Barack Obama Had a Good Day
On the day after hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest its economic policies, the Obama administration batted 1.000 today by making 3 good decisions.
First, the administration has released the disputed Office of Legal Counsel memos that authorized the use of torturous interrogation techniques on captured terrorists.
Second, the president agreed with the previous administration’s interpretation of the post 9/11 national security situation enough to declare that intelligence officers responsible for the interrogations would not be prosecuted for their actions.
Third, the president said while in Mexico City that the U.S. will focus on enforcing existing gun smuggling laws rather than attempting to re-institute the lapsed assault weapons ban as part of its effort to halt the alleged flow of guns into Mexico from the north.
Call it a coincidence if you’d like, but I’m seeing a connection between the actions of the Obama administration and those of conservative protesters who came out in force yesterday to protest the proposed Democratic deficit spending plan.
Haters of the Bush administration are predictably unhappy with the decision not to pursue charges against U.S. intelligence officers:
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.
Glenn Greenwald sees the connection between the tea parties and the torture decision too, though as looking in a fun-house mirror, as is typical:
These memos describe grotesque war crimes — legalized by classic banality-of-evil criminals and ordered by pure criminals — that must be prosecuted if the rule of law is to have any meaning. But the decision of whether to prosecute is not Obama’s to make; ultimately, it is Holder’s and/or a Special Prosectuor’s. More importantly, Obama can only do so much by himself.
Perhaps this is legally accurate; however, in the practical world, Mr. Obama’s statement is a case-closer. Not only is it the right decision, it is the final one as well.
Glenn also attempts to chastise conservatives because their interest in the new administration’s massive spending plans is, he correctly assumes, more focused on economic issues than ethical ones:
More than 250,000 Americans attended protests yesterday (ostensibly) over taxes and budget issues. If these torture revelations are met with nothing but apathy, then it will certainly be reasonable to blame Holder and Obama if they fail to act, but the responsibility will also lie with a citizenry that responded with indifference.
The memos will certainly be met with apathy in all but the most partisan circles, for most Americans will neither read them nor have any interest in doing so.
Moreover, the responsibility that we bear for the actions of our intelligence apparatus is too diffuse to engender a guilt response in most of us who have or will read them – not because the stain isn’t felt but because a weighing of the deeds versus our need to know justifies the actions taken on our behalf.
There are undoubtedly those who disagree. Some of them must work for Barack Obama. That’s why it’s quite reassuring to see him make the right decision in this case to the eternal disappointment of the radical left that supported him so intensely during the election process.
Similarly, the decision not to pursue an ideologically motivated ban on certain types of guns demonstrates that Mr. Obama received at least part of yesterday’s message and has decided not to pick a fight with voters over the issue. The assault weapons issue is arguably the least of the issues that conservative voters have with the new administration; still, one dares to hope that listening to the citizenry might become a habit.
“Haters of the Bush administration are predictably unhappy with the decision not to pursue charges against U.S. intelligence officers:”
That sentence is so vile it almost rendered me blind to read it, but whatever, people who do evil because they followed orders should get off the hook, sure. That’s not abandoning the moral high ground at all.
“Moreover, the responsibility that we bear for the actions of our intelligence apparatus is too diffuse to engender a guilt response in most of us who have or will read them – not because the stain isn’t felt but because a weighing of the deeds versus our need to know justifies the actions taken on our behalf.”
“We were scared and so we used the evil tactics of our past nemeses, like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Stop being so mean.”
Yeah, this is not a debate. You tortured people. Either prosecute those responsible or be prosecuted and morally diminished as a nation. Your call, americans. If people in my government had done stuff like this to protect me or my loved ones, I would still want them locked away for as long as possible. I can spare being protected by people so morally rotted that they are willing to use torture. Being scared and worried is never an excuse. This is a stain on the moral core America keeps telling the world it retains after all these years.
To the left….not to the OP:
I read the memorandums. Do not even agree that it is torture. Now if you guys on the left describe this as torture…..the 10 points…… then half of our prisioners in our pens will be suing the US governemt and then were gonna have to put on trial 100,000 prison guards, wardens, assistant wardens and so on and so on and so on.
On top of this the left wants to go after the legal team who said this was not torture.
Does that mean if your a lawyer and you give bad advice or interpret the law and are WRONG that your client can then sue you? I mean if the government can sue its own lawyers for bad advice then surely we ordinary citizens can sue our own lawyers for bad advice cant we?? You know like the lawyer says Ill get you off and doesnt. Sue him. Bad advice. Opps there goes all the public defenders. Oh maybe thats a new way to create wealth for AIG…public defenders Insurance.
Spin it how you want. This is a bad case of the left wanting retribution while cheering Obama on to break the same statute that they are accusing Bush of violating. Obama is a war criminal too. I can’t wait till hes not in office so we can try him too.
After all I see you your retribution and raise you my retribution.
Once again the left has defined the parameters of the debate. I do not believe it is torture what they did to these prisoners. However that being said, Im not one to advocate this kind of activity either. Yet Katt makes an interesting point about the prisoners. Are we going to set a new standard for treatment. No more isolation. etc. etc. What annoys me most about this whole thing is Obama is trying to force the right to back off when he doesn’t realize that the right does not consist of a couple 100 lackeys in the Bush Administration. Most of us don’t even like Bush anymore so if you want to try him and Cheney then be our guests. We will just try Obama and his administration when we get back in power.
that is after all how it works right. An eye for an eye.
“then half of our prisioners in our pens will be suing the US governemt and then were gonna have to put on trial 100,000 prison guards, wardens, assistant wardens and so on and so on and so on.”
Yeah right. In that case the moral capacity, even the capacity for basic humanity, of America’s prison guards and other equivalents are in serious doubt. You a prison guard?
No, this is the systematic, planned and unbelievably *cowardly* and deeply pathetic *hurting* of other *human beings* who *could not defend themselves* and whose capacity to offer the US any critical intelligence even while not under duress has been shown to have varied a lot. Shameful and shameless, and the CiC has to somehow wait for the public to grow angry enough to warrant a response. What a brave and upstanding nation.
*Faith* in the belief that if your superior tells you to do it, you are not responsible. *Faith* in the idea that the US is allowed to do stuff like this because it was attacked. *Faith* in the gigantic judeo-christian struggle against the dangerous islamist threat. *Faith* in the competence and moral judgment of a bunch of average, morally mediocre people in uniforms. *Faith* in your country and values. This is the mindset of the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese communists, the serial rapists who hid under Hirohito’s banner while invading China or experimenting on political prisoners. It’s the mindset of the people who destroy our societies. I refuse to call that anything but the result of sickening self-righteousness, tribal thinking and a lame deference to the most base and mundane part of the human brain.
The same cinder of *conviction* that fueled these cowardly and hypocritical US agents and soldiers is the same cinder that burns in the mind of the soulless husk of a man who boils dissenters alive in Uzbekistan (another US ally). This is totally loathsome.
Until this attack on all of humanity’s progress isn’t responded to with fury and a demand from justice from the US public, then the difference between America and its past and present enemies is only quantitative, not qualitative. I spit on the very notion that anything could have excused this. You torture a human, you torture me. I have been tortured, and I demand my due justice from the American public.
They won’t be prosecuted because they didn’t break any laws*. It would also be extremely embarrassing for our current majority-party Congressional overlords, who had no problem with the methods used until they became popular partisan tools for demonizing Bush. When Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham were given a complete briefing on the methods involved–including waterboarding–in September 2002, they had no objections.
*–Hyperbolic partisan assertions are not legal analysis. The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340.
Oh, and Obama decided not to chase gun bans because he can read polls, and knows that in today’s political climate it’s political suicide to do so.
“When Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham were given a complete briefing on the methods involved–including waterboarding–in September 2002, they had no objections.”
Then they’ll go down too. I don’t care. If they were aware and assenting, they should go down and face a prison wall for as long as possible. If they can convince themselves it’s OK to bring people down to hypothermia-inducing temperatures or slam people into walls, to deny them access to the Red Cross, then they can do the same to me or my mother. In fact, I consider them having already done so. The US is a torturing nation. It’s no longer a different genus from its enemies, just a different species. It’s Indonesia.
This completely shifts all future considerations and seriously erodes my view of America as holding on to the grand words of its concept. This is not about politics. This is about being cognitively capable of knowing responsibility to act human in face of the temptation to indulge your bestial nature. And then they expect to me debate the finer nuances of the situation. Instead of saying what I want to say in response to that, I’ll just say no as completely as I can. A bar brawl has nuances. Even a war zone can have nuances. But when you hold your petty and self-indulgent post-natal allegiances, “callings” or “duties” above your *basic* allegiance to your fellow man, I no longer have any sympathy. Americans can persecute those responsible, or accept the fact that they’ll be a lesser sort of nation. Good night.
On that token, I realize that justice will take its time. This may be a horrifying and shameful series of discoveries, and it’s up to Obama to be brave and act accordingly as far as the evidence lets him (and no further, of course) in case the US public decides to be a bunch of hypocritical and lazy sheep. If not, then he can be gone as well. I don’t care. I can’t put any political feelings above axiomatic moral truth.
And what *faith* do you have in values or principles that you are willing to actually defend? Do you have any, Garland? Or are you an entirely negative partisan person who is only capable of being against things and never capable of being in any way agreeable, charitable, understanding, or even minimally acknowledging of legitimate disagreements? Or do you have no faith and no principles and are merely a narcissistic nihilist with a very obvious rage issue?
Your characterization of “morally mediocre people in uniforms” is a particularly blatant example of arrogance and bigotry about people you have never met and know nothing about. Your sneering and completely unexamined and unjustified presumption of your own moral superiority makes me want to gag. I get angry with you because you seem to ALWAYS be like this — viciously over-the-top in assuming your own absolute perfection and others’ absolute degradation. And you expect to be allowed to use those others’ web site to spew your hatred.
Maybe you should tend to your own garden at least once in a while. Your perpetually haughty position of absolute moral arrogance towards those you disagree with makes you look increasingly ridiculous even on subjects like this one where I mostly agree with you in substance. Your anti-Americanism is and far-left partisanship is so predictable, scripted, and extremist that it appears a caricature rather than a rational argument. It is a waste of your obvious intelligence and a betrayal of your pretenses about tolerance.
I think torture is and was a betrayal of American values. If a way could be found to investigate it and prosecute it without the process becoming hijacked by extremists like you who would make it into a partisan witch hunt that would criminalize ALL policy differences, I would support that. But it is precisely extremist attitudes like yours that put up barriers to such a process, because many moderate members of the American public don’t like torture but they also are extremely wary of empowering people like you with legal tools to enforce your own versions of political intolerance and authoritarianism.
History has repeatedly shown that when people with attitudes like yours (e.g. the belief that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is not only wrong but actually evil) are given political power, the result is always an exact replication of the kinds of evils you accuse others of. The Khmer Rouge was a LEFTIST political movement, Garland. The speech codes on American universities are written and enforced by LEFTISTS. The mobs that attack speakers on those university campuses are LEFTISTS. Tend to your own garden a little.
Well, no point in repeating what Jason said. But…
I can’t put any political feelings above axiomatic moral truth.
Yet it seems that your personal political feelings are, to you, axiomatic “truth.” Regardless of, say, objective reality. Heh. See above re: hyperbolic partisan assertions and legal analysis. Have you read the memos? Are you familiar with the statute? The personnel involved will not be prosecuted because they did not violate the statute. And said statute is the precise application of treaty in American law.
Now, you may find the statute poorly written with some obvious loopholes available in it that go against your moral leanings (many do) but it IS the law that was to be observed, and the memos make clear that the OLC considered quite carefully and completely what could be done inside the law without violating it in issuing their opinions. Did OLC carefully examine and delineate those loopholes in determining the legal boundaries? IMHO, you betcha. But they most meticulously followed the law as written–which is their job, to offer opinions on the exact boundaries of the law as written, not as they might feel it ought to be.
Unless Congress chooses to play ex post facto as they did with the AIG bonuses, there is no fruitful prosecution to be made. At best there could be a witch hunt trying to convince a jury of a technical violation, one that would have to ignore some very telling points on specific intent. For future usage I note that despite majorities in both houses that law itself has not been changed, only how the new administration claims they will stay within the statute in their own future actions. So forgive me if I find much of the rhetoric being tossed around and implemented by rescindable executive order and reversible regulations to be little more than political posturing.
I also find it highly amusing that the American majority being determined to retain their right to bear arms and being capable of emphasizing that determination through the democratic process inspires you to characterize them as “hypocritical and lazy sheep.” Cognitive dissonance. Them’s awfully odd sheep.
“And what *faith* do you have in values or principles that you are willing to actually defend?”
I believe that I am in essence every single person on earth and they are me. I must defend all of them they way I would defend myself, and if they have already been transgressed against then I must seek justice with the same intensity I would seek justice if the victim was my mother. There is only one relevant distinction – between transgressor and victim. I must act as if the victim was myself or my most beloved person on the earth. This allows for as strong a defense of human values and society as any religion could hope to instill.
“being in any way agreeable, charitable, understanding, or even minimally acknowledging of legitimate disagreements”
If someone slams me against a wall or keeps me chilled in life-threatening temperatures, there is no legitimate disagreement with me demanding the person put to justice by his allegedly human rights-championing nation. This has happened, and I have a right to demand justice.
“Your characterization of “morally mediocre people in uniforms” is a particularly blatant example of arrogance and bigotry about people you have never met and know nothing about.”
I am perfectly ready to receive such a condemnation if I were to torture people who could not defend themselves. Of course, I am not that kind of person. The fact that they tortured in cold blood tells me enough. I’m not saying they’re less human, that their souls have cancer or anything like that. I am just saying that they were challenged by the most basic moral conundrum and failed. I can imagine myself hurting another person in anger or at least lukewarm blood. I could not possibly imagine myself defending myself from the condemnations I would later deserve.
“Your sneering and completely unexamined and unjustified presumption of your own moral superiority makes me want to gag.”
I haven’t brutalized people who could not defend themselves. I can condemn those who have. I am not throwing rocks and need not be free of sin.
“I get angry with you because you seem to ALWAYS be like this — viciously over-the-top in assuming your own absolute perfection and others’ absolute degradation”
I’m not perfect. I have just found myself in a situation where I have not committed a vicious sin and some others have. I don’t have to be free of sin, because I am not throwing rocks.
“Your perpetually haughty position of absolute moral arrogance towards those you disagree with makes you look increasingly ridiculous even on subjects like this one where I mostly agree with you in substance.”
I’m afraid that’s how I act when I or my mother has been tortured. I am not excusing a witch-hunt, and therefore participating in a maelstrom of vengeance. I just want justice.
“Your anti-Americanism”
This is America we’re talking about here. And unless Americans decide to uphold the essence their nation proclaims to have been based on, then the concept/phenomenon of America will then incorporate the concept/phenomenon of torture being OK. That’s how it works, for all nations.
“far-left partisanship”
Everyone accepting the idea of not making sure those responsible are persecuted should be put to justice and severe repercussions, regardless of politics. I don’t want blood, I want justice, because I have been tortured.
“If a way could be found to investigate it and prosecute it without the process becoming hijacked by extremists like you who would make it into a partisan witch hunt that would criminalize ALL policy differences”
“Extremist” is a context-sensitive word, that only sounds scary but doesn’t necessarily mean anything of the sort.
Lame excuse. Explain to me how I could possibly pressure these poor judges. How could I make those judges prioritize Bush-appointed personnel? Do I have a desire to punish republican-leaning soldiers and prison guards? How could I make the judges comply with such a silly agenda? Telepathy? “Partisan, extremism, hijack, criminalize” – all very scary words but requiring some substance. This is not a “policy difference” issue, because torture is a horrible sin and not some sort of policy.
“because many moderate members of the American public don’t like torture but they also are extremely wary of empowering people like you with legal tools to enforce your own versions of political intolerance and authoritarianism.”
Pathetic excuse. Authoritarianism’s tactics have already been used by the US government. What am I gonna do, send scary hate-waves into the judges’ minds so that they act the way I want them to? Influence the judge-selection with my partisan super-powers?
“History has repeatedly shown that when people with attitudes like yours (e.g. the belief that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is not only wrong but actually evil)”
How about the government-sanctioned use of torture, has your history studies supplied you with any lessons there? Once again, I do not *believe* anything here – I can axiomatically reach the position that the US must either pursue justice or face a blow to its moral credibility simply by listening to my own humanity. When a person makes a decision, that person is telling the rest of the world that “I would be OK with having this act done to me under identical circumstances”. As such, a decision can be good, neutral or society-destroying. Stealing is of the latter, as is torture. This matter cannot be laid to rest because of the belief that a bunch of powerless punters like me are somehow rabid enough to influence the austere and clinical application of basic morality through the bureaucratic and professional method of serious jurisprudence.
“The Khmer Rouge was a LEFTIST political movement, Garland.”
I specifically mentioned those sickening people to show that I loathe torture and abuse of power no matter what ideology it uses to excuse itself.
“The speech codes on American universities are written and enforced by LEFTISTS.”
Yeah, well, what kind of punishment do these guys use on the downtrodden christians they witness breaking their laws? Do they waterboard them? Come on, you can find much better and more horrible examples of left-wingers being convinced they’re allowed to hurt people in the past. I think you’ll find that my severe anti-torture, pro-humanist sentiments will force me to condemn them as well.
“The mobs that attack speakers on those university campuses are LEFTISTS.”
Yup, and I would gladly fight them back if I suddenly found myself there. If not, then by all means I would have to face proper condemnation and a road of atonement in front of me.
My position in this situation is applicable to many other situations. I am not the one who made this a matter of mere politics.
“Yet it seems that your personal political feelings are, to you, axiomatic “truth.””
No, this has nothing to do with politics.
“Are you familiar with the statute? The personnel involved will not be prosecuted because they did not violate the statute.”
If the US has allowed its citizens to get away with this, then it has put itself in a situation where it cannot even rid itself of the shame and immorality by persecuting said citizens. Instead, it will have to see itself as a less morally serious nation tomorrow. Justice and due punishment must be applied somewhere.
“IMHO, you betcha. But they most meticulously followed the law as written–which is their job, to offer opinions on the exact boundaries of the law as written, not as they might feel it ought to be.”
Well, the writing of these loopholes, obviously a part of the process leading up to the torture of me (or you, or anyone else for that matter) and my mother, must be considered just as vile an act as the torture itself. In that case, the adult US public, who allowed it to happen, all share the blame for allowing their nation to become a torturing nation. Those who were tortured are not separable entities from myself, my antagonism towards those responsible must be fair but intense.
“I also find it highly amusing that the American majority being determined to retain their right to bear arms and being capable of emphasizing that determination through the democratic process inspires you to characterize them as “hypocritical and lazy sheep.””
Yeah, their rights are more important than that of their fellow human being. They just looked away when people in their own government made all the preparations for torturing me and my mother. That’s very brave of them.
But you cannot prioritize your own freedom over that of another, because in essence you are every other person, and they are you. You cannot have a democratically elected government without facing responsibility for its actions. That’s not how it works. That’s not how it *can* work.
If you are every other person and they are you, Garland, then why are you not also the perpetrators of the acts you deplore?
Oh, right, I see now:
“Of course, I am not that kind of person.”
So, you’re really not “every other person” then. You’re the good ones, but not the evil ones. By your own definition of evil.
Got it. But some of us believe that laws are useful for determining a slightly less partial definition of right and wrong.
“If you are every other person and they are you, Garland, then why are you not also the perpetrators of the acts you deplore?”
Because I kinda made the distinction between victim and transgressor. You see, the perpetrator has even made a victim of himself, because if person A hurts innocent person B (innocent means that he has not made person B hurt person A out of self-defense) then this is equivalent to person C hurting person B and so on. This cycle must immediately be broken by the application of justice. At least in a nation that is serious about human rights.
“You’re the good ones, but not the evil ones. By your own definition of evil.”
I say thee nay! It’s not my own definition – the idea that I am everybody and that if I hurt someone without an acceptable reason then I should be put away does not come from anything subjective. I have to defend all innocent the way I would defend myself or a loved one.
“But some of us believe that laws are useful for determining a slightly less partial definition of right and wrong.”
If only your beliefs could be reflected in the actions of your government.
I say thee nay! It’s not my own definition – the idea that I am everybody and that if I hurt someone without an acceptable reason then I should be put away does not come from anything subjective. I have to defend all innocent the way I would defend myself or a loved one.
Sure, in the broad sense you’re outlining the idea of natural rights. But then in enforcement you need to get more specific, and you’ll have to define in every instance what you mean by “acceptable reason”, and “innocent” and all of the other terms you throw out there. But instead of having each person make up their own definitions and interpretations, the idea is that we codify standard definitions.
It’s not perfect but when the imperfections surface we have ways of addressing that too.
“”and you’ll have to define in every instance what you mean by “acceptable reason””
There are nuances to consider when a security guard (accidentally?) dislocates the shoulder of a violent person he is apprehending. There are no nuances when a bunch of people somehow believe they are allowed to run a person into a wall repeatedly. This isn’t complicated.
“and all of the other terms you throw out there”
You don’t have to be innocent to be defended by me when your mind is being wrecked by Stasi-techniques because a provenly fallible and self-righteous agency decided you deserved it. Imagine yourself in a box with a poisonous insect.
“But instead of having each person make up their own definitions and interpretations, the idea is that we codify standard definitions.”
And then a nation’s government make legal loopholes under the glazed eyes of the population so that it can do whatever it wants again. Actions must have serious, tangible consequences, or the worst in people will sooner or later steer a few individuals. The less we do now, the higher the chance this happens again. If the most powerful government (with all its powerful branches) can do this kind of thing then we are all at risk.
“I believe that I am in essence every single person on earth and they are me”
that can be helped with medication.
It is fascinating to see how quickly these noble and charitable sentiments fly out the window whenever you are talking to or about conservatives. At those times, demonization seems to spew forth from you fast and furious. Accordingly, I perceive your claim of this nobility to be at best situational and at worst just downright dishonest.
So you say, yet you have many times victimized others by lying about them, distorting what they did or did not say, or wrongly accusing them of offensive views or actions. Once again, your claim of noble principles falls when your own record is examined.
Tend to your own garden, Garland. After you’ve cleaned up your own act, maybe you will have some credibility in making moral demands from others. Right now, you’re just a self-righteous troll with a hypocritical God complex. Go away, please, until you can at least be honest and consistent in your claim and application of principles.
If you want to claim to be even-handed and consistent, I demand that you prove it on various other issues. Show yourself willing to condemn overreaches by leftists in power in academia and government. Show yourself willing to condemn the demonization that flows forth from the left against conservatives on a daily basis in the blogosphere. Show yourself willing to acknowledge even an occasional legitimate point raised by conservatives. Put down your leftist script long enough to acknowledge imperfections and weaknesses and points of legitimate disagreement in those arguments. Do those things and I’ll reconsider my view of you as a arrogant partisan troll. Continue to refuse to do those things while continuing to distort and lie about what other people say and believe while making demands that they kow-tow to you on threads like this one, and I will consider my perception of you confirmed.
It’s a little meanspirited, c3, but I have to admit I can’t stop laughing.
“that can be helped with medication.”
Nope, I’m stuck with being you and vice versa. It’s much better than the alternative.
I have followed the torture thing and quite honestly I have read the report issued by the justice department and there was tremendous concern for the people who were to be subjected to this enhanced discussion.
I want to move on. I want the government to investigate this internally, find solutions and make it right. I want this to not happen again but I also want our intelligence people to keep on top of this.
I want the left to be happy and the right to be happy. I want everyone to get along. I want health care and green and education and I want good jobs and healthy corporations and chances for advancement in this nation.
I dont believe the right or the left. Gop or democrat has a monopoly on good ideas. I think working together for the good of everyone is what makes America strong. This bipartisan vile hatreds has got to stop.
that is why I believe that states should have the right and the federal government should simply be the overseer and not just a super nanny.
Im sure that no matter what I say It wont matter. Thats the problem. No one wants to compromise anymore but Im perfectly willing to do so.
Funny……talking about torture and the captcha words are alberto and spine
“It is fascinating to see how quickly these noble and charitable sentiments fly out the window whenever you are talking to or about conservatives.”
Yeah, or no. Show me an example where I have abandoned this principle to further political goals. Go on, quote me and I’ll gladly condemn myself appropriately. Plus, I find that many people who call themselves “conservatives” never use scepticism to argue for their positions anyway, but that is another matter.
“Accordingly, I perceive your claim of this nobility to be at best situational and at worst just downright dishonest.”
Well, drat. Do you have a basis for this perception, or is it merely the fact that my choice of words doesn’t suit your palate that leads to me being called “dishonest”?
“So you say, yet you have many times victimized others by lying about them, distorting what they did or did not say, or wrongly accusing them of offensive views or actions.”
I have retracted one such a mistake, and I understand where you are coming from, but I myself have been misrepresented at least once, and I don’t think that was in any way a symptom of anyone not capable of really sticking to their principles. The cases you refer to were deadlocks, and not completely shut. But, I can’t completely accept that I have victimized people as total fact, unfortunately. Use that to detract my credibility if you want to, I find those past exchanges of words to be unfortunate but not victimizing. Once again, I wish to atone and shoot myself down if it can be shown I have victimized others.
“After you’ve cleaned up your own act, maybe you will have some credibility in making moral demands from others.”
So, I have to somehow retract every hypothetical (but probable) misrepresentation of another person’s view before I can demand justice in response to torture? One is a matter of politics and its effect on cognitive/communicational faculties, the other is another matter entirely.
“Right now, you’re just a self-righteous troll with a hypocritical God complex.”
Good thing I’m not allowed to have the well-being of defenseless prisoners in my hands. Oh, wait, whoops.
“Go away, please, until you can at least be honest and consistent in your claim and application of principles.”
Once again, I can preach a value even while admonishing myself for breaching against said value in the past. No one is perfect. Except Lenin, Marx and Stalin.
Fine. When you talked on this very thread about the “morally mediocre people in uniform”, you insulted everyone who does or has worn a United States military uniform. There are such people on this thread. You condemned their moral character without any basis or even knowledge of the people you were talking about. You should retract and apologize for your bigoted and ignorant characterization.
You are the one choosing to appoint yourself as more than a commenter, but a judge and maker of demands. You don’t like the position that puts you in? Maybe you should reconsider the vehemence of your approach.
No one else here has “the well-being of defenseless prisoners” in their hands either, Garland. Maybe you should back off and start conversing with them accordingly, as equals instead of your moral inferiors to be ordered about and condemned in sweeping terms based solely on their nationality (American) or occupation (military). Otherwise, your claim to be bonded to their well-being as fellow human beings is either a transparent lie or at least a striking exposure of unreflexive hypocrisy.
“When you talked on this very thread about the “morally mediocre people in uniform”, you insulted everyone who does or has worn a United States military uniform.”
Yup, I did. I should have used a classifier to point out those responsible. Because I do not know the behavior or inner workings of all those other people. I hope the fact that my main subject was the people who have done wrong could let others know I was only referring to them, but here my language completely failed to reflect my opinion, and I apologize for the resulting slander, which wasn’t heartfelt at all. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have written carelessly enough to accidentally make an obviously erroneous assertion.
“You are the one choosing to appoint yourself as more than a commenter, but a judge and maker of demands.”
Yes, I’ll apologize for every victimization via communication I have accidentally made. That doesn’t mean I am not perfectly credible to still demand justice for the brutalizing and systematic, cowardly traumatization of people for no acceptable reason.
“Maybe you should back off and start conversing with them accordingly, as equals instead of your moral inferiors to be ordered about and condemned in sweeping terms based solely on their nationality (American) or occupation (military).”
I’m afraid the responsibility has to sit with someone here, and if the true sinners here have been put in a gray area by America’s government then the people must be accountable for what has happened, and they must atone or at least take every step to ensure this doesn’t happen again. You want a big governmental army to protect you, you’d better keep it in check. Otherwise, you are acting immorally, allowing others to get hurt without there being any rational basis for it.
You’re still wrong and bigoted in your anti-military presumptions. The people who committed what may have been torture were almost never in uniform. When they were (Abu Ghraib), they were already criminally prosecuted. Perhaps you should have checked out the facts about who was actually doing it before ASSUMING that the military was responsible.
In point of fact, the Obama administration’s policy banning torture was to make the rules that were ALREADY binding on people in uniform (the Army Field Manual on prisoner interrogations) binding on other government workers as well. So by taking cheap shots at people in uniform as a whole OR in part, you are hitting precisely the wrong target. And the only reason you are hitting it is because you had a pre-existing prejudice against people in uniform whereby you assumed that they were unusually prone to depraved behavior. (I believe your exact term was “morally mediocre”.) In short, you had a bigotry and you blindly proceeded on that basis, only partially backing off after you were called on it, but even then without reexamining your underlying prejudices. So, I return to my theme — tend to your own garden before you haughtily sit in moral judgment of others.
Your beef against U.S. government policy regarding interrogation MIGHT be justifiable, but it continues to be undermined by the unjustified arrogance of your method. Your vicious prejudice against anyone and everyone who is American, military, or of a different ideological persuasion than you cancels any credibility you have and it continually makes you a tempting target.
“And the only reason you are hitting it is because you had a pre-existing prejudice against people in uniform whereby you assumed that they were unusually prone to depraved behavior.”
Indeed, I guess Abu Ghraib hit me hard, but that is no excuse. I merely assumed that some sort of martially affiliated personnel were at their dark work elsewhere. I’ve never really liked any military matters or institutions. But that is a sort of aesthetical subjectivity that shouldn’t bleed into other matters.
“In short, you had a bigotry and you blindly proceeded on that basis, only partially backing off after you were called on it, but even then without reexamining your underlying prejudices.”
Well, I guess you are right, in that sense. Egg on my face. The thing is that if it was up to me, I would naturally read up as much as I could in order to reach a verdict and list of defendants that would hold up in intense scrutiny – in short, my hasty, ill-informed and bigoted starting point would not be reflected in my final decisions. Like a poorly informed person who wants to make a scientific claim without having everything on his feet at the start, I would still have ended up with a nuanced and correct conclusion, and no one would let me get away with anything less. I see know why you thought my mental tendencies could corrupt the proceedings against those responsible, but I can assure you I don’t want to and would not get away with a tendentious vendetta against those responsible.
“Your vicious prejudice against anyone and everyone who is American, military, or of a different ideological persuasion than you”
First, I don’t think vicious is fitting, and I do not have any prejudices against Americans or political opponents. As far as I am aware.
But what you don’t seem to get is that this is part of a pattern of presuming before knowing on your part. You claim dislike for military matters and institutions, but do you even know anything about them or the people in them? Have you talked to soldiers, sailors, or airmen? Have you read military journals or (here’s one directly on-point) attended the conferences on military ETHICS?
This isn’t a matter of it bleeding to “other matters”. Your proceeding from prejudice goes to the heart of what I have found problematic about your entire method from the very beginning of the time you showed up here under a different name.
BTW, the military members responsible for the acts of depravity at Abu Ghraib were not even members of the regular U.S. military. They were from a National Guard contingent and were poorly trained and poorly supervised in their assignment. The regular military is embarrassed and offended by what happened there, which you could have known already if you actually bothered to read what they say about it in their own words instead of just presuming.
Well, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Try showing how you can be more accepting of the possibility of legitimate, principled disagreement in the future AND try making an effort to find out what people you are talking about REALLY say and believe before characterizing it, and I’ll gladly back off.
“You claim dislike for military matters and institutions, but do you even know anything about them or the people in them?”
As I said, it was mostly an aesthetical problem – the other, less abstract least common denominators of military institutions and entities over the world are obscure to me, and I do not claim to pass judgment on them in that regard. I just plain don’t feel so… Positive when contemplating anything martial, but that is mostly a sort of holistic thing, that I will have to keep in mind in the future. I also have served 290 days in training, and I would rather eat my eyelids than do *that* again.
“Have you read military journals or (here’s one directly on-point) attended the conferences on military ETHICS?”
To clarify, I have revoked my poorly thought-out and prejudice-revealing claims, and I do not consider myself to be able to pass judgment on the general ethical records of military institutions worldwide.
You don’t have to join the military to become less ignorant about their approach to ethical questions. You only have to be willing to read their own words about such issues.
Or you could have just asked.
The Atlantic ran a nice article about 2 years ago on how the military actually interrogates its prisoners. It was about how the Military broke one of the Al Queida’s top men without the so called torture. The Atlantic is hardly neutral in all this and yet it was a very revealing article on how the military actually took great pains to NOT torture.
Read it Garland. You might have your eyes opened.