychologists. I think that doing these things in excess of 25 times within a limited period of time falls into the realm of torture for anybody, let alone the more than 100 times that some folks were exposed to. That behavior, the behavior that ordered that sort of questioning, is the real criminal activity. That to me is treason, and I think it did enormous damage to the United States in wartime. If I believed in the death penalty, and I do not, it's orders like this that would merit it, especially knowing that the information gotten from such interrogations is unlikely to be useful. Even with cross-checks, the possibilities for human error put the reliability of such information as much less that good as other than an indulgence in sadism. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Ron (04-26-2009 11:26 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just don't make me read this thread. Please! LR, if you will supply the names pf whoever is making you read this thread, I assure you we will take administrative action!  Bob, thanks for the response. I plan to dig into the links you provided for further information. Me dislike Gore? Well, I suppose I do, in a way, in the same way I would disike any confidence man who preys on victims for his own personal benefit, which Gore has done on a scale that would dwarf any previous confidence men in history. Yes, there are many reports for and against the growth/decline of the glaciers and the future/demise of polar bears and other assorted wildlife. At casual glance I find it interesting that most of the reports I see declaring the death of glaciers and their furry inhabitants come from government-financed organizations. Quite the coincidence, no? I did see several weeks ago Gore on a Danish talk show promoting his views and, when challenged by a Danish scientist to debate man-made global warming and Gore's claims, he refused and was doing quite a bit of stuttering as he tried to explain that there were too many unknown variables to debate.....and then left the stage. Why didn't that surprise me? What seems to be interesting to me now is what the news organizations and the administration is pushing. There is little doubt that the major concern for the country, based on every poll in existence, is the economy so what are the two points that are occupying the majority of headline space? (1) Fighting global warming and instituting new rules and controls to combat and reverse the effects of the man-made destruction of the ozone layer. The administration is pushing for controls, regulations and mandatory requirements for companies to follow, all of which will wind up costing the taxpayers more money, in a climate where taxpayers have little money as it is and unemployment through the roof. Even if I concede that this is an area that has to be addressed, does it have to be addressed NOW, in this horrific economical time? Does the world cease to exist as we know it in the next decade without this urgency? More than that, it's not a global movement. China is not adopting these controls. India is not adopting these controls...and those are two of the greatest polluters on the planet! So Obama is saying that America, doing only it's part. is vital in saving the earth and it needs to be done NOW, while people are counting pennies for groceries. It's like telling your starving 5 year old son that you spent the grocery money on sunscreen for him because it may prevent skin cancer for him when he gets into his teens. (2) CIA interrogation tactics. Fine, we can debate on whether waterboarding is torture or not (Congress didn't seem to think so when they approved it), whether or not such tactics are effective or a wide variety of questions relating to the topic. My question is....what has that to do with the economy? The CIA is terririfed right now of doing ANYTHING, based on Obama's claims that "No one will be prosecuted" to "There will be investigations and possible prosecutions", a u-turn that only took him one day. Terrorists around the world are surely laughing themselves silly at our antics...but what does that have to do with the economy? Obama is busy going around the world telling everyone who will listen that "It's not my fault!" or "I wasn't born yet!" or "I wasn't President!" and sitting in conferences, remaining mute while other country leaders tear the country apart and then he smiles and shakes their hands afterwards....to the point where The Daily Telegraph commented that never in US history has an American president apologized so much for his country while on foreign soil. Be that all as it may....what does that have to do with the economy? Where are the tens of thousands of "shovel-ready" jobs that Harry Reid claimed were there as soon as the stimulus bills were passed? If the CIA is disbanded tomorrow, if Bush comes out and says, "I did it! I did it!"....how does that help the economy? Obama is still campaigning, still using the same tactics as he used trying to get elected because that is all he knows how to do. Why does global warming and waterboarding get the headlines when the economy is the main issue on the public's minds? In my view they are simply red herrings to get people's minds off the deplorable economic conditions, off the fact that Obama has put at least two future generations in hopeless debt, and off the fact that his policies are going to bring MORE hardships to the populace. Sure. my house is being foreclosed on and I may not have a job but somebody is going to be punished for waterboarding a terrorist and I may be saving a glacier from melting too quickly. Glory hallelujah.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Because there’s a demand for articles about waterboarding and global warming? I’m only guessing but if there wasn’t a market surely the news organisations wouldn’t be wasting money producing them. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Grinch, I think most people would benefit from advice of counsel when dealing with the authorities. Innocent people can end up in jail, especially when a skilled prosecutor can artfully present a circumstancial case where no direct evidence exists. I think all the protections possible should be in place, even if they appear redundant. It's very complex Tim, too complex for the average layman, and of course it is not desirable that a guilty person beat the system with a skilled defense attorney, but I think it is more undesirable if an innocent person is convicted. I think people who agree to talk with the authorities without counsel when they know or think they may be a 'person of interest' in a case are as misguided as those who choose to act as their own attorney in a courtroom. Speaking of waterboarding or putting caterpillars in a room with someone who has a bug phobia, sleep deprivation, loud music, being thrown into a 'soft wall' (with the benefit of foam neck padding to prevent injury), etc., it's been reported that at the approximately 30 CIA briefings of these methods to the members of Congress, none of them balked at any of it. Some of them even expressed sentiments along the lines of "whatever you have to do to protect Americans, do it", and "that's it? Are you sure that will be enough to get them to reveal their plots?" A Freedom of Information request is being initiated to obtain the minutes of all those meetings. And Nancy will be forced to eat her words of the other day. I won't hold my breath for her resignation though. I think the 3,000 people killed on 9/11, if given the choice, would have chosen any of those techniques being used against them instead of being burned alive in, or plunging from, high-rises, and obliterated in airplanes by the Islamist terrorists, as I'm sure Danny Pearl would have too. He was the guy who was decapitated with a knife while screaming, filmed live for public dissemination. What they and their families went through is the real torture. Let's recall all those gruesome pictures that are burned into our memories next week when Obama authorizes the release of the so-called torture by the CIA photos of the high-value captives. And I'm sure the NY Times will also rerun the Abu Ghraib photos for an extra attempted kick in the groin of America. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think anyone would ever argue with that sentiment, Denise. But do we really want to become just like the people who did that to them? I'm just old fashioned enough to want to be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, please, for the love of God, how can a comparison even be made? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Do you believe that the ability to torture should be extended? Let’s say for instance that someone is suspected of abducting a small child, would it be ok to torture the accused to find out where the missing child was? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Because there’s a demand for articles about waterboarding and global warming? Not to my way of thinking, grinch. The press creates the demand and then fills it...that's their specialty. Do you really think the people walking around today looking for work, wondering how to pay the bills, concerned about the future would have waterboarding on their minds as a major topic if it weren't being heralded in newspaper headlines and on the evening news? You should find that as unlikely as I do. But do we really want to become just like the people who did that to them? Ron, that is one of the oldest and most used canards bad guys use on the good guys. "I'm going to punch you in the face but, if you punch me back, you're as bad as me." The initiator of the act loses all rights to that argument and it's a shame that otherwise intelligent people, like yourself, buy into it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No I don't, Grinch. I don't believe that real torture should ever be used on anybody. But I don't object to advanced interrogation techniques being used against our sworn enemies, the Islamist terrorists, those who have killed us in the past and have sworn to do so in the future. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry Mike but I don’t find it unlikely at all. I think people are capable of multi tasking when it comes to news items, being interested in global warming, waterboarding, the current outbreak of swine flu and how their local team are playing in the midst of a recession seems quite likely to me. In fact I’d go one step further – I’d say it was an essential human survival trait – concentrating on one issue isn’t, after all, conducive to mental well-being. We’d all go mad if we fixated on one thing to the detriment of everything else. quote: You’d let the child die Denise? What about their family, the torture that they have to endure burying their innocent baby? quote: Should they have access to counsel while they’re being tortured and should torture be used before or after they’re convicted of the crimes they’re charged with? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, By your logic, if all the new sources were silenced, then things would be better because we wouldn't have the clamor to discus issues that you don't think are important. Of course, your issues wouldn't be discussed, either, would they? Unless you meant that the media should only portray your side of the issues, and leave out any other point of view? You could mean that, couldn't you? The point of view you advocate here doesn't make a lot of sense to me at all, frankly, though I can see that it does to you and to Ringo and to Denise. For the reasons above, it doesn't to me. We are supposed to have a free press, aren't we? It can say pretty much what it wants. My weakness in the matter is that it should pretty much stick to researchable facts, and that they should be able to back them up, which is why I thanked you for your inclusion of The Sunday Telegraph to my small but growing list of sources that seem to be making an effort to get the facts right. Simply because the facts reported don't seem to have the slant that you think they should have, doesn't make them wrong facts; not does it make those facts unimportant. You will be aware that facts on torture and attacks on civil rights have always gotten very high priority with me. I have also given economics a lot of attention as well, so you see it is possible to have more than one concern at once. You are interested in poetry and politics at once without too much strain, right? As for your complaint that we're talking about torture again, you might look at the first couple of sentences of Denise's opening comments. They were fairly clear. I find myself sharing some of the worries she expresses in her first link, and would like to know more about the whole subject. I didn't like the roll-backs in the civil rights when I saw the FISA courts set up (was it Clinton?), I didn't like the rollbacks that I was vocal about here during the Bush administration (and I warned, as you may recall, that once rights were rolled back under somebody you trusted, that didn't mean that you'd trust the next guy elected; and that the whole idea of these warantless wiretaps and depredations of habeas were simply bad); and I don't like the suggestion of them here any more. How about some legal proposals? Hey? We need to complain about torture till it stops. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your analogy, Mike, would suggest that punching someone in the nose is morally or ethically repulsive? And I guess in some instances, it probably is. If you've got your four older brothers holding down your attacker, for example, it probably would be a little tough to argue self-defense. At least after the third or fourth punch? Let's up the ante. If Bill rapes Steve's young daughter, is it then okay for Steve to return the favor by raping Bill's daughter? We're not talking self-defense here, and we're not talking about undeserved punishment. We're talking about acts that are, in and of themselves, repulsive and disgusting. Torture ain't right. Period. Engaging it in lessens all of us, the perpetrators and victims alike. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
We're not talking about crimes and the criminal justice system, Grinch, we're talking about war. They declared war on us in no uncertain terms on 9/11. And if we aren't vigilant, and if we don't fight to win, then they will win. And then we can tell them that it isn't very nice to behead people. And they will laugh at us and then behead us. I don't see the advanced interrogation techniques as torture. They were made uncomfortable and afraid, they weren't physically hurt. They are all still alive and well. And most were not even waterboarded. Only 3 were. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If Bill rapes Steve's young daughter, is it then okay for Steve to return the favor by raping Bill's daughter? No, Ron. no more than our troops kidnapping people and beheading them on video, which is what the terrorists did. You seem intent on equating our actions on an equal level with the terrorists.....our interrogation tactics which leave no one injured against mass murderers. I ain't buying it. Grinch and Bob....fine, have it your way. The fact that waterboarding is such a popular issue right now is not because Obama is making a crusade of it, not because the newspapers and news programs are headlining it - it's just ordinary citizens multi-tasking. I won't even attempt to argue with such a line of thought. You are both showing how far you will go to excuse actions you do not want to speak against. No problem...I leave you to your own perceptions of reality. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You already did Mike. quote: I just answered your question and pointed out the flaws in your argument, if I’m wrong, fine, explain where and why I’m wrong. If you don’t want to do that then that’s fine by me too, though I have to wonder why you asked the question in the first place if you didn’t want to listen to and discuss the validity of my reply. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Who told you only three people were waterboarded? Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
grinch, you pointed out no flaws in my argument at all. You simply stated your own views. Fine by me...as I said, enjoy whatever reality you prefer. Your contention is that people are simply multitasking, concentrating on many things at one time. Apparently you feel that it's just coincidence that the fact they are multitasking on waterboarding right after Obama came out his revelations that that there would not be/there would be investigations into interrogation tactics and right after the press picked it up as a headliner crusade. No problem...it's all yours. My contention is that they are red herrings to get people's minds off the economy and the fact that it's getting worse, that unemployment filings were much higher than expected last week, that food stamps are through the roof, that unemployment continues to rise, that, despite Obama's claims that, as soon as the stimulus bill was passed, those "shovel-ready" jobs would kick in to provide much needed jobs. They are designed to veer minds away from the fact that nothing Obama has done has provided any relief at all, embarrassing to say the least with his "First 100 Days" report card coming up. Why should someone dwell on the fact that Obama has spent more money than every president in history? Who wants them to dwell on the fact that our future generation will be hopelessly mired in debt? Why should someone think about Obama not having done anything at all as far as self-reliance on energy is concerned when they can be told about the horrors of waterboarding? Why should they dwell on not being able to pay bills when polar bears are in danger of extinction? Clinton, of course, was the best by bombing an aspirin factory to get the headlines away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal but Obama is catching on quick. I'll have to admit that it is working to a degree, as you are living proof. Fortunately I feel that a good portion on the American public is not so easily fooled. How can I point out where you are wrong when you are simply offering an opinion? People are entitled to any opinion they like....even me. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, How long have I been telling you about the economic problems and saying that we needed to do something about them? A year at least. The only time that I actually recall you acknowledging that an economic problem existed was when Obama came to office, at which point it was Obama's economic problem, or the Democratic Economic problem. It's been the country's economic problem the whole time. The fact that it hasn't evaporated in 100 days means exactly nothing. The Obama strategy may not work. The advantage it has over what we've been doing over the past eight years is that it actually admits that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, and that there is an economic underclass in this country that folks need to help out and that throwing money at the rich isn't really much of a solution. In part because the Neo-cons who've been running things have been in denial that there's anything wrong, There's been loads wrong, and the economic news you mention is certainly part of it. I hope the Obama program will help. If you recall, I said that I thought that it might begin to show some sort of results after 18 to 24 months. I may well have been wrong. It may well take longer, if it works at all. The hole was pretty deep. It remains pretty deep. Why you would imagine results would show up after 100 days in office is something I can't fathom, given that a lot of that time was spent trying to get some of the legislation through the legislature. Perhaps you know more than I do about the speed with which things run in Washington. I'd always thought it was reasonably slowly, but you're apparently telling me that things happen with blitzkrieg speed there that I've never seen any evidence of before. As for Torture being a red herring, I've never thought so. I don't care who's in office. You've suggested that I talk too much about it before, though I don't think so. Nor do I think waterboarding is the most serious of the problems around the issue of torture that we have to deal with, though it's certainly bad enough. You may recall the CIA had some problem losing records of their sessions using such enhanced methods, whoops, so we may have a bit of difficulty ever piecing the details of that together. We do know that we have sent quite a few people to be questioned in countries that do use torture in the questioning of prisoners. There's a very good 2005 article in The New Yorker that gives some details, if you can stomach them, with source material. Whatever you may think of that magazine, their research is impeccable. There are those of us who believe that there is more to this country than our concern for our wallets, though that concern should and does run high. We are also concerned with who we are and what we do and what we stand for, and the notion of being right down there with the bottom feeders of world history doesn't particularly appeal to us. We like to think that we're more than that and that we don't need to go looking for legal loopholes to get out of acting like decent human beings. If you haven't read some of these white house papers justifying the use of torture, you haven't seen how far legal language can be stretched to make almost anything sound justifiable. If it's not torture unless it's done to the point of organ failure, have you given any thought to exactly what organ failure actually means in terms of hearts and kidneys and bowels and eyes and bladders. Have you actually thought of what happens when these things fail? Of course I keep coming back to this. The question to my mind is why don't other people? And I'm as upset about the economics as anybody. I've already spoken with you about deaths and injuries at Abu Grahib, as well as other places. I've given you references. I've spoken about the lack of evidence that has been used to imprison people and to put them into prison conditions. Imprisoning Iraqis before 2005 for being supporters of Al Qaeda and torturing them for information about it suggests that there was an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq at that time when we know there was not. All those people were falsely imprisoned and many were tortured. What stretch of the imagination can allow you to say against all evidence "our interrogation tactics which leave no one injured against mass murderers." Are you volunteering for being waterboarded? or for sleep deprivation or for any of the other methods that were okayed by President Bush? Are you telling me that Rendition to Egypt or any of the other countries that do allow torture that we engaged in from at least 1998 is something that you think is hunky dory, even when we don't have sufficient evidence to believe that somebody is guilty or, as in some cases, that these prisoners have been aquitted by courts with jurisdiction and apparently kidnapped by U.S. forces? As John Stoessel says, "Give me a break." http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6?currentPage=all Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How long have I been telling you about the economic problems and saying that we needed to do something about them? Ever since the last year of Bush in office, Bob. Actually, his first seven had a robust economy, if you care to recall. After 9/11, which cost the country and the market billions, the economy rebounded with amazing results, like the lowest unemployment rate in decades and other such successful benchmarks. I remember coming to the Alley and goading democrats with statements like, "What about the economy, fellas? Where's the chant of "It's the economy, stupid"? Guess what? I got no responses. You didn't see the economy in the newspapers, either. It was a taboo subject to the democrats. They had to either stay away from it or acknowledge it's robustness. Were you speaking against the economy before then? I can't recall a word. Sure, after Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage bust when everything nosedived, THEN the economy became the democrat war chant, even though people like Clinton, Frank and even Obama with his Acorn tactics had had their share in causing it. Then the chant became "Bush destroys the economy!" and people like you - especially you - kept referring to "the past eight years", as if the first seven didn't really count. Would I volunteer for waterboarding? Nope, but then I wouldn't volunteer for AlQada, either, nor would I volunteer for terrorist activities or blowing up buildings or train stations full of people. If I WERE captured by being associated with such activities, I would not expect a cushy cell where I could complain about loud music or the quality of the food. If you recall, there was a message sent out by Bin Laden years ago to his troops not to worry about being captured because it would result in nothing more thana clean cell and three meals a day. Is that the message I would want to send out? No, I would want terrorists terrified of being captured, regardless of how well we treated them. I would want them cringing in fear at the thought. I would want them thinking they might have to sit through Al Gore speeches for the next ten years....but, then, I guess I'm old-fashioned that way by thinking people should actually be afraid of getting caught and should expect it not to be pleasant or similar to a stay at a country club. Aside from all that, the fact still remains that this war cry over CIA interrogation tactics has just recently been revived by Obama and the press....and why, exactly? What possible connection does it have to do with the economy? The connection is to use it to get people's minds OFF the economy, hence the red herring comment. If you can't recognize that, then nothing I say about it will make any difference - as if it could, anyway. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, The economy has been of interest to me right along. Alas, I wasn't even on the net until Nov of 2007 or so, so if you can't remember my Democratic little voice in the wilderness pointing to how the deficit was piling up and how the economy was living off its credit card and refinancing houses and a real estate bubble, it's: 1) not because I wasn't saying it; 2) not because it wasn't true; and, 3) not because the environment and the economy weren't being mismanaged because all those derivatives that are killing us now were being sold then, and the government was signing us up for big no bid deals with Drug companies and the banks were being deregulated. I mention a few of the wonderful things the those years brought us. Because the tax cuts were being taken on the wrong side of the Leifer curve — Check out my past references to that one from The Economist, I think I quoted from them sometime during Katerina — we were actually losing money with each tax cut rather than making it for the economy and the Treasury. So yes, I spoke against the economy in the first seven years. If I'd been here I would have taken you up on your challenge. I've given you the outlines of at least a part of the case above.I'd have to go back and look at the unemployment figures. I'd suggest you look at the figures for wages and income for the same period and stack it against the 1968 figures, for example, and see how things come out in terms of real income adjusted for inflation as opposed to real income adjusted for inflation for the top five percent, then the top two percent. I think you'll notice that the jobs that you congratulate yourself on being created by Republicans are jobs that have taken a huge chunk of Americans out of the functional middle class. A lot of that has been done, I believe, over the past eight years. I would have made that argument as well. Please don't treat me as though this discussion was one sided and a fait accompli, and please don't pretend the Democrats don't have an excellent case here. "People like you" in this context means exactly what? Enquiring minds would like to know? Does it mean people who don't want to be lumped together with other people in a general halo effect of people who are in some fashion bad, unreasonable or less than? Because when you use language like that, this is the message you give, and this is not a message that belongs in a reasonable discussion. Pardon me, the choice is not waterboarding or a country-club. The choice is between waterboarding and other methods of treatment that are torture, and which keep the testimony of people questioned under it from being used in a court of law without distorting the meaning of "court of law" and "legal system" out of recognition for citizen of a free country. We already have situations where we have gotten information that is untrustworthy through torture. In another thread I mentioned the 2005 New Yorker article on torture (perhaps this thread) where some of the misinformation given the Security Council by Colin Powell was information obtained by torture. That is, we got the information we were looking for, not the information that was true. Once information is gotten in this way, it is almost always inadmissible in a court of law. We must either keep the prisoner indefinitely without knowing or being able to determine the truth of their innocence or guilt, as we would be able to do with a proper judicial procedure, or we must let them go or go with highly unpalatable options that distort the societal fabric of a democracy. Having chosen to release one of the Gitmo detainees to Germany, we were placed in the position of having to refuse to send people to testify about what he had said to them. Cross examination in front of a German court might have proven extremely embarrassing had questions been asked about the conditions under which the accused's "confessions" had been obtained. The function of the law cuts in several directions. It is to determine guilt, but is is also to protect society. It protects society by meting out punishment but also by limiting it. The punishment is supposed to be just. This means that it will probably be more that the criminal will want, but also that it will probably be less than the victim or his or her family would desire. This is one of the ways that Justice seeks to differentiate itself from revenge. When the choice is defined in terms of country club versus torture, Mike, I would put it to you that we are not talking about Justice here; that we are talking about revenge. We are not even talking about satisfying revenge, because there, in satisfying revenge, you know exactly who you are punishing, and exactly what you are supposed to do, and here we simply don't. The whole notion of "Terrorist" is simply too broad, and we lack the political will to avenge ourselves on all of them in the world. The Chinese feel that some of their Tibetans are terrorists because they want to see Tibet free. We feel that they have a right to do that, so we don't want to go fight the Tibetans, do we? Are we for or against the Chechens? The Somali Pirates may think they're trying to defend their coastal fishing waters. I don't know how seriously I take this, but some of them may take it very seriously indeed. Should we go to war with them? How about wiping out the KKK? We don't want to go to war against all terrorists, we don't even agree as to who they are. Yet the ones that our leaders de jour point out to us we're willing to subject to torture without knowing if they're actually terrorists or not, simply because somebody thinks they may be, and they never get a chance to defend themselves against the charge. Then we base our actions on whatever they're willing to say to stop the pain or fear. Sometimes it might have some bearing on reality, but exactly what that might be is impossible to test out, and we have as much chance of damaging our cause as we do of helping it. When we damage our cause, we create actual enemies who really do want to hurt us. The more of this we do, the bigger the problem we create for ourselves. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have never thought of torture as a red herring. I have always thought of torture as torture, and as deserving condemnation in its own right. I am disturbed that you believe that you don't feel this is true. You didn't feel this was true when you thought the economy was going great either. You needn't love or hate how well the economy is going to hate torture and to demand that those who do it need to stop. After all, the last administration didn't feel that it was too busy to manage the economy it's way and to make sure that what it felt was a justification for torture was in place, and to micromanage it at times when even the CIA was reluctant to continue. If they can do that with George Bush's hectic vacation schedule, why is it so hard to pay attention to both the economy and the elimination of torture by Americans. Do you think America isn't up to it? Of course we are. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I'll let Ringo's figures speak for me...which were presented in April 2008. Let's talk about some economic factors during this presidency (last year's figures): After-tax personal income has risen 9.6% during the last 6 years. During the 1990's it had grown only 6.7%. 7.2 million new jobs since August 2003. Unemployment was 4.5% (as opposed to 4.1 during president Clinton's BEST year... not too far apart). This is also below the average for each of the last 4 decades. Real income rose 1.7% faster than the average income increase during the 1990s. Student Loan interest rates are at 6.8%, lower than all but 6 of the last 48 years. Job creation increased almost 50 straight months. Unemployment fell for all minority groups. Worker lay offs were only 1.1%, down from 1.3% from the beginning of the current administration. Annual wage growth was 1.7%... more than the average of .4% loss from the former administration. Since the tax cuts went into effect, 7 million new jobs have been created. US Productivity increased 2.5% in the last 5 years, up from a high of 2.2% during the 90's. Real growth in manufacturing has increased more than the private sector over the same time period. Home ownership has risen from around 67% to around 69% (a near record high) since 2001. Minority home ownership is up. Minority business ownereship is up. /pip/Forum6/HTML/001660.html Your comment to these figures, Bob, was the following.. I ll have to get back to you a little bit at a time on your facts and figures. Actually, you never did get back to him on them which means you didn't bother checking them out (which is your right) or you did check them out and found them to be valid. What you did was immediately change the subject to the VA, which can be clearly seen in the above thread If they are indeed valid, then your argument that the Bush eight years were disasterous economically is extremely weak, wouldn't you say? What do I mean like "people like you"? Simple...people who would ignore the above figures and keep speaking about the "past eight years" as an economic tsunami. You are up to 21 times of using that phrase so far, if my count is correct. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Chinese feel that some of their Tibetans are terrorists because they want to see Tibet free. If the Tibetans were sending suicide bombers in to blow up women and children, I would agree with the Chinese. The Somali Pirates may think they're trying to defend their coastal fishing waters. I don't know how seriously I take this, but some of them may take it very seriously indeed. The fact that you would take that with any degree of seriousness makes me shake my head in wonder, Bob. I;m afraid your comparisons have lost all credibility with me after that, which may not matter to you and that's ok, too. the question I brought up was not whether torture was effective or not and now whether waterboarding or loud music was torture or not. It was why the sudden reincarnation of it by Obama and the media RIGHT NOW? Have their been any current instances of waterboarding that has caused this to surface anew right at this time? They are going back years to bring up examples and why RIGHT NOW? Visits to the CIA, visits to the FBI, speeches that the US will not condone torture, threats of investigations over past actions....all RIGHT NOW...right now when Obama's first report card is coming up....and you don't see any red herring possibility. ok... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Right Now? is because Obama campaigned on Human Rights and meant it. This is as quickly as it's hit any headlines, but he's been doing stuff about it from virtually day one, as well he should have. The economic stuff took precedence in the news because it had a more immediate impact and the Republicans tried to fight it or block it. I can only speculate why you don't want people to look at human rights violations, since President Obama has been dealing with both the whole time and continues to do so, as have the American people, as have I. The Republican response has been to these matters, first that there were no human rights violations, then that there were no human rights violations because we'd changed the definition of what constituted torture so that everybody else in the world thought it was torture, and we thought it was torture when it was done to our people which was why we tried to train our people to deal with it, but when we did it to other people it wasn't torture because the President's lawyers had tried to find a way to get around the definition that everybody else in the world used. Then we said that the Secretary of Defense didn't think it was torture because he stood in stress positions for hours every day, though of course nobody beat him if he didn't do them right and he wasn't shackled into them. We said that we didn't do those things anyway until pictures started coming out that showed some of the things we did and the military started to talk about some of the things it couldn't stomach, because the military doesn't want to do this sort of thing; they know it's bad soldiering, and that if you do it to others, then it makes the notion of surrendering to you more difficult and they'll actually have to have more soldiers killed in fighting enemies who believe they have nothing to loose by fighting on. Right? The military knows it's bad military policy and it knows that it gets more of our soldiers killed, which the professional military doesn't like at all. They have read their Sun T'tsu. The best battles are those the enemy surrenders without having to fight, where you have defeated the enemy's plans, and no men are lost. You will always be able to ask "Why Now?" in response to questions about torture. You have asked them before. If we do not ask these questions now, when will be the time to ask them?" Your answer has always been, "Later," or "Some other time." And if I don't ask these questions, who is going to ask these questions? I have never seen you bring them up or signal, Yep, this is the time. It is always the time, especially if it is being done in your name. They have simply changed the language slightly so you can pretend that they aren't dismantling people's souls and bodies and saying you told them to do so. I said no such thing. It hurts our country and it hurts me. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Did you actually expect I wouldn't go back and check on your reference? Did you expect I wouldn't reread the thread? Before offering the list of things you quote above, Ringo apologizes for going off subject, at that point the military and the VA. How dare you tell me I was changing the subject! It's clear from the context I was getting back to it! I could find no source for Ringo's data. It made no sense to me. He offered no source for it, though I asked him to. I should have pursued it at the time, but I was trying to be polite. For trying to be polite, what I get is you using Ringo as a source. If you want me to accept your data give me the source. If Ringo wants me to accept his data, Ringo can give me his source. It's my mistake for not being blunt. If I run across a statement in a book saying the moon is made of green cheese, I want a reference; I don't expect to research the facts myself. If you have already presented the facts to me once, with a source, tell me where and when, and that's fine. Don't send me to somebody who hasn't included a reference. Ringo is a nice guy, but he's a nice guy who hasn't sourced his material. You are a nice guy who in that same thread used Lou Dobbs as a source to say that Illegal Aliens raped more women in the United States that year than had been actually raped by the total of everybody put together. Being nice isn't enough. Nor for that matter, near as I can tell, is Lou Dobbs. My references are in that thread. The word "democrat" is a noun. If one uses the adjectival form, that would be "democratic," unless you wish to make a fetish of sounding folksy or illiterate. I never saw you as the sort of guy who'd fancy sitting down with some hawg jowl and a mess o' greens, and who'd like his chittlin's best with a piece of corn in 'em. And your poetry isn't illiterate. Unless you're using the term "Democrat" as an adjective just to be rude, and to make of point of doing so, I'd really rather you wouldn't. I've mentioned this before, and you were kind enough to drop it for a while. "The last eight years" is an apt descriptor. It is grammatically correct and other ways of talking about that particular period of time seem offhand to me to be more round-about. If you have any suggestions that you think would be useful for a substitution that cover the same ground as well, I'm interested. Otherwise, it's the best way I know of speaking about that period of time. It's not a derogation, such as the use of "Slick Willie" for President Clinton, it's simply a descriptor. You might as well have kept track of the number of times I used the phrase "the last administration," or "The Bush Administration," though neither term seems quite as exact to me. "The Bush Administration" is especially awkward, leaving doubt as to which one you're speaking of, Maximus or Minimus. By the way, I do hope you're feeling better. I get carried away with the content of these conversations sometimes and I almost forget how concerned I am for your health, and with how much fun it is talking to you, as infuriating as it may seem sometimes. You're a good man, Charlie Brown. By Best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why did Obama release the memos and resurrect the torture debate? Err.. Because he was in receipt of a court order to do so, because he would have been breaking the law if didn’t, because one of his campaign promises was transparency of Government. What would you have done in his position Mike? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I must again go to upstate New York for a week or so. Sorry to do so in the middle of an interesting discussion. I'll be back (I know I've heard that someplace before, but where, where?). I'll hopefully have a few neurons left to rub against each other, and I'll be able to get back into stuff here and into talk of free verse and free verse exercises with those interested in them. My best to everybody, Sincerely, Bob Kaven. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
