Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
So you just voted for the least popular, and arguably worst President in history? Or Obama is like Bush in a good way. You never elaborate.
I don't agree, but I guess this blows a hole in the theory that somehow the likes of Jon Stewart are "in the tank" for Obama. While Fox News slavishly gives out websites to "TheGOPRebound.com" and promotes TeaParty 5.3 The Next Generation, The Daily Show and other parts of the suppossed "Left-Wing Cabal" will bang Obama, Pelosi and others when they screw-up. But don't let the facts get in the way of the victimology of the Right.
"While Fox News slavishly gives out websites...."RACIST.
Note the separation by Stewart et al to what we're doing compared to who we're doing it to. Most torture talk, by liberals and conservatives, doesn't actually dwell on the people who are actually tortured. Conservatives don't want to give them any human face, liberals don't want to confront the enemies who hate us and want to kill us.This whole debate tends to be more about abstract principle rather than reality.It seems to me that most of those pictures were of prisoner abuse, not torture for information. Or they're torture outside of procedure. That's different from the debate about the waterboarding directly authorized to extract information.There's an argument that permitting torture at all created the climate for abuse to happen. I wonder about the link there. It's certainly the responsibility of leaders all up and down the chain of command, but I don't see how secret CIA interrogations far away from the front line produced atrocities like Abu Ghraib. I think there's plenty of other explanations for that, including poor morale, leadership and training. That does not excuse what happened, which was an atrocity.The two things, torture procedurally authorized and prisoner abuse, aren't exactly the same thing. They're being conflated. My sense is that the Republicans are making a narrow argument for use of torture in limited circumstances, and don't approve of widespread abuse. I think liberals conflate the abuse with the abstract arguments for torture, with some reason. The past does give some credence to the idea that the attitude of higher authority affects what underlings do. However, to say that Cheney and others are justifying Abu Ghraib with their arguments for torture isn't exactly right.
Watching "The Daily Show" is torture.
Ever the battered woman, John will return to his lover, and ask forgiveness.
Self satisifed arrogant liberal gasbags, the exact reverse of the coin of Rush.
I did like "what am I going to do with all these frames," LOL. I imagine many lefties feel just the same.
.....atrocities like Abu Ghraib..John, the prisoners were forced to wear their Underoos on their heads. Then some of them had to make a human pyramid whilst nekkid.These same "atrocities" are enjoyed at weekend parties at most universities.
The Daily Show and other parts of the suppossed "Left-Wing Cabal" will bang Obama, Pelosi and others when they screw-up..I guess Hell really did freeze over.
This point of view the indoctrination directed to Stewart's hip, but brain dead, Bushaphobes who are his audience is another version of a famous trial lawyer trick when faced with in court exposure of inflamatory facts about his client. We bring them up ourselves first, in a palatable way, if possible in a humorous way. The trick is known as, "taking their ammunition and shooting ourselves in the leg withit before they can shoot us in the heart with it." Stay tuned.
BTW they should release the photos. The problem is that the abuse happened, not that it was recorded. Stewart is right about that. I don't think the administration is going to be able to stop it, anyway.
"The Daily Show and other parts of the suppossed "Left-Wing Cabal" will bang Obama, Pelosi and others when they screw-up."Um, they'll attack them for not doing what they wanted, and for not being more different than the Republicans.Do you have respect for Rush Limbaugh when he attacks Republicans for not being conservative enough, or for being too much like Democrats?
Do you have respect for Rush Limbaugh when he attacks Republicans for not being conservative enough, or for being too much like Democrats?Here's the difference, Republicans are easy targets right now. Everybody is grilling them. Where was Rush when Bush was screwing up daily? Where were his stones when Republicans had majorities, yet were spending in complete conflict with his now enlightened rhetoric about "fiscal conservatism"? We know where he was, he was "cheerleading" as even he'd admit. It's real easy to criticize the Clippers when there stinking up the joint, it takes some spine to confront the Lakers. Rush didn't lift a finger until Bush was just about out of office.
So don't listen to Rush.I never have.
These same "atrocities" are enjoyed at weekend parties at most universities....and if they are done against your will, you can have the perps charged with sexual assault.As someone said on a similar thread a week ago, the fact that some people enjoy rape fantasies does not make rape moral.
^ and there was a lot worse than that.
I respect for Rush. That said I have to ditto Invisible Man. I would have so much more respect for Rush had he stood on conservative principle against the horrific Bush/Republican Congress spending spree.
Rush didn't lift a finger until Bush was just about out of office.This is not actually true. Rush was four square against the farm bill, and campaign finance reform. He disagreed publicly with the President on immigration reform as well.Just because he wasn't as nasty as liberals were in attacking the President should not negate the fact that he did indeed show public disagreement with the Administration where he thought they deserved it.
The Daily Show and other parts of the suppossed "Left-Wing Cabal" will bang Obama, Pelosi and others when they screw-up..This is not substantive stuff. This is liberal gasbags talking to each other and Stewart knows it.Give us a call when he starts talking about Obama's failing economic policies, obeisance to the unions, or abuses of power in dealing with corporate creditors.
I had a dream last night that I was blowing Billy Joe Armstrong, from Green Day....in my parents garage.
He was next to a microphone and had a guitar on while I was blowing him.He was also barefoot.
He was singing Boulevard of Broken Dreams.
His hog was long and cut and hung down by his guitar.
Stewart attacks Bush, from the left. He attacks Obama, from the left.
I had a dream Mullah Omar was captured and quickly shipped off to Syria where they put his nuts in a garlic crusher and he told them of the Taliban's operational plan to seize some of Pakistan's nukes.
I had a dream that Titus got some new material....
...but it turned out to be genetic material.
Invisible Man said:"Here's the difference, Republicans are easy targets right now. Everybody is grilling them. Where was Rush when Bush was screwing up daily? Where were his stones when Republicans had majorities, yet were spending in complete conflict with his now enlightened rhetoric about "fiscal conservatism"?"Oh, what nonsense! I listened to Rush regularly throughout the Bush presidency, and he regularly, routinely criticized every time Bush and the Republicans veered away from fiscal conservatism.He was beside himself, for example, over the prescription drug entitlement.As for your claim that Rush admitted to "cheerleading", that's a nice bit of misdirection. It's one thing to reluctantly pull the lever for guys who aren't living up to one's standards because the other guys are frothing at the mouth socialists, and another thing entirely to not even criticize the bad behavior on the part of one's own group.Rush never failed to criticize the Republicans or President Bush when they acted like Democrats.
I'll second MadisonMan regarding Michael Hassenstab's comments. Just because some people do it willingly to each other does not make it right to do against one's will. Michael's insinuation is repugnant.Also, Stewart seems to be confusing the issue of prisoner abuse and harsh interrogation techniques. Both are often called torture, but one is limited by its efficacy, while the other is enjoyed by sick people looking to get off on the misery they cause others. It's arguing against a straw man to conflate the two and then claim the Bush administration is morally repugnant for supporting torture. Harsh interrogation techniques should be discussed and analyzed rationally to ensure they do not cause severe or lasting physical and emotional harm. Stewart only serves to muddle the issue in this segment.
Kylos, I have to disagree with you here. The Geneva Conventions state: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."I think making a person feel physiologically as if they are actually being killed is as coercive as it gets. Don't call it torture if you don't want to, but wither way waterboarding is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. If you oppose the Geneva conventions, perhaps it's time to start a dialogue on the international level about ending them. Personally, I believe values are important. While violence is necessary in some cases, we should not revert to savagery. Furthermore, when you look at what really kills Americans, terrorism is a miniscule, miniscule threat, very far down on the list, and always has been. But public health and safety issues that really kill americans are not solved with anywhere near the kind of ruthlessness or tackled with the kind of aggression we are putting into harming other humans. I submit to you that use of these extreme, coercive interrogation techniques, together with the massive expenditure of money on the war, will much more serious threats are ignored, constitutes the "enjoy[ment] by sick people looking to get off on the misery they cause others" that you define torture as.
sorry, that should have been "WHILE much more serious threats".
It's just painful to watch even a minute of that show. It's like watching David Letterman: it just feels so dated. There's nothing fresh or creative about it at this point, and I continue to be surprised that its audience is so young.
<< Michael said... The Geneva Conventions state: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." >>The key phrase there is "prisoners of war". The term has an accepted definition. You could look it up.
"Invisible Man said... I don't agree, but I guess this blows a hole in the theory that somehow the likes of Jon Stewart are "in the tank" for Obama."Seems he spent 80% of this video bashing Republicans.And, he's still pulling his punches on Obama: "O is so smart to protect our troops!!!" gag
The Geneva Conventions also specifically state that non uniformed combatants, and combatants that use schools and hospitals for military purposes are not protected. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, our soldiers could execute those combatants immediately on capture. Those soldiers would still be subject to violation of UCMJ, the Rules of engagement and whatever SOP in the area, but they would not have violated the Geneva Conventions.
Some Leftists would be willing to burn down the whole country to preserve their self-esteem so moving Gitmo detainees to Kansas (yawn), declassifying NSA/NSA intel (double yawn), exempting young muslim men from TSA security (it's the only "rational" national security policy that will work).It's not an accident that leftists work to free terrorists, work to hamstring police and soldiers, impose ideological rigidity in their institution, and seek to undermine the machinery of freedom and liberty at home.The Soviet spies of the 30s didn't just happen to take cover in leftist circles, Bill Ayres didn't just accidentally find safe-haven in academia. They have a plan and most leftists don't have to know the bullet points of that plan to implement that plan. They just have to follow direction when needed.
But public health and safety issues that really kill americans are not solved with anywhere near the kind of ruthlessness or tackled with the kind of aggression we are putting into harming other humans. .That's mainly because a big chunk of those public health and safety issues are personal choices. We could save 50,000 lives each year if we just banned cars. Or another couple hundred thousand annually if we ban alcohol, tobacco and enforce a 1800 calorie a day diet for everyone.Prior to 9/11 I think most folks never gave terrorism a second thought. A hijacking here, a Jew tossed overboard a cruise ship there nothing to really get your panties in a twist. Then one sunny day 3000 people died and two skyscrapers tumbled down and I think a lot of people came to the conclusion that these Muslim terrorists are upping the ante and aren't content with beheading a few infidels and if the opportunity presents itself would not hesitate to kill thousands or millions of us infidels.
Archivist wrote:The Geneva Conventions also specifically state that non uniformed combatants, and combatants that use schools and hospitals for military purposes are not protected. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, our soldiers could execute those combatants immediately on captureExecuted!? As in killed?! The Geneva Conventions are against the Geneva Conventions!!!!!!
I saw a documentary about Iraq once, and a former prisoner and torture victim of Saddam was talking about abu Ghraib. He laughed and said his friends were all trying to get arrested so they could have an American female GI play with their privates. Anecdotal but telling.
Invisible Man,Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?No one - NO one - more raked over the coals the Republican-controlled Congress about it's profligate spending than Rush Limbaugh when it was happening. It's public record. And you could have checked it before outright lying about him. You can hate him all you want, but stooping to lying?But that doesn't matter to you does it? Just flail away and throw out shit and never apologize for it when your proven wrong about the facts.I'm going to start calling you Dan Rather.
Self satisifed arrogant liberal gasbags, the exact reverse of the coin of Rush.Yes there's nothing self-satisfied or arrogant about Rush "Talent on loan from God" Limbaugh, who sees the primary American political struggle as between Obama and "conservatism as articulated by me."
There are few things more amusing or satisfying than lefties grousing about their chosen ones. Righties know there is no such thing as a perfect candidate or politician; lefties have to learn this lesson with every election cycle.Hard to judge, but sure feels like we're living in the era of the worst political class ever.
No one who claims Rush didn't regularly destroy porky and corrupt Republicans on his show has never listened to Rush. It got so bad I started turning it off, and I'm a charter subscriber. Rush and the GOP are almost mutually exclusive. Get a clue.
Jon Stewart and his fellow Obama lapdogs have just been rear-ended (if you know what I mean) by their political lover.I can't stop laughing.
"Yes there's nothing self-satisfied or arrogant about Rush "Talent on loan from God" Limbaugh"..."Talent on loan from God" is a very humble statement designed to make liberals go apoplectic thinking that it's arrogant.Rush is saying that his talent is God's, not his.
Post a Comment