by Doctor Science
Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. John Fabian Witt writes that:
Emancipation touched off a crisis for the principle of humanitarian limits in wartime and transformed the international laws of war. In the crucible of emancipation, Lincoln created the rules that now govern soldiers around the world.
….
In December 1862, three weeks before the final emancipation order was to go into effect, and just as criticism of emancipation was reaching its height, Lincoln’s general in chief, Henry W. Halleck, commissioned a pamphlet-length statement of the Union’s view of the laws of war.Drafted by the Columbia professor Francis Lieber and approved by Lincoln himself, the code set out a host of humane rules: it prohibited torture, protected prisoners of war and outlawed assassinations. It distinguished between soldiers and civilians and it disclaimed cruelty, revenge attacks and senseless suffering.
[links added.]
A few weeks ago, fan/pro writer Sam Starbuck said:
I’ve been watching a documentary this morning called The Man Nobody Knew, made about Bill Colby, who was heavily involved in the Vietnam War and was director of the CIA in the seventies. I’m watching the footage currently of his examination before a Congressional committee into the misdeeds of the CIA, and it strikes me as downright surreal, the level of indignation being expressed over CIA covert actions. It’s not that I think we shouldn’t be indignant, shouldn’t be angry, that the CIA assassinated or planned to assassinate major international political figures; it’s more that I can’t believe anyone actually was. I can’t remember a time when it wasn’t pretty much common knowledge that our intelligence agencies did this kind of thing. These men all seem so surprised.
It used to strike me as odd, when I was watching Torchwood, that I’d made such a complete transition from rooting for Mulder and Scully to uncover secrets to rooting for Jack Harkness to conceal them. That’s a pretty big leap to make, that’s changing sides, but I think it illustrates the mindset of kids who came of age in my generation. We grew up in the remnants of the Cold War and the beginnings of the war(s) in Iraq; I was twenty-one the year the Twin Towers fell. I have never had the luxury of trusting my government, but I’ve never managed to stir up much genuine rage over it either. It’s simply the way the world is. (Which is terrible, I acknowledge, but I’m trying to be truthful, not perfect.)
[links added] I remember the Church Committee hearing, and can assure Sam that people were in fact *surprised*, as well as appalled, that the US government was authorizing assassinations. Most civilians, at least, assumed that the US was and ought to be adhering to Lincoln’s code. Yes, we knew realistically that there might be “incidents” of torture, assassination, or prisoner abuse, but they would be due to “rogue agents” or “bad apples”, not to government policy.
Since 9/11, I’ve watched a *lot* of America change sides, as Sam did. I don’t know if it really started with 9/11, or if it was already happening and I just didn’t notice. I also have no idea if people in the military or defense establishment had the same experience, when it happened, and whether they deliberately jettisoned Lincoln’s code or if they just kind of forgot about it.
I also don’t have a good sense, off the top of my head, of where popular culture fits into this. 24 began in 2001, and it’s definitely post-Lincoln in its morality. The first season was produced before the 9/11 attacks: was it as pro-torture then as it was in later seasons? At the other end, I don’t recall that the original Mission: Impossible ever crossed the “no torture, no assassinations” line, though it sure crept right up to it. What about the MI movies? I’ve never seen it (I don’t watch movies that are R-rated for violence, which means Quentin Tarantino’s œuvre is a closed book to me), but my understand is that Inglorious Basterds is a parody? satire? exploration? exploitation? all of the above? of the desire to kick the code of war to the curb — though I don’t know if that developed over the very long course of its writing and development.
Others can confirm but IIRC Jack Bauer ended up standing trial for some of his conduct; that itself seems impossible in today’s government’s moral vacuity.
Others can confirm but IIRC Jack Bauer ended up standing trial for some of his conduct; that itself seems impossible in today’s government’s moral vacuity.
But was Bauer’s trial presented as a good thing, the correct application of law and justice, or was it shown as the unnecessary meddling of cowards/fools/traitors/nit-pickers?
But was Bauer’s trial presented as a good thing, the correct application of law and justice, or was it shown as the unnecessary meddling of cowards/fools/traitors/nit-pickers?
I trace the attitudes to Iran-Contra, and Oliver North’s stirring-yet-disingenuous congressional testimony.
I trace the attitudes to Iran-Contra, and Oliver North’s stirring-yet-disingenuous congressional testimony.
I must admit that I’ve never been impressed with this agreement among the leaders of nations, that they’ll kill each others’ soldiers, instead of each other. Seems just a bit self-serving, and a bit hard on the peons, too. (Yes, I understand there are arguments in favor of the norm that don’t rely on the self interest of the rulers. I just wonder if they’re what sustained it so long.)
I must admit that I’ve never been impressed with this agreement among the leaders of nations, that they’ll kill each others’ soldiers, instead of each other. Seems just a bit self-serving, and a bit hard on the peons, too. (Yes, I understand there are arguments in favor of the norm that don’t rely on the self interest of the rulers. I just wonder if they’re what sustained it so long.)
it prohibited torture, protected prisoners of war and outlawed assassinations. It distinguished between soldiers and civilians and it disclaimed cruelty, revenge attacks and senseless suffering.
And these values are still part of our law. The policy of the Bush administration was contrary to that, but the policy of the United States now is not. I don’t really get the point of Doctor Science’s post.
The Civil War, in addition to causing the deaths of more people than any other war in history, was full of atrocities and horror. Wars were fought differently then than they are now. An attempt was made by people of conscience, who weren’t pacifists, to establish rules of war that somehow made the conflict more just. We’re still struggling with that, and each conflict is different.
Is it really more noble for thousands and thousands of people to be killed on a battlefield than targeting people who are more involved in the decisionmaking?
it prohibited torture, protected prisoners of war and outlawed assassinations. It distinguished between soldiers and civilians and it disclaimed cruelty, revenge attacks and senseless suffering.
And these values are still part of our law. The policy of the Bush administration was contrary to that, but the policy of the United States now is not. I don’t really get the point of Doctor Science’s post.
The Civil War, in addition to causing the deaths of more people than any other war in history, was full of atrocities and horror. Wars were fought differently then than they are now. An attempt was made by people of conscience, who weren’t pacifists, to establish rules of war that somehow made the conflict more just. We’re still struggling with that, and each conflict is different.
Is it really more noble for thousands and thousands of people to be killed on a battlefield than targeting people who are more involved in the decisionmaking?
Linclon was a great man and a visionary. His code of war is one that ought to be adhered to. Torture is a disgraceful activity.
That said, there was ample amounts of torture, murder of civilians and starvation and other forms of maltreatment of POWs during the Civil War on both sides. And all of that continued through the close of the war. So even a great visionary Commander in Chief couldn’t prevent these things from happening right under his own nose.
Assassinations, coups d’etats, terrorism etc have also been the norm in American war fighting since the Revolutionary War. Loyalists were not infrequently killed, had their farms burned, that sort of thing. I’m also including back stabbing (literally in some cases) of American Indian leaders in the history of behavior unbecoming……
During the VN war – especially within the Phoenix program – political assassination, torture and terrorism were standard CIA methods (often carried out on the muscle end by the first SEAL Teams).
And Sapient, if you think things have changed under Obama, you definitely need to put the coolaid down. NOW! BHO has, in fact, increased extrajudicial killings – even of American citizens ***suspected*** of terrorist involvement. Heck, even of family members of American citizens suspected of terrorist connections.
“Is it really more noble for thousands and thousands of people to be killed on a battlefield than targeting people who are more involved in the decisionmaking?”
No. It’s not. If someone is a decision maker for a declared enemy of the US then that person should be a fair target. Theoretically. Practically, it is not always the best policy because sometimes you need someone with whom to negotiate a surrender and who can organize the people – especially the military – of that country accordingly. But this is a separate issue from torture. Torture and assassination need to be and to remain parsed out.
Of course the US had not limited assassinations to those who were integral to a declared enemy’s political infrastructure. The US has also directly and indirectly assassinated those who were merely an ideological nuisance or a potential hindrance to some interest party’s schemes.
“I have never had the luxury of trusting my government, but I’ve never managed to stir up much genuine rage over it either. It’s simply the way the world is.”
This is a pathetic statement. Yet, I suspect it is as honest as it is ubiquitous.
So, while the US has always engaged in atrocities, I see the open acceptance – and at least occasional outright applauding – of torture and assassination and drones patrolling the world’s skies as yet another symptom of the increasing crass egocentrism (brought on by a breakdown of class structure for mass marketing purposes) of our culture on the one hand and the abject cowardice of the ever growing lot of pampered ego coddled liberal arts college types on the other.
I guess the governemnt controlled corporate media plays a big role here as well.
Linclon was a great man and a visionary. His code of war is one that ought to be adhered to. Torture is a disgraceful activity.
That said, there was ample amounts of torture, murder of civilians and starvation and other forms of maltreatment of POWs during the Civil War on both sides. And all of that continued through the close of the war. So even a great visionary Commander in Chief couldn’t prevent these things from happening right under his own nose.
Assassinations, coups d’etats, terrorism etc have also been the norm in American war fighting since the Revolutionary War. Loyalists were not infrequently killed, had their farms burned, that sort of thing. I’m also including back stabbing (literally in some cases) of American Indian leaders in the history of behavior unbecoming……
During the VN war – especially within the Phoenix program – political assassination, torture and terrorism were standard CIA methods (often carried out on the muscle end by the first SEAL Teams).
And Sapient, if you think things have changed under Obama, you definitely need to put the coolaid down. NOW! BHO has, in fact, increased extrajudicial killings – even of American citizens ***suspected*** of terrorist involvement. Heck, even of family members of American citizens suspected of terrorist connections.
“Is it really more noble for thousands and thousands of people to be killed on a battlefield than targeting people who are more involved in the decisionmaking?”
No. It’s not. If someone is a decision maker for a declared enemy of the US then that person should be a fair target. Theoretically. Practically, it is not always the best policy because sometimes you need someone with whom to negotiate a surrender and who can organize the people – especially the military – of that country accordingly. But this is a separate issue from torture. Torture and assassination need to be and to remain parsed out.
Of course the US had not limited assassinations to those who were integral to a declared enemy’s political infrastructure. The US has also directly and indirectly assassinated those who were merely an ideological nuisance or a potential hindrance to some interest party’s schemes.
“I have never had the luxury of trusting my government, but I’ve never managed to stir up much genuine rage over it either. It’s simply the way the world is.”
This is a pathetic statement. Yet, I suspect it is as honest as it is ubiquitous.
So, while the US has always engaged in atrocities, I see the open acceptance – and at least occasional outright applauding – of torture and assassination and drones patrolling the world’s skies as yet another symptom of the increasing crass egocentrism (brought on by a breakdown of class structure for mass marketing purposes) of our culture on the one hand and the abject cowardice of the ever growing lot of pampered ego coddled liberal arts college types on the other.
I guess the governemnt controlled corporate media plays a big role here as well.
“The Civil War, in addition to causing the deaths of more people than any other war in history…”
You mean American deaths, right?
You know that WW2 killed between 60 and 80 million people, right?
Actually revised figures show WW2 resulting in about the same number of American deaths as did the civil war.
“The Civil War, in addition to causing the deaths of more people than any other war in history…”
You mean American deaths, right?
You know that WW2 killed between 60 and 80 million people, right?
Actually revised figures show WW2 resulting in about the same number of American deaths as did the civil war.
Yes, Blackhawk12, American deaths. I have no doubt, as a child of a WWII veteran, that the World Wars were even more horrific than the Civil War. My point was this: we’re still struggling with trying to figure out how to solve international problems (horrible, violent ones) in a way that is just, and that doesn’t punish the innocent. I know all about Obama’s policies, and each of the situations you mention needs to be (and has been on this blog) discussed. Things have improved dramatically since Bush.
People don’t like to count the dead – it seems so obscene – but, in fact, the death count means something. The Iraq war killed over a million. The drone war? Not so many. Should we be killing anyone? Should we countenance deaths of our own people by others? These are questions that have to be wrestled with.
War reveals the worst of people, said my father the veteran. Yet he was not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary, but we’ll always struggle with making it just.
Yes, Blackhawk12, American deaths. I have no doubt, as a child of a WWII veteran, that the World Wars were even more horrific than the Civil War. My point was this: we’re still struggling with trying to figure out how to solve international problems (horrible, violent ones) in a way that is just, and that doesn’t punish the innocent. I know all about Obama’s policies, and each of the situations you mention needs to be (and has been on this blog) discussed. Things have improved dramatically since Bush.
People don’t like to count the dead – it seems so obscene – but, in fact, the death count means something. The Iraq war killed over a million. The drone war? Not so many. Should we be killing anyone? Should we countenance deaths of our own people by others? These are questions that have to be wrestled with.
War reveals the worst of people, said my father the veteran. Yet he was not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary, but we’ll always struggle with making it just.
I must admit that I’ve never been impressed with this agreement among the leaders of nations, that they’ll kill each others’ soldiers, instead of each other. Seems just a bit self-serving, and a bit hard on the peons, too.
Sometimes, I’ll be reading something on the internets, and the casual ignorance on display will just knock me to the floor. Like this for example.
Historically, a great many leaders have sought the assassination of their counterparts. But leader assassination does not generally replace war; oftentimes, it births war. Consider the assassination of a certain arch-duke Ferdinand, which lead directly to World War I. More recently, consider the assassination of President Habyarimana of Rwanda, which lead directly to the Rwandan genocide which in turn caused (or strongly contributed to) the ongoing war in the Congo.
I’m sure a great many leaders have convinced themselves that, like Brett, their problems would be solved if only they assassinated the right leader. But in practice, conflict doesn’t work that way. Remember when Al Queda disappeared after we killed Osama bin Ladin? How all Iraqi resistance disappeared after Saddam Hussein was driven into hiding (or was executed)?
I must admit that I’ve never been impressed with this agreement among the leaders of nations, that they’ll kill each others’ soldiers, instead of each other. Seems just a bit self-serving, and a bit hard on the peons, too.
Sometimes, I’ll be reading something on the internets, and the casual ignorance on display will just knock me to the floor. Like this for example.
Historically, a great many leaders have sought the assassination of their counterparts. But leader assassination does not generally replace war; oftentimes, it births war. Consider the assassination of a certain arch-duke Ferdinand, which lead directly to World War I. More recently, consider the assassination of President Habyarimana of Rwanda, which lead directly to the Rwandan genocide which in turn caused (or strongly contributed to) the ongoing war in the Congo.
I’m sure a great many leaders have convinced themselves that, like Brett, their problems would be solved if only they assassinated the right leader. But in practice, conflict doesn’t work that way. Remember when Al Queda disappeared after we killed Osama bin Ladin? How all Iraqi resistance disappeared after Saddam Hussein was driven into hiding (or was executed)?
Doc, I’ve often heard the code described as the Lieber code, rather than Lincoln’s code. I believe that it became the basis for the Geneva Accords.
I also have no idea if people in the military or defense establishment had the same experience, when it happened, and whether they deliberately jettisoned Lincoln’s code or if they just kind of forgot about it.
I think some parts of the government (like the CIA) never bought into the Liber code to begin with. Others bought into it, but in a somewhat shallow way that disintegrated wit 9/11 or Iraq.
I mean, we’ve always insisted that we have the greatest military on Earth: the most technologically sophisticated, with the bravest soldiers and the most intelligent officers. Everyone just knows that. But in Iraq the greatest Army humanity has ever known was incapable of putting down resistance from a bunch of criminals and ex-officers from a third rate impoverished army. They keep trying to win, to impose some order, to establish control, but they keep failing, day after day, month after month, year after year. So what do you do when obviously inferior people keep beating, a member of the greatest army humanity has ever seen? You get creative. You start buying off insurgents with cash and weapons since you can’t defeat them. And you start disregarding the Geneva conventions by torturing people. Or you look the other way while others do. What else can you do? Your fellow soldiers are dying all around you.
Doc, I’ve often heard the code described as the Lieber code, rather than Lincoln’s code. I believe that it became the basis for the Geneva Accords.
I also have no idea if people in the military or defense establishment had the same experience, when it happened, and whether they deliberately jettisoned Lincoln’s code or if they just kind of forgot about it.
I think some parts of the government (like the CIA) never bought into the Liber code to begin with. Others bought into it, but in a somewhat shallow way that disintegrated wit 9/11 or Iraq.
I mean, we’ve always insisted that we have the greatest military on Earth: the most technologically sophisticated, with the bravest soldiers and the most intelligent officers. Everyone just knows that. But in Iraq the greatest Army humanity has ever known was incapable of putting down resistance from a bunch of criminals and ex-officers from a third rate impoverished army. They keep trying to win, to impose some order, to establish control, but they keep failing, day after day, month after month, year after year. So what do you do when obviously inferior people keep beating, a member of the greatest army humanity has ever seen? You get creative. You start buying off insurgents with cash and weapons since you can’t defeat them. And you start disregarding the Geneva conventions by torturing people. Or you look the other way while others do. What else can you do? Your fellow soldiers are dying all around you.
I don’t really get the point of Doctor Science’s post.
Are you surprised, ashamed, or appalled that apparently many are “going over to the other side”? I believe that is the question she is asking.
Wars were fought differently then than they are now.
Alas, no…they are not. cf Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s.
I don’t really get the point of Doctor Science’s post.
Are you surprised, ashamed, or appalled that apparently many are “going over to the other side”? I believe that is the question she is asking.
Wars were fought differently then than they are now.
Alas, no…they are not. cf Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s.
When I read about the debates concerning torture and other atrocities in the Philippine “Insurrection” it sounded very modern. At the time when I was reading about such things the obvious comparison was not to Iraq, which hadn’t happened yet, but to Vietnam and what we’d been supporting in Central America. I think it’s always been like this–some Americans think we should be able to do whatever we want in wartime and opposition is unpatriotic, and others think the opposite, though the relative numbers of people in each category may vary somewhat, depending to some degree on which political party is in the White House.
But I think we are in one of the down cycles as far as our moral values are concerned. The Republican politicians have openly joined the dark side, and some Democrats only get worked up when it is a Republican doing something wrong and anyway, it’s all just a policy choice, not something to be investigated and referred to the criminal justice system. But that’s not new either. Here’s an old (1998) article in the Atlantic about our bipartisan support (under Carter and Reagan) for death squads in El Salvador–
link
There was more ambivalence under Carter, perhaps, and his ambassador was outspoken, but all the same, we funded the Salvadoran military and Reagan, of course, continued that policy. And to be fair, (something I learned from reading one of Greenwald’s columns), the Democrats in Congress actually started calling our policies in Central America “terrorism” during the Reagan era. (I don’t know how they felt about it during Carter’s last year in office.)
I think things will change on the day that some high-ranking Western official is arrested and charged with war crimes or support for war crimes or terrorism or whatever. In the meantime I will keep a sharp lookout for flying pigs.
When I read about the debates concerning torture and other atrocities in the Philippine “Insurrection” it sounded very modern. At the time when I was reading about such things the obvious comparison was not to Iraq, which hadn’t happened yet, but to Vietnam and what we’d been supporting in Central America. I think it’s always been like this–some Americans think we should be able to do whatever we want in wartime and opposition is unpatriotic, and others think the opposite, though the relative numbers of people in each category may vary somewhat, depending to some degree on which political party is in the White House.
But I think we are in one of the down cycles as far as our moral values are concerned. The Republican politicians have openly joined the dark side, and some Democrats only get worked up when it is a Republican doing something wrong and anyway, it’s all just a policy choice, not something to be investigated and referred to the criminal justice system. But that’s not new either. Here’s an old (1998) article in the Atlantic about our bipartisan support (under Carter and Reagan) for death squads in El Salvador–
link
There was more ambivalence under Carter, perhaps, and his ambassador was outspoken, but all the same, we funded the Salvadoran military and Reagan, of course, continued that policy. And to be fair, (something I learned from reading one of Greenwald’s columns), the Democrats in Congress actually started calling our policies in Central America “terrorism” during the Reagan era. (I don’t know how they felt about it during Carter’s last year in office.)
I think things will change on the day that some high-ranking Western official is arrested and charged with war crimes or support for war crimes or terrorism or whatever. In the meantime I will keep a sharp lookout for flying pigs.
Would murdering Iranian nuclear scientists count as terrorism, btw? Someone has been doing it. NBC claimed last February that the MEK might be responsible, with help from Israel, while Seymour Hersh apparently reported (I haven’t checked Glenn’s link) that the US was training the MEK some years ago. MEK denies that they’re doing anything currently.
NBC link
Lots of American politicians have been paid a lot of money to lobby for them to be taken off America’s terrorist organization list (which is sort of a farce anyway). And so they have.
Would murdering Iranian nuclear scientists count as terrorism, btw? Someone has been doing it. NBC claimed last February that the MEK might be responsible, with help from Israel, while Seymour Hersh apparently reported (I haven’t checked Glenn’s link) that the US was training the MEK some years ago. MEK denies that they’re doing anything currently.
NBC link
Lots of American politicians have been paid a lot of money to lobby for them to be taken off America’s terrorist organization list (which is sort of a farce anyway). And so they have.
There are some other points to consider, I think. I’m not sure if these mitigate, explain, softpedal, whatever, but I do think they need to be considered.
First, our definition of cruelty has expanded since Lincoln in a number of ways. First of all, a large number of Americans might have considered that the Moro rebels in the Phillipines were, as non-whites, not entitled to the same protections that white folks were.
Also, more people now countenance a much wider range of behaviors as cruel. In Robert Hughes A Fatal Shore, he talks about the various punishments meted out to convicts there. One was being chained to a small sandstone island that was in the middle of Sydney Harbor on starvation rations, with boats going out to tease whoever was there. We look at pictures of Nazi concentration camps with horror, but the Union prisoners from Andersonville don’t look much different from the victims of Auschwitz and it is notable that the overcrowding that led to this treatment began when Lincoln demanded, after the Fort Pillow massacre, that black Union prisoners be treated the same as white prisoners.
Also, more people now expand their definition of problematic treatment. This is from the NPR on the FMU hazing (where a drum major was hazed and subsquently died)
But for the same reasons that they allow themselves to be hazed, which is that they don’t want to be ostracized, they really want to belong to these organizations and teams, they allow themselves to participate, whether it be directly or indirectly, in the hazing practices moving forward.
And to answer your question directly, yes, there is an escalation of hazing when we see it happen, not only from person to person in terms of class years, but also something that starts as small — you had asked a question earlier about defining hazing.
And we can give you very technical definitions, but it exists on this very broad spectrum of the kinds of incidents, everything from what might be low risk in terms of a physical danger, but to a high risk of a physical danger.
You know, wearing a diaper to the cafeteria, low risk possibly, but maybe a very high risk in terms of the mental or emotional damage that it could cause. And so that’s a component that most people haven’t considered. They look at hazing and they think about the physical aspects and the damage that that can cause.
having prisoners stand on a box while blindfolded and told to hold wires with the (false) threat of electrocution (the iconic Abu Grahib photo) is psychological torture and most people hopefully recognize that. However, in terms of proof and in terms of physical injuries, it is as the NPR report says ‘a component that most people haven’t considered’.
Second, there is a transfer of torture in terms of ideas etc. The Guardian’s discussion of Oliver Stone’s new movie is interesting in that regard
Stone has a terrifying and convincing thesis as to why the film has to be set in America, with American characters: “The point,” he says, “is that wars come home, they come home to roost. And there are connections: one of the two main guys has come home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and he’s brought all that with him, what I think are new levels of cruelty and combat technology we have out there.”
He drives his theme: “Of course, humankind has always been cruel – the Third Reich and so on. But I think there are new levels of cruelty, new technologies now, a new ball game. Maybe I’m wrong, but the cruelty level in the world just went up in these recent wars. We get a lot of information about what’s happening in Iraq, the Middle East and Afghanistan, which comes back to America with this guy. And who knows how this may influence what’s happening in Mexico – I think it probably does.”
It’s a shocking but cogent point about the nature of the violence, and its arrival into our public domain. Stone cut his teeth in Vietnam, where images of violence (the famous girl on the bridge burned by napalm; and scenes from Stone’s own films and past as a veteran) were supposed to shock us – and did. Now, in reality, all that has volte-faced: the Zetas relay their own atrocities on the web as recruiting posters, and in Stone’s film, to parley with their proposed business partners. It has been posited before that the Zetas got their ideas for torture and execution videos from al-Qaida, who in turn respond to souvenir photos taken by American troops of their own abuses in Abu Ghraib. Stone, typically, hurls us to the logical, heretical, conclusion.
“This Middle East thing brought it to another level. The barbarism came back in a big way, and it was Bush who started that. It all began with Afghanistan and Iraq. The guy in the movie brings it home; and the cartel brings it home.”
I quote the whole thing, but rather than focus on Stone’s suggestion that it was ‘Bush who started it’, I’m more interested in thinking about how the there is some sort of transfer with torture technology and ideas. Stone’s movie has this scene described
Stone treats us to the execution of a suspected snitch, hung by his wrists and whipped until he confesses (even though he is innocent), after which he is incinerated alive with a tyre around his arms and torso, running in wild circles to his death. During the scene, there’s a moment of mastery: the soundtrack, the cackling laughter of those watching.
That invocation of the tire is, I think, from South Africa in the 80’s and termed ‘necklacing’. Wikipedia cites it being practiced in Rio among drug cartels in the 2002. Perhaps it is an independent innovation, but the dates suggest that it was picked up.
This isn’t to be blasé about torture by suggesting that it has always been with us, but more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
There are some other points to consider, I think. I’m not sure if these mitigate, explain, softpedal, whatever, but I do think they need to be considered.
First, our definition of cruelty has expanded since Lincoln in a number of ways. First of all, a large number of Americans might have considered that the Moro rebels in the Phillipines were, as non-whites, not entitled to the same protections that white folks were.
Also, more people now countenance a much wider range of behaviors as cruel. In Robert Hughes A Fatal Shore, he talks about the various punishments meted out to convicts there. One was being chained to a small sandstone island that was in the middle of Sydney Harbor on starvation rations, with boats going out to tease whoever was there. We look at pictures of Nazi concentration camps with horror, but the Union prisoners from Andersonville don’t look much different from the victims of Auschwitz and it is notable that the overcrowding that led to this treatment began when Lincoln demanded, after the Fort Pillow massacre, that black Union prisoners be treated the same as white prisoners.
Also, more people now expand their definition of problematic treatment. This is from the NPR on the FMU hazing (where a drum major was hazed and subsquently died)
But for the same reasons that they allow themselves to be hazed, which is that they don’t want to be ostracized, they really want to belong to these organizations and teams, they allow themselves to participate, whether it be directly or indirectly, in the hazing practices moving forward.
And to answer your question directly, yes, there is an escalation of hazing when we see it happen, not only from person to person in terms of class years, but also something that starts as small — you had asked a question earlier about defining hazing.
And we can give you very technical definitions, but it exists on this very broad spectrum of the kinds of incidents, everything from what might be low risk in terms of a physical danger, but to a high risk of a physical danger.
You know, wearing a diaper to the cafeteria, low risk possibly, but maybe a very high risk in terms of the mental or emotional damage that it could cause. And so that’s a component that most people haven’t considered. They look at hazing and they think about the physical aspects and the damage that that can cause.
having prisoners stand on a box while blindfolded and told to hold wires with the (false) threat of electrocution (the iconic Abu Grahib photo) is psychological torture and most people hopefully recognize that. However, in terms of proof and in terms of physical injuries, it is as the NPR report says ‘a component that most people haven’t considered’.
Second, there is a transfer of torture in terms of ideas etc. The Guardian’s discussion of Oliver Stone’s new movie is interesting in that regard
Stone has a terrifying and convincing thesis as to why the film has to be set in America, with American characters: “The point,” he says, “is that wars come home, they come home to roost. And there are connections: one of the two main guys has come home from Afghanistan and Iraq, and he’s brought all that with him, what I think are new levels of cruelty and combat technology we have out there.”
He drives his theme: “Of course, humankind has always been cruel – the Third Reich and so on. But I think there are new levels of cruelty, new technologies now, a new ball game. Maybe I’m wrong, but the cruelty level in the world just went up in these recent wars. We get a lot of information about what’s happening in Iraq, the Middle East and Afghanistan, which comes back to America with this guy. And who knows how this may influence what’s happening in Mexico – I think it probably does.”
It’s a shocking but cogent point about the nature of the violence, and its arrival into our public domain. Stone cut his teeth in Vietnam, where images of violence (the famous girl on the bridge burned by napalm; and scenes from Stone’s own films and past as a veteran) were supposed to shock us – and did. Now, in reality, all that has volte-faced: the Zetas relay their own atrocities on the web as recruiting posters, and in Stone’s film, to parley with their proposed business partners. It has been posited before that the Zetas got their ideas for torture and execution videos from al-Qaida, who in turn respond to souvenir photos taken by American troops of their own abuses in Abu Ghraib. Stone, typically, hurls us to the logical, heretical, conclusion.
“This Middle East thing brought it to another level. The barbarism came back in a big way, and it was Bush who started that. It all began with Afghanistan and Iraq. The guy in the movie brings it home; and the cartel brings it home.”
I quote the whole thing, but rather than focus on Stone’s suggestion that it was ‘Bush who started it’, I’m more interested in thinking about how the there is some sort of transfer with torture technology and ideas. Stone’s movie has this scene described
Stone treats us to the execution of a suspected snitch, hung by his wrists and whipped until he confesses (even though he is innocent), after which he is incinerated alive with a tyre around his arms and torso, running in wild circles to his death. During the scene, there’s a moment of mastery: the soundtrack, the cackling laughter of those watching.
That invocation of the tire is, I think, from South Africa in the 80’s and termed ‘necklacing’. Wikipedia cites it being practiced in Rio among drug cartels in the 2002. Perhaps it is an independent innovation, but the dates suggest that it was picked up.
This isn’t to be blasé about torture by suggesting that it has always been with us, but more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
Well, under Bush there was a major move to hide torture and other “un-American” behavior under the guise of “National Security”. BHO has accelerated this type of govt secrecy.
Some people will do all kinds of heinous acts when they think no one will know about it and they won’t get caught. The CIA profiles prospective spooks for exactly this psychological profile.
Well, under Bush there was a major move to hide torture and other “un-American” behavior under the guise of “National Security”. BHO has accelerated this type of govt secrecy.
Some people will do all kinds of heinous acts when they think no one will know about it and they won’t get caught. The CIA profiles prospective spooks for exactly this psychological profile.
“Sometimes, I’ll be reading something on the internets, and the casual ignorance on display will just knock me to the floor. Like this for example.”
Yes, well, sometimes I’ll be reading along, and the casual assumption on somebody’s part that their views are so obviously right, that any disagreement with them must stem from ignorance, will just floor me, too.
It’s an astonishing world.
“Sometimes, I’ll be reading something on the internets, and the casual ignorance on display will just knock me to the floor. Like this for example.”
Yes, well, sometimes I’ll be reading along, and the casual assumption on somebody’s part that their views are so obviously right, that any disagreement with them must stem from ignorance, will just floor me, too.
It’s an astonishing world.
This isn’t to be blasé about torture by suggesting that it has always been with us, but more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
Thanks, lj. I agree with this.
This isn’t to be blasé about torture by suggesting that it has always been with us, but more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
Thanks, lj. I agree with this.
Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.
Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.
cleek: Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
cleek: Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
What amazes me is the calm, perhaps resigned, reponse to the Iraq war. A war cynically and dishonestly started to influence domestic politics, sold to Americans on disinformation, resulting in I don’t know how may deaths–a million?–and another unknown number of people driven into poverty and exile.
WHere’s the outrage?
I don’t even feel particlularly outraged myself. Maybe I have outrage overload; the monstrous evil of the Bush administatioin being just to much to respond to.
I rember a good deal of outrage over AbuGraib. Some of it was rightwingers outraged becaue they didn’t want to believe it but a lot of it was people just feeling sick because they thought American soldiers representing America should do better than that. They felt ashamed. I can repsect that reaction becuase it shows a sense that our standards should be high enough to exclude the sorts of behaviors that happened at Abu Graib.
It would be nice if our standard were high enough to preclude letting ourselves be bamboozled by war fever into fighting wars we don’t need to fight, but I’m afraid that tendecy is too deeply embedded in human charactrer to be avoided. It isn’t a uniquely American character flaw.
I’d feel better, too, if we Americans were capable of looking at our collective bad behavior–like fighting unnecesary wars– and feel some shame and learn from the experience, but that’s not the pattern I see. The parttern I see is that many Americans try to forget the unpleasant memory of the war, and many of those who do remember it rewrite history to justify the war and concoct blame fantasies agsint their fellow Americans to avoid facing up to any mistakes made during the war. That’s how we, as a group, handled Viet Nam.
What amazes me is the calm, perhaps resigned, reponse to the Iraq war. A war cynically and dishonestly started to influence domestic politics, sold to Americans on disinformation, resulting in I don’t know how may deaths–a million?–and another unknown number of people driven into poverty and exile.
WHere’s the outrage?
I don’t even feel particlularly outraged myself. Maybe I have outrage overload; the monstrous evil of the Bush administatioin being just to much to respond to.
I rember a good deal of outrage over AbuGraib. Some of it was rightwingers outraged becaue they didn’t want to believe it but a lot of it was people just feeling sick because they thought American soldiers representing America should do better than that. They felt ashamed. I can repsect that reaction becuase it shows a sense that our standards should be high enough to exclude the sorts of behaviors that happened at Abu Graib.
It would be nice if our standard were high enough to preclude letting ourselves be bamboozled by war fever into fighting wars we don’t need to fight, but I’m afraid that tendecy is too deeply embedded in human charactrer to be avoided. It isn’t a uniquely American character flaw.
I’d feel better, too, if we Americans were capable of looking at our collective bad behavior–like fighting unnecesary wars– and feel some shame and learn from the experience, but that’s not the pattern I see. The parttern I see is that many Americans try to forget the unpleasant memory of the war, and many of those who do remember it rewrite history to justify the war and concoct blame fantasies agsint their fellow Americans to avoid facing up to any mistakes made during the war. That’s how we, as a group, handled Viet Nam.
more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
This seems…unhelpful.
If you had taken a member of the US Army circa 1999 and told them “hey, I know you guys talk about the Geneva Conventions, but the truth is, you’ll blow them off in a heartbeat once you’re in a war that’s going badly for you; all your precious ideals and moral commitments will turn to ash, not just for individuals but for the institution as a whole”, I think that they’d argue with you.
I’d guess that they would (justifiably) feel enraged, because being a part of a “good” military organization is a key component of their identity. American soldiers of my acquaintance took pride in the fact that they were more than thugs with guns but were part of a group that have very strong institutional norms about the GC and torture; that even if a few bad apples screwed up, the rest of the institution would recover and punish them.
But our hypothetical ’99 solider would be wrong. Not only did individuals break the rules, but they did so at the behest of the institution, and there were no punishments of consequence. So why was our soldier wrong?
1. is it because this whole hypothetical is offbase? that US military personal in the late 90s didn’t believe that the US military would adhere to the GC?
2. or is it that US military folk did believe that but they were just incredibly naive?
3. or maybe they believed that but since then there’s been substantial turnover and the military is now staffed with people who have radically different ideas about the acceptability of torture?
Either way, it seems like there’s been a change and I think explorations of why and how that change occurred would be more helpful than bland truisms that civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
more to suggest that while the rules set down by Lieber are important, they weren’t a simple curative for these problems, but that civilizing man is something that requires constant effort and vigilance.
This seems…unhelpful.
If you had taken a member of the US Army circa 1999 and told them “hey, I know you guys talk about the Geneva Conventions, but the truth is, you’ll blow them off in a heartbeat once you’re in a war that’s going badly for you; all your precious ideals and moral commitments will turn to ash, not just for individuals but for the institution as a whole”, I think that they’d argue with you.
I’d guess that they would (justifiably) feel enraged, because being a part of a “good” military organization is a key component of their identity. American soldiers of my acquaintance took pride in the fact that they were more than thugs with guns but were part of a group that have very strong institutional norms about the GC and torture; that even if a few bad apples screwed up, the rest of the institution would recover and punish them.
But our hypothetical ’99 solider would be wrong. Not only did individuals break the rules, but they did so at the behest of the institution, and there were no punishments of consequence. So why was our soldier wrong?
1. is it because this whole hypothetical is offbase? that US military personal in the late 90s didn’t believe that the US military would adhere to the GC?
2. or is it that US military folk did believe that but they were just incredibly naive?
3. or maybe they believed that but since then there’s been substantial turnover and the military is now staffed with people who have radically different ideas about the acceptability of torture?
Either way, it seems like there’s been a change and I think explorations of why and how that change occurred would be more helpful than bland truisms that civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
Either way, it seems like there’s been a change and I think explorations of why and how that change occurred would be more helpful than bland truisms that civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
Well, get to it, then. Thanks in advance!
Either way, it seems like there’s been a change and I think explorations of why and how that change occurred would be more helpful than bland truisms that civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
Well, get to it, then. Thanks in advance!
hsh, see the last half of my 10:00pm comment and the three hypotheses posed in 10:43am comment.
hsh, see the last half of my 10:00pm comment and the three hypotheses posed in 10:43am comment.
Turbulence, I don’t think that most military personnel today think torture is ok.
I do think there may be a slightly higher % likely to engage in torture today because 1. They have actually been in combat and some have developed a dehumanizing hatred for a very foreign enemy that hates them, has tried to kill them and has successfully killed some of their buddies. This has happened before, as in the pacific in WW2. 2. Think about the Milgram experiments – some up the chain of command have been authorized to utilize torture (this is where Bush becomes responsible) and they order those under them to perform it. Orders are carried out.
Turbulence, I don’t think that most military personnel today think torture is ok.
I do think there may be a slightly higher % likely to engage in torture today because 1. They have actually been in combat and some have developed a dehumanizing hatred for a very foreign enemy that hates them, has tried to kill them and has successfully killed some of their buddies. This has happened before, as in the pacific in WW2. 2. Think about the Milgram experiments – some up the chain of command have been authorized to utilize torture (this is where Bush becomes responsible) and they order those under them to perform it. Orders are carried out.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
they can certainly (in theory) pass an Amendment, which would stomp-out any argument the Executive branch might be able to make against a plain-old law.
i’m not saying it’s likely, of course, just that there are mechanisms in place which could permanently stop all the things people here are complaining about.
otherwise, we’re going to be eternally hoping that the people we elect president are strong enough of character to overpower the “national security” argument: that this guy will be the one to dismantle all the tools and unlearn the techniques that his predecessors have devised. and we will be eternally disappointed.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
they can certainly (in theory) pass an Amendment, which would stomp-out any argument the Executive branch might be able to make against a plain-old law.
i’m not saying it’s likely, of course, just that there are mechanisms in place which could permanently stop all the things people here are complaining about.
otherwise, we’re going to be eternally hoping that the people we elect president are strong enough of character to overpower the “national security” argument: that this guy will be the one to dismantle all the tools and unlearn the techniques that his predecessors have devised. and we will be eternally disappointed.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
They don’t seem to have tried. At all. Trying and failing would be one thing, but if you don’t even bother to try, maybe it is because you just don’t care….
I do think there may be a slightly higher % likely to engage in torture today because 1.
OK. But then why was Anthony Taguba’s career ended? If investigating torture means that your career is over, well, then the institution seems very comfortable with torture, right? And that’s not really compatible with a slightly higher percentage.
If you want to argue that the senior officer corps is rotten but the lower echelons are great, I’d be sympathetic, but you’d have to make the case.
Think about the Milgram experiments – some up the chain of command have been authorized to utilize torture (this is where Bush becomes responsible) and they order those under them to perform it. Orders are carried out.
I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders. If you think that our military culture is such that soldiers will do whatever they’re told, no matter how illegal, then torture might be the least of our problems.
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.
They don’t seem to have tried. At all. Trying and failing would be one thing, but if you don’t even bother to try, maybe it is because you just don’t care….
I do think there may be a slightly higher % likely to engage in torture today because 1.
OK. But then why was Anthony Taguba’s career ended? If investigating torture means that your career is over, well, then the institution seems very comfortable with torture, right? And that’s not really compatible with a slightly higher percentage.
If you want to argue that the senior officer corps is rotten but the lower echelons are great, I’d be sympathetic, but you’d have to make the case.
Think about the Milgram experiments – some up the chain of command have been authorized to utilize torture (this is where Bush becomes responsible) and they order those under them to perform it. Orders are carried out.
I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders. If you think that our military culture is such that soldiers will do whatever they’re told, no matter how illegal, then torture might be the least of our problems.
I remember reading a piece by the actor Richard Dreyfus, talking about how his father had tortured Nazi officers in the field, with a knife, to get information out of them.
IIRC it was also not-uncommon for WWII guys in some places in the Pacific theater to keep Japanese body parts (including skulls) as a trophy or souvenir.
Waterboarding was used by Americans in the field during the Phillipine uprisings after the Spanish American war.
Torture of VC, not uncommon during Vietnam.
The big difference since 9/11 is the establishment of torture as an official instrument of US policy, complete with extensive legal justification courtesy of the OLC.
My understanding is that Obama has ruled out waterboarding, specifically, but my understanding is also that a number of other ‘enhanced interrogation’ protocols are still available and in use.
So, perhaps an improvement over Bush, but the goalposts have still moved pretty far from previous to 9/11.
The US, as a nation, freaked the hell out. We have not yet gotten our heads back together, and likely will not in any time frame that I can foresee.
John Yoo engaged in a public conversation in which he asserted the President’s right to crush the testicles of the male child of someone suspected of terrorism. He retains his position as a professor of ConLaw at U.C. Berkeley.
That’s the state of the art.
I remember reading a piece by the actor Richard Dreyfus, talking about how his father had tortured Nazi officers in the field, with a knife, to get information out of them.
IIRC it was also not-uncommon for WWII guys in some places in the Pacific theater to keep Japanese body parts (including skulls) as a trophy or souvenir.
Waterboarding was used by Americans in the field during the Phillipine uprisings after the Spanish American war.
Torture of VC, not uncommon during Vietnam.
The big difference since 9/11 is the establishment of torture as an official instrument of US policy, complete with extensive legal justification courtesy of the OLC.
My understanding is that Obama has ruled out waterboarding, specifically, but my understanding is also that a number of other ‘enhanced interrogation’ protocols are still available and in use.
So, perhaps an improvement over Bush, but the goalposts have still moved pretty far from previous to 9/11.
The US, as a nation, freaked the hell out. We have not yet gotten our heads back together, and likely will not in any time frame that I can foresee.
John Yoo engaged in a public conversation in which he asserted the President’s right to crush the testicles of the male child of someone suspected of terrorism. He retains his position as a professor of ConLaw at U.C. Berkeley.
That’s the state of the art.
The ‘bland truism’ was just an attempt to try and end the comment on some sort of note without trying to provide a particular answer. I’m not sure if people have gotten worse, or if we had these categories of people that weren’t thought of as people before but now are.
At any rate, you are comparing the 1999 soldier with the 2012 soldier, but the OP was comparing the state of affairs in 1862 with today, and Donald specifically mentioned the Moro rebels in the Philippines insurgency, points I was trying to address. Placing the change between 1999 and 2012 on the background of the change between 1862 and 2012 makes it difficult to discuss precisely what change we are talking about.
To take a whack at causes for the more recent slide, certainly, lowered recruiting standards and multiple deployments play into this, as has the grind of counter insurgency, just as it did in Vietnam. There were several articles noting the linkage between stateside prisoner treatment and what happened at Abu Grahib (circa 2004) There was also several exchanges in the Congressional committees concerning questions of psychological torture, iirc, asking about exposing prisoners to spiders and snakes if they had a fear of them, which suggests that we don’t have a consensus about psychological aspects of torture (the articles that have been discussed here about solitary confinement come to mind).
My comment was trying to encourage some discussion of those points without trying to sound dismissive of torture, though comparing an ideal image of what some folks hold the armed forces to be with the current situation of standing insurgency that has lasted longer than WWII doesn’t really get at anything enlightening here, I think.
Russell suggests that the point is the adoption of torture as policy, and if that was what Doctor Science was getting at, I apologize for misreading, but I thought that the discussion of 24 and our general attitudes towards torture was what she was getting at.
The ‘bland truism’ was just an attempt to try and end the comment on some sort of note without trying to provide a particular answer. I’m not sure if people have gotten worse, or if we had these categories of people that weren’t thought of as people before but now are.
At any rate, you are comparing the 1999 soldier with the 2012 soldier, but the OP was comparing the state of affairs in 1862 with today, and Donald specifically mentioned the Moro rebels in the Philippines insurgency, points I was trying to address. Placing the change between 1999 and 2012 on the background of the change between 1862 and 2012 makes it difficult to discuss precisely what change we are talking about.
To take a whack at causes for the more recent slide, certainly, lowered recruiting standards and multiple deployments play into this, as has the grind of counter insurgency, just as it did in Vietnam. There were several articles noting the linkage between stateside prisoner treatment and what happened at Abu Grahib (circa 2004) There was also several exchanges in the Congressional committees concerning questions of psychological torture, iirc, asking about exposing prisoners to spiders and snakes if they had a fear of them, which suggests that we don’t have a consensus about psychological aspects of torture (the articles that have been discussed here about solitary confinement come to mind).
My comment was trying to encourage some discussion of those points without trying to sound dismissive of torture, though comparing an ideal image of what some folks hold the armed forces to be with the current situation of standing insurgency that has lasted longer than WWII doesn’t really get at anything enlightening here, I think.
Russell suggests that the point is the adoption of torture as policy, and if that was what Doctor Science was getting at, I apologize for misreading, but I thought that the discussion of 24 and our general attitudes towards torture was what she was getting at.
Trivial sidenote: the Philippine “insurgents” that the US was fighting – and torturing – up through 1902 were not “Moros” (Muslims of the southern Philippines) but (Christian) Filipinos, who had declared their independence under Aguinaldo in 1898 and saw the USA try to take this away from them from 1899 onward, resisting the US in what is now referred to as the “Philippine-American [or Filipino-American] War,” rather than the “Insurgency” or “Insurrection.” This is the era of documented waterboarding (the “water cure”).
The “Moro” conflict in the south didn’t really get going until later, after the Americans had captured Aguinaldo (1901) and “pacified” most of the lowland/Christian Philippines (1902-3/4/5?). It had its own share of atrocities, notably the Bud Djago massacre of unarmed civilians (cf. Wounded Knee?), before the USA imposed its rule firmly.
None of which affects any of the arguments above, I believe.
Trivial sidenote: the Philippine “insurgents” that the US was fighting – and torturing – up through 1902 were not “Moros” (Muslims of the southern Philippines) but (Christian) Filipinos, who had declared their independence under Aguinaldo in 1898 and saw the USA try to take this away from them from 1899 onward, resisting the US in what is now referred to as the “Philippine-American [or Filipino-American] War,” rather than the “Insurgency” or “Insurrection.” This is the era of documented waterboarding (the “water cure”).
The “Moro” conflict in the south didn’t really get going until later, after the Americans had captured Aguinaldo (1901) and “pacified” most of the lowland/Christian Philippines (1902-3/4/5?). It had its own share of atrocities, notably the Bud Djago massacre of unarmed civilians (cf. Wounded Knee?), before the USA imposed its rule firmly.
None of which affects any of the arguments above, I believe.
“OK. But then why was Anthony Taguba’s career ended? If investigating torture means that your career is over, well, then the institution seems very comfortable with torture, right? And that’s not really compatible with a slightly higher percentage.”
It’s the top brass that ends careers; not enlisted and filed grade officers. I was referring to the latter, which, of course, constitute the vasy majority of the military.
“I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders. If you think that our military culture is such that soldiers will do whatever they’re told, no matter how illegal, then torture might be the least of our problems.”
Uh, the military trains the lower levels to follow orders blindly. Yes, there is a provision that allows for an illegal order to be disobeyed, but that instinct is drilled out of many personnel and, even for those who still have it, it can be a career killer move, even if the order was illegal. Politics, politics and bureaucracy.
“If you want to argue that the senior officer corps is rotten but the lower echelons are great, I’d be sympathetic, but you’d have to make the case.”
Look, no lower echelon troop can torture a pow, especially not a high value pow, without orders from above. They’d be in the brig and then off to Leavenworth otherwise. BTW….There is no way that what happened at Abu Graib could have happened without the top sanctioning it. No way.
I think society’s attitude toward torture has changed. That the enemy are fanatics, attacked the US, hate us, fight a “dirty” insurgency using suicide bombers, kill women and children, are generally crazy islamists, etc, etc makes it easier for society to shift to a more accepting position on torture.
Then we have a general shift in society to a more barbarous outlook; gangsta rap, tv and fim glorifying violence more than ever before, young people with tattoes all over their bodies and piercings through their noses, lips and other sensitive areas, military personnel as “warriors” instead of citizen soldiers………there’s a whole shift to the primitive mentality, of which torture of ones enemies is a norm.
“OK. But then why was Anthony Taguba’s career ended? If investigating torture means that your career is over, well, then the institution seems very comfortable with torture, right? And that’s not really compatible with a slightly higher percentage.”
It’s the top brass that ends careers; not enlisted and filed grade officers. I was referring to the latter, which, of course, constitute the vasy majority of the military.
“I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders. If you think that our military culture is such that soldiers will do whatever they’re told, no matter how illegal, then torture might be the least of our problems.”
Uh, the military trains the lower levels to follow orders blindly. Yes, there is a provision that allows for an illegal order to be disobeyed, but that instinct is drilled out of many personnel and, even for those who still have it, it can be a career killer move, even if the order was illegal. Politics, politics and bureaucracy.
“If you want to argue that the senior officer corps is rotten but the lower echelons are great, I’d be sympathetic, but you’d have to make the case.”
Look, no lower echelon troop can torture a pow, especially not a high value pow, without orders from above. They’d be in the brig and then off to Leavenworth otherwise. BTW….There is no way that what happened at Abu Graib could have happened without the top sanctioning it. No way.
I think society’s attitude toward torture has changed. That the enemy are fanatics, attacked the US, hate us, fight a “dirty” insurgency using suicide bombers, kill women and children, are generally crazy islamists, etc, etc makes it easier for society to shift to a more accepting position on torture.
Then we have a general shift in society to a more barbarous outlook; gangsta rap, tv and fim glorifying violence more than ever before, young people with tattoes all over their bodies and piercings through their noses, lips and other sensitive areas, military personnel as “warriors” instead of citizen soldiers………there’s a whole shift to the primitive mentality, of which torture of ones enemies is a norm.
“”cleek: Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.”
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.”
It would take a Congress in which both chambers were sufficiently determined to stop this stuff, to go ahead and impeach the President after he violated those laws. With each administration, Presidents get more casual about violating laws; We’re evolving into a dictatorship, inch by inch.
Mainly because Congress finds it too much work to actually do their jobs.
“”cleek: Congress could write laws to stop this stuff, any time they want.”
You know, I’d like to think so, but not sure I do anymore.”
It would take a Congress in which both chambers were sufficiently determined to stop this stuff, to go ahead and impeach the President after he violated those laws. With each administration, Presidents get more casual about violating laws; We’re evolving into a dictatorship, inch by inch.
Mainly because Congress finds it too much work to actually do their jobs.
russell: John Yoo engaged in a public conversation in which he asserted the President’s right to crush the testicles of the male child of someone suspected of terrorism.
I was going to mention this in response to cleek’s note that Congress could put a stop to things if it wished. Even if they reported out a Constitutional amendment, they’d need the states to go along.
Turb: They don’t seem to have tried. At all. Trying and failing would be one thing, but if you don’t even bother to try, maybe it is because you just don’t care….
I agree with this. My guess is we will never see anything like the Church Committee again (or even the Iran-Contra hearings), as the National Security ratchet seems to only go one way these days.
Congress seems to have lost respect for itself as a co-equal branch of government. Instead, they’re either for or against whatever the President wants to do, based primarily on party affiliation.
russell: John Yoo engaged in a public conversation in which he asserted the President’s right to crush the testicles of the male child of someone suspected of terrorism.
I was going to mention this in response to cleek’s note that Congress could put a stop to things if it wished. Even if they reported out a Constitutional amendment, they’d need the states to go along.
Turb: They don’t seem to have tried. At all. Trying and failing would be one thing, but if you don’t even bother to try, maybe it is because you just don’t care….
I agree with this. My guess is we will never see anything like the Church Committee again (or even the Iran-Contra hearings), as the National Security ratchet seems to only go one way these days.
Congress seems to have lost respect for itself as a co-equal branch of government. Instead, they’re either for or against whatever the President wants to do, based primarily on party affiliation.
“I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders.”
I don’t know what “the whole point” refers to, but where did you get this impression? Is this a normative statement or descriptive one?
My impression is that the lower levels DO follow orders blindly.
“I thought the whole point of the military is that the lower levels don’t follow orders blindly and in fact refuse to perform illegal orders.”
I don’t know what “the whole point” refers to, but where did you get this impression? Is this a normative statement or descriptive one?
My impression is that the lower levels DO follow orders blindly.
Just adding my two cents to the Congress/President thing, yes, maybe that is what has changed. At one time Congress seemed to take its oversight responsibilities seriously at least some of the time. I think Kennedy did an investigation into civilian casualties in Vietnam (not sure, but I think so.) There was a lot of (sometimes not reported) questioning done by Democrats in Congress of Reagan’s Central American policies. There was the Church investigations into the CIA.
Imagine Congress investigating the torture policies of the Bush people. Wouldn’t happen, anymore than Obama was willing to do it. I don’t think it’s a question of blaming one branch and absolving the other–they are both responsible and both have failed.
Just adding my two cents to the Congress/President thing, yes, maybe that is what has changed. At one time Congress seemed to take its oversight responsibilities seriously at least some of the time. I think Kennedy did an investigation into civilian casualties in Vietnam (not sure, but I think so.) There was a lot of (sometimes not reported) questioning done by Democrats in Congress of Reagan’s Central American policies. There was the Church investigations into the CIA.
Imagine Congress investigating the torture policies of the Bush people. Wouldn’t happen, anymore than Obama was willing to do it. I don’t think it’s a question of blaming one branch and absolving the other–they are both responsible and both have failed.
re: Brett Bellmore
Clausewitz discusses assassination at length, and comes to the conclusion that it’s counterproductive, since the enemy leadership is the only force in enemy society which can sign a peace treaty. For example, if the US had killed Emperor Hirohito in WWII, no other authority could have ordered the later Japanese surrender, and considerably more lives would have been lost.
Clausewitz is studied in most military officer training courses, so his point of view is hardly obscure.
re: main post
Lincoln may have approved those rules of combat, but he also approved Sherman’s offensive. Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.
re: Brett Bellmore
Clausewitz discusses assassination at length, and comes to the conclusion that it’s counterproductive, since the enemy leadership is the only force in enemy society which can sign a peace treaty. For example, if the US had killed Emperor Hirohito in WWII, no other authority could have ordered the later Japanese surrender, and considerably more lives would have been lost.
Clausewitz is studied in most military officer training courses, so his point of view is hardly obscure.
re: main post
Lincoln may have approved those rules of combat, but he also approved Sherman’s offensive. Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.
Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.
principles are those things which your enemy, by virtue of not having any, forces you to give up in order to defeat him.
Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.
principles are those things which your enemy, by virtue of not having any, forces you to give up in order to defeat him.
My understanding is that Obama has ruled out waterboarding, specifically, but my understanding is also that a number of other ‘enhanced interrogation’ protocols are still available and in use.
So, perhaps an improvement over Bush, but the goalposts have still moved pretty far from previous to 9/11.
Unless you talk about specific “enhanced interrogations,” and find one that is a moved goal post, I don’t think that the goal posts have moved. The Bush regime was an anomaly. Obama has repeatedly stated not only that he opposes water boarding, but that torture is not allowed. If he’s countenancing “enhanced interrogation” that is tantamount to torture, someone should describe it in more than just offhand terms.
My understanding is that Obama has ruled out waterboarding, specifically, but my understanding is also that a number of other ‘enhanced interrogation’ protocols are still available and in use.
So, perhaps an improvement over Bush, but the goalposts have still moved pretty far from previous to 9/11.
Unless you talk about specific “enhanced interrogations,” and find one that is a moved goal post, I don’t think that the goal posts have moved. The Bush regime was an anomaly. Obama has repeatedly stated not only that he opposes water boarding, but that torture is not allowed. If he’s countenancing “enhanced interrogation” that is tantamount to torture, someone should describe it in more than just offhand terms.
Actually, I’d like to note that the Lieber code was rather old-fashioned. It was just a recitation of the customary law of war that had not changed for more than a century. Mainly, the fact that putting such thing into writing was necessary, shows that the Union forces were not ingrained in the military culture of their time. A continental career officer simply knew these things.
The main function of Lieber code was a domestic one: it provided the confederate soldiers with the same rights as the soldiers of a civilized independent nation-state. By the contemporary international and domestic law, the confederate military personnel would have been liable for execution as traitors and rebels.
However, the Hague conventions of 1907 included a very important qualification in the list of persons with the privileges of the lawful combatant:
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
In Lieber code, these persons would have been considered guerillas liable for summary execution.
This was an important development. The nationalist ideologies saw such spontaneous uprising as a national duty of the population. Thus, persons engaging in such act were honourable lawful combatants.
Actually, I’d like to note that the Lieber code was rather old-fashioned. It was just a recitation of the customary law of war that had not changed for more than a century. Mainly, the fact that putting such thing into writing was necessary, shows that the Union forces were not ingrained in the military culture of their time. A continental career officer simply knew these things.
The main function of Lieber code was a domestic one: it provided the confederate soldiers with the same rights as the soldiers of a civilized independent nation-state. By the contemporary international and domestic law, the confederate military personnel would have been liable for execution as traitors and rebels.
However, the Hague conventions of 1907 included a very important qualification in the list of persons with the privileges of the lawful combatant:
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
In Lieber code, these persons would have been considered guerillas liable for summary execution.
This was an important development. The nationalist ideologies saw such spontaneous uprising as a national duty of the population. Thus, persons engaging in such act were honourable lawful combatants.
“Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.”
But hypocrisy’s sincerity during war is so much more thrilling than the pretense of peace.
“Hypocrisy is ubiquitous in war.”
But hypocrisy’s sincerity during war is so much more thrilling than the pretense of peace.
“Clausewitz discusses assassination at length, and comes to the conclusion that it’s counterproductive, since the enemy leadership is the only force in enemy society which can sign a peace treaty…..
Yes. That is what I said.
“Clausewitz discusses assassination at length, and comes to the conclusion that it’s counterproductive, since the enemy leadership is the only force in enemy society which can sign a peace treaty…..
Yes. That is what I said.
……….however, terrorist leaders are a different story. As was Saddam, apparently. This was an interesting op (Iraq2). It was a more an attempt at coup d’etat executed on a massive scale. Some weirdo neocon newthink.
……….however, terrorist leaders are a different story. As was Saddam, apparently. This was an interesting op (Iraq2). It was a more an attempt at coup d’etat executed on a massive scale. Some weirdo neocon newthink.
Here’s an op ed in the NYT from January 2010 that says there are still loopholes that allow abusive interrogations by the US–
link
Here’s an op ed in the NYT from January 2010 that says there are still loopholes that allow abusive interrogations by the US–
link
Obama has repeatedly stated not only that he opposes water boarding, but that torture is not allowed. If he’s countenancing “enhanced interrogation” that is tantamount to torture, someone should describe it in more than just offhand terms.
This is a very good point.
My understanding is that interrogation, for all agencies (i.e., military, FBI, CIA) is now limited to what is allowed in the US Army Field Manual.
As Donald’s link notes, that still allows for some treatment that can be considered abusive, but it very arguably falls short of any form of torture, and falls *well* short of what was permitted under Bush.
IMO goalposts have moved in other areas – detention, surveillance, etc. – but I believe my comment upthread overstated the tolerance for anything approaching torture in the Obama regime.
In other words, I think my statement upthread was wrong.
We’re evolving into a dictatorship, inch by inch.
This sort of seems a little overwrought at first glance, but IMO it has real merit.
I’m not sure if dictatorship, specifically, is where we are headed, but I certainly agree that we are headed in directions other than republic.
Obama has repeatedly stated not only that he opposes water boarding, but that torture is not allowed. If he’s countenancing “enhanced interrogation” that is tantamount to torture, someone should describe it in more than just offhand terms.
This is a very good point.
My understanding is that interrogation, for all agencies (i.e., military, FBI, CIA) is now limited to what is allowed in the US Army Field Manual.
As Donald’s link notes, that still allows for some treatment that can be considered abusive, but it very arguably falls short of any form of torture, and falls *well* short of what was permitted under Bush.
IMO goalposts have moved in other areas – detention, surveillance, etc. – but I believe my comment upthread overstated the tolerance for anything approaching torture in the Obama regime.
In other words, I think my statement upthread was wrong.
We’re evolving into a dictatorship, inch by inch.
This sort of seems a little overwrought at first glance, but IMO it has real merit.
I’m not sure if dictatorship, specifically, is where we are headed, but I certainly agree that we are headed in directions other than republic.
Some of the possible abuses under the current system could amount to torture, I think. Whether they are actually occurring now I don’t know. Also, this article was over 2 years old and I don’t know the current situation. I’ll cut and paste the last few paragraphs from my link–
” some interrogators feel the manual’s language gives them a loophole that allows them to give a detainee four hours of sleep and then conduct a 20-hour interrogation, after which they can “reset” the clock and begin another 20-hour interrogation followed by four hours of sleep. This is inconsistent with the spirit of the reforms, which was to prevent “monstering” — extended interrogation sessions lasting more than 20 hours. American interrogators are more than capable of doing their jobs without the loopholes.
The Field Manual, to its credit, calls for “all captured and detained personnel, regardless of status” to be “treated humanely.” But when it comes to the specifics the manual contradicts itself, allowing actions that no right-thinking person could consider humane.
The greatest shame of the last year, perhaps, is that the argument over interrogations has shifted from debating what is legal to considering what is just “better than before.” The best way to change things is to update the field manual again to bring our treatment of detainees up to the minimum standard of humane treatment.
The next version of the manual should prohibit solitary confinement for more than, say, two weeks, all stress positions and forms of environmental manipulation, imprisonment in tight spaces and sleep deprivation. Unless we rewrite the book, we will only continue to give Al Qaeda a recruiting tool, to earn the contempt of our allies and to debase our most cherished ideals.
Some of the possible abuses under the current system could amount to torture, I think. Whether they are actually occurring now I don’t know. Also, this article was over 2 years old and I don’t know the current situation. I’ll cut and paste the last few paragraphs from my link–
” some interrogators feel the manual’s language gives them a loophole that allows them to give a detainee four hours of sleep and then conduct a 20-hour interrogation, after which they can “reset” the clock and begin another 20-hour interrogation followed by four hours of sleep. This is inconsistent with the spirit of the reforms, which was to prevent “monstering” — extended interrogation sessions lasting more than 20 hours. American interrogators are more than capable of doing their jobs without the loopholes.
The Field Manual, to its credit, calls for “all captured and detained personnel, regardless of status” to be “treated humanely.” But when it comes to the specifics the manual contradicts itself, allowing actions that no right-thinking person could consider humane.
The greatest shame of the last year, perhaps, is that the argument over interrogations has shifted from debating what is legal to considering what is just “better than before.” The best way to change things is to update the field manual again to bring our treatment of detainees up to the minimum standard of humane treatment.
The next version of the manual should prohibit solitary confinement for more than, say, two weeks, all stress positions and forms of environmental manipulation, imprisonment in tight spaces and sleep deprivation. Unless we rewrite the book, we will only continue to give Al Qaeda a recruiting tool, to earn the contempt of our allies and to debase our most cherished ideals.
“Whether they are actually occurring now I don’t know. Also, this article was over 2 years old and I don’t know the current situation. ”
Editing is a good thing, something I should try. I meant that I don’t know whether people are actually being tortured by the US right now (my first point) and I also don’t know if anything has been done regarding the Field Manual. Two separate issues.
“Whether they are actually occurring now I don’t know. Also, this article was over 2 years old and I don’t know the current situation. ”
Editing is a good thing, something I should try. I meant that I don’t know whether people are actually being tortured by the US right now (my first point) and I also don’t know if anything has been done regarding the Field Manual. Two separate issues.
civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
The ancient Hebrews used the metaphor of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to describe this – we should be able to make these decisions, we know the difference between Right and Wrong.
So why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
Interesting discussion, thanks, Doctor Science.
civilizing man is a task that’s never complete.
The ancient Hebrews used the metaphor of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to describe this – we should be able to make these decisions, we know the difference between Right and Wrong.
So why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
Interesting discussion, thanks, Doctor Science.
why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
Pathei mathos
why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
Pathei mathos
Mind, Obama doesn’t have to have people tortured by American forces, so long as he has allies like Kuwait to outsource the work to. I’m afraid the change in administration only involved a lesser degree of transparency in torture. (As in all else.)
Mind, Obama doesn’t have to have people tortured by American forces, so long as he has allies like Kuwait to outsource the work to. I’m afraid the change in administration only involved a lesser degree of transparency in torture. (As in all else.)
Thanks, russell, for acknowledging my defense of Obama. I want people who try to get credit.
I am totally opposed to policies of government that countenance torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Period.
So why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
We should always be struggling with this. We will probably always have war. How to deal with a basically inhumane concept in a way that preserves elements of morality and human dignity is one of the great issues. We could similarly ask why, several thousand years later, we’re still dealing with issues of forbidden love. It’s because we’re human.
Thanks, russell, for acknowledging my defense of Obama. I want people who try to get credit.
I am totally opposed to policies of government that countenance torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Period.
So why is it, several thousand years later, we are still struggling with this?
We should always be struggling with this. We will probably always have war. How to deal with a basically inhumane concept in a way that preserves elements of morality and human dignity is one of the great issues. We could similarly ask why, several thousand years later, we’re still dealing with issues of forbidden love. It’s because we’re human.
Thanks, joel hanes. Saw that too late to respond.
Thanks, joel hanes. Saw that too late to respond.
Bush tortured – Obama kills.
Bush tortured – Obama kills.
Pathei mathos
Aeschylos:
I find this one of the truest things ever written.
I’m not a classical Greek, and have a somewhat different understanding of the workings of grace, I guess, so for “the grace of gods enthroned etc.” I would probably just substitute “reality”.
But yeah, humans are stupidly, mulishly, incorrigibly stubborn, and in general only come to something like wisdom through difficulty and pain.
Unfortunately, it’s a process that has to be repeated anew with each generation.
I can’t think of a political regime in the history of the world that has been able to wield the arts of torture fairly, justly, or sanely, and without abusing them for their own self-interest and aggrandizement.
I suspect that it’s the nature of torture, in and of itself, that makes it impossible for anyone to do so. It’s a poison pill.
Folks who think that suddenly we will be able to do so because we are The Good Guys are, in my opinion, out of their freaking minds. They are divorced from plain and obvious reality.
What makes a people and a nation fair and just is acting fairly and justly. What makes a people and a nation respectful of human rights is respecting human rights.
“They did it first” and/or “they do it too” is the argument of a two year old.
Deeds, not words. There is no shortcut.
Pathei mathos
Aeschylos:
I find this one of the truest things ever written.
I’m not a classical Greek, and have a somewhat different understanding of the workings of grace, I guess, so for “the grace of gods enthroned etc.” I would probably just substitute “reality”.
But yeah, humans are stupidly, mulishly, incorrigibly stubborn, and in general only come to something like wisdom through difficulty and pain.
Unfortunately, it’s a process that has to be repeated anew with each generation.
I can’t think of a political regime in the history of the world that has been able to wield the arts of torture fairly, justly, or sanely, and without abusing them for their own self-interest and aggrandizement.
I suspect that it’s the nature of torture, in and of itself, that makes it impossible for anyone to do so. It’s a poison pill.
Folks who think that suddenly we will be able to do so because we are The Good Guys are, in my opinion, out of their freaking minds. They are divorced from plain and obvious reality.
What makes a people and a nation fair and just is acting fairly and justly. What makes a people and a nation respectful of human rights is respecting human rights.
“They did it first” and/or “they do it too” is the argument of a two year old.
Deeds, not words. There is no shortcut.
Deeds, not words. There is no shortcut.
My momma told me “You can make your mouth say anything.” She is really smart.
Deeds, not words. There is no shortcut.
My momma told me “You can make your mouth say anything.” She is really smart.
What makes a people and a nation fair and just is acting fairly and justly.
No argument here. I guess the eternal question is what is fair, and what is just?
I’m not a pacifist, so I have to wrestle with what is fair and what is just. My father helped defeat Hitler. His actions (very much putting his own life on the line) was fair and just. I will not second guess that. And although maybe (?) I’m happy to turn the other cheek against al Qaeda, I’m not going to turn my neighbor’s cheek. It’s not fair and just to let them kill innocents.
What makes a people and a nation fair and just is acting fairly and justly.
No argument here. I guess the eternal question is what is fair, and what is just?
I’m not a pacifist, so I have to wrestle with what is fair and what is just. My father helped defeat Hitler. His actions (very much putting his own life on the line) was fair and just. I will not second guess that. And although maybe (?) I’m happy to turn the other cheek against al Qaeda, I’m not going to turn my neighbor’s cheek. It’s not fair and just to let them kill innocents.
sorry for the inability to make verbs and nouns agree.
sorry for the inability to make verbs and nouns agree.
Lurker @ 3:20 pm:
” Mainly, the fact that putting such thing into writing was necessary, shows that the Union forces were not ingrained in the military culture of their time. A continental career officer simply knew these things.”
Of course they weren’t ingrained with contemporary military culture. Most Union officers and soldiers were volunteers or draftees, and not career military. When state volunteers mustered up it was common practice for the new unit to elect its officers. There were even generals with no prior military experience who were commissioned for political reasons.
From what I have read, there were a couple of forces that worked together to produce torture. First was the fact of fighting a shadowy non-uniformed groups that we knew little about. When your friends outside the wire are being killed and the guy in front of you might know something that can stop that from happening there is enormous psychological pressure to start cutting corners. Discipline and support from the commanding officers is needed to curb the temptation to torture. This is something that was all too often lacking. This attitude came straight from the top, since IMO Bush and many of his advisers frankly were a bunch of bullies and so were disposed to tolerate roughing the bad guys. I expect the comparisons of Abu Ghraib to college hazing were perfectly sincere; they also proved less than those interlocutors thought given that college hazings occasionally kill people. Then there was the use of private military contractors. Where PMCs fit into the command structure was vague at best, which made it even harder to keep them disciplined.
There are some practical problems with prosecuting the bastards who so richly deserve it. First is that since the Republicans are primed to start a shitstorm over the issue, seriously pursuing prosecutions would divert large amounts of attention from the bazillion other problems Bush left us. Next are the damn torture memos. Yes, they are BS that has since been repudiated, but when they were in force you have guys getting orders to torture along with an official legal memo saying that the orders are legal. Military contractors rear up again. Not only was their chain of command nebulous, it was unclear what legal jurisdiction, if any, they were working under.
Lurker @ 3:20 pm:
” Mainly, the fact that putting such thing into writing was necessary, shows that the Union forces were not ingrained in the military culture of their time. A continental career officer simply knew these things.”
Of course they weren’t ingrained with contemporary military culture. Most Union officers and soldiers were volunteers or draftees, and not career military. When state volunteers mustered up it was common practice for the new unit to elect its officers. There were even generals with no prior military experience who were commissioned for political reasons.
From what I have read, there were a couple of forces that worked together to produce torture. First was the fact of fighting a shadowy non-uniformed groups that we knew little about. When your friends outside the wire are being killed and the guy in front of you might know something that can stop that from happening there is enormous psychological pressure to start cutting corners. Discipline and support from the commanding officers is needed to curb the temptation to torture. This is something that was all too often lacking. This attitude came straight from the top, since IMO Bush and many of his advisers frankly were a bunch of bullies and so were disposed to tolerate roughing the bad guys. I expect the comparisons of Abu Ghraib to college hazing were perfectly sincere; they also proved less than those interlocutors thought given that college hazings occasionally kill people. Then there was the use of private military contractors. Where PMCs fit into the command structure was vague at best, which made it even harder to keep them disciplined.
There are some practical problems with prosecuting the bastards who so richly deserve it. First is that since the Republicans are primed to start a shitstorm over the issue, seriously pursuing prosecutions would divert large amounts of attention from the bazillion other problems Bush left us. Next are the damn torture memos. Yes, they are BS that has since been repudiated, but when they were in force you have guys getting orders to torture along with an official legal memo saying that the orders are legal. Military contractors rear up again. Not only was their chain of command nebulous, it was unclear what legal jurisdiction, if any, they were working under.
so I have to wrestle with what is fair and what is just.
All well and good, but let us see some evidence of this “wrestling”. I mean, our Founders fought a prolonged bloody war over a frigging tax ‘fer christ’s sake. How just was that? Was the blood shed worth it? If Palestinian rights are routinely stamped on by Israel, why can they not resort to violence? Why is their violence ‘worse’ than Israel’s?
And please. The innocent? Really? You want to add up the bodies? The West loses by a very big margin.
I do not mind a good debate about policy, but the repeated and mindless invocation of, “Look over there. Terrorists! They kill innocent people. Therefore our hygienic form of violence due to our possession of overwhelming resources is morally superior,” just doesn’t cut it.
Try something else for a change. Please and thanks.
so I have to wrestle with what is fair and what is just.
All well and good, but let us see some evidence of this “wrestling”. I mean, our Founders fought a prolonged bloody war over a frigging tax ‘fer christ’s sake. How just was that? Was the blood shed worth it? If Palestinian rights are routinely stamped on by Israel, why can they not resort to violence? Why is their violence ‘worse’ than Israel’s?
And please. The innocent? Really? You want to add up the bodies? The West loses by a very big margin.
I do not mind a good debate about policy, but the repeated and mindless invocation of, “Look over there. Terrorists! They kill innocent people. Therefore our hygienic form of violence due to our possession of overwhelming resources is morally superior,” just doesn’t cut it.
Try something else for a change. Please and thanks.
And please. The innocent? Really? You want to add up the bodies? The West loses by a very big margin.
Not sure I agree with that, unless you want to lump the Iraq war (which Obama, and I, and almost everyone I’m defending opposed).
And, yes, the experiment of the American Revolution was worth it. bobbyp, I often agree with everything you say, but not this. It’s easy to slam any civilization in history for its foibles.
Was history worth it? Don’t know. We’re here, and now. And I spend a good deal of my life being grateful and happy. And I’m not part of the 1%.
And please. The innocent? Really? You want to add up the bodies? The West loses by a very big margin.
Not sure I agree with that, unless you want to lump the Iraq war (which Obama, and I, and almost everyone I’m defending opposed).
And, yes, the experiment of the American Revolution was worth it. bobbyp, I often agree with everything you say, but not this. It’s easy to slam any civilization in history for its foibles.
Was history worth it? Don’t know. We’re here, and now. And I spend a good deal of my life being grateful and happy. And I’m not part of the 1%.
If Palestinian rights are routinely stamped on by Israel, why can they not resort to violence? Why is their violence ‘worse’ than Israel’s?
And, yes, I agree with you there. I think there’s an effort going on to recognize the rights of Palestinians. If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.
If Palestinian rights are routinely stamped on by Israel, why can they not resort to violence? Why is their violence ‘worse’ than Israel’s?
And, yes, I agree with you there. I think there’s an effort going on to recognize the rights of Palestinians. If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.
heckblazer, I think you’re totally right when you say:
First is that since the Republicans are primed to start a shitstorm over the issue, seriously pursuing prosecutions would divert large amounts of attention from the bazillion other problems Bush left us.
As to the Israeli/Palestinian issue: bobbyp: if you really think that any President has the option of coming out full force in favor of the Palestinians, then please do tell us how that would work politically. We don’t live in the land of Oz. I appreciate a lot of what you say, but maybe you should go back to FDL or somewhere as to this subject.
heckblazer, I think you’re totally right when you say:
First is that since the Republicans are primed to start a shitstorm over the issue, seriously pursuing prosecutions would divert large amounts of attention from the bazillion other problems Bush left us.
As to the Israeli/Palestinian issue: bobbyp: if you really think that any President has the option of coming out full force in favor of the Palestinians, then please do tell us how that would work politically. We don’t live in the land of Oz. I appreciate a lot of what you say, but maybe you should go back to FDL or somewhere as to this subject.
If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.
When gazing in wonder at our political elite’s so-called ‘discussion’ of the plight of the Palestinians, I observe no such debate. Feel free to correct me.
It’s easy to slam any civilization in history for its foibles.
Yes. It is easy. But I wrestle with the blood on my hands every time I enter a voting booth. After all, my taxes help fund acts which I consider heinous. Fortunately, I don’t have to vote every day.
If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.
When gazing in wonder at our political elite’s so-called ‘discussion’ of the plight of the Palestinians, I observe no such debate. Feel free to correct me.
It’s easy to slam any civilization in history for its foibles.
Yes. It is easy. But I wrestle with the blood on my hands every time I enter a voting booth. After all, my taxes help fund acts which I consider heinous. Fortunately, I don’t have to vote every day.
We don’t live in the land of Oz.
Yes. Sad but true. I guess those lines in the Declaration of Independence about pledging one’s life and sacred honor just don’t have the cachet they once had.
Perhaps that is the point of the Good Doctor’s post as you inquired about above.
Regards,
We don’t live in the land of Oz.
Yes. Sad but true. I guess those lines in the Declaration of Independence about pledging one’s life and sacred honor just don’t have the cachet they once had.
Perhaps that is the point of the Good Doctor’s post as you inquired about above.
Regards,
“And, yes, I agree with you there. I think there’s an effort going on to recognize the rights of Palestinians. If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.”
Oh, some of us look. It’s darn near invisible and when something pops up, like at the Democratic convention, it gets pushed back down. I recall Obama siding with Netanyahu when the PA tried to obtain recognition at the UN last fall. This fall the PA is deliberately going low key at the UN so as not to irritate the US before the election. Sort of pathetic, really.
Maybe Obama will do something if he wins. Maybe not. He got little support from either party for what little he did try his first term and folded. Romney’s comments on the video regarding the Palestinians showed his contempt for them (similar to his attitude towards the 47 percent), but his proposed policy isn’t all that different in reality from the bogus peace process we’ve had for decades. When things get tough we’re going to side with Israel and blame the Palestinians, even if some President might get a little testy with an Israeli PM from time to time. Why should the Israelis withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers from the West Bank? Who is going to pressure them to do it? The 2SS is looking about as unrealistic as a secular democratic single state with equal rights for all. The Palestinians should expect nothing from us except some platitudes, some lectures about the evils of terrorism, and maybe some US-made munitions dropping on their heads from time to time.
“There are some practical problems with prosecuting the bastards who so richly deserve it.”
True, but you know, I just can’t imagine the US government under either party getting serious about prosecuting any Western officials for war crimes, let alone US officials. What President would want that precedent set? Prosecuting whistleblowers is another story. No Administration appreciates them. Torture, unjust wars, supporting death squads, terrorist groups (excuse me, freedom fighters) etc…. Been there, done that, will do it again, can’t criminalize policy differences, time to move on. It’s easier to unite around the need to bomb foreigners than to be honest about our own record.
“And, yes, I agree with you there. I think there’s an effort going on to recognize the rights of Palestinians. If you don’t see that in the political debate right now, you’re not looking.”
Oh, some of us look. It’s darn near invisible and when something pops up, like at the Democratic convention, it gets pushed back down. I recall Obama siding with Netanyahu when the PA tried to obtain recognition at the UN last fall. This fall the PA is deliberately going low key at the UN so as not to irritate the US before the election. Sort of pathetic, really.
Maybe Obama will do something if he wins. Maybe not. He got little support from either party for what little he did try his first term and folded. Romney’s comments on the video regarding the Palestinians showed his contempt for them (similar to his attitude towards the 47 percent), but his proposed policy isn’t all that different in reality from the bogus peace process we’ve had for decades. When things get tough we’re going to side with Israel and blame the Palestinians, even if some President might get a little testy with an Israeli PM from time to time. Why should the Israelis withdraw hundreds of thousands of settlers from the West Bank? Who is going to pressure them to do it? The 2SS is looking about as unrealistic as a secular democratic single state with equal rights for all. The Palestinians should expect nothing from us except some platitudes, some lectures about the evils of terrorism, and maybe some US-made munitions dropping on their heads from time to time.
“There are some practical problems with prosecuting the bastards who so richly deserve it.”
True, but you know, I just can’t imagine the US government under either party getting serious about prosecuting any Western officials for war crimes, let alone US officials. What President would want that precedent set? Prosecuting whistleblowers is another story. No Administration appreciates them. Torture, unjust wars, supporting death squads, terrorist groups (excuse me, freedom fighters) etc…. Been there, done that, will do it again, can’t criminalize policy differences, time to move on. It’s easier to unite around the need to bomb foreigners than to be honest about our own record.
going off on the tangent of I/P relations, this from Haaretz was interesting
going off on the tangent of I/P relations, this from Haaretz was interesting
@cleek-
“principles are those things which your enemy, by virtue of not having any, forces you to give up in order to defeat him.”
Classic. Do you know if you’re related to La Rochefoucauld?
However, as to Congress maybe making a law to stop all this: Since 1994 the law of the United States has made it explicitly illegal, an any time or place, under any conditions, to engage in torture, with the circumstances in which there may be exceptions to the rule enumerated as follows:
“No extraordinary circumstances whatsoever”
This is, of course, the 1988 UN convention against torture, ratified by the U.S. Sentate in 1994.
And anyone who doubts that this became and now is the supreme law of the land really needs to re-read his or her Constitution (mutatis mutandis for our non-US readers). It will do you good.
One hates to belabor the point, but our enemies seem to have succeeded all too well in convincing the masses that there is no such law in force.
(If you’re the kind of crackpot who claims that the Supreme Commander is not bound by the covenant from which, exclusively, he derives his power, I’ll not waste my time arguing with Yoo.)
But then, as to Congress doing anything to follow up and put teeth in this (as the existing supreme law of the United States requires) — well, OK, no argument there.
@cleek-
“principles are those things which your enemy, by virtue of not having any, forces you to give up in order to defeat him.”
Classic. Do you know if you’re related to La Rochefoucauld?
However, as to Congress maybe making a law to stop all this: Since 1994 the law of the United States has made it explicitly illegal, an any time or place, under any conditions, to engage in torture, with the circumstances in which there may be exceptions to the rule enumerated as follows:
“No extraordinary circumstances whatsoever”
This is, of course, the 1988 UN convention against torture, ratified by the U.S. Sentate in 1994.
And anyone who doubts that this became and now is the supreme law of the land really needs to re-read his or her Constitution (mutatis mutandis for our non-US readers). It will do you good.
One hates to belabor the point, but our enemies seem to have succeeded all too well in convincing the masses that there is no such law in force.
(If you’re the kind of crackpot who claims that the Supreme Commander is not bound by the covenant from which, exclusively, he derives his power, I’ll not waste my time arguing with Yoo.)
But then, as to Congress doing anything to follow up and put teeth in this (as the existing supreme law of the United States requires) — well, OK, no argument there.
Bush tortured – Obama kills.
Bush didn’t kill?
Bush tortured – Obama kills.
Bush didn’t kill?
Under the Bush administration one got the impression that torture to a degree became a goal in itself with highly successful information gathering at times aborted in favor of torture (and not always because the info gathered otherwise was ‘inconvenient’ because it contradicted the current policy justifications). And at least in the rhetorics I think I caught glimpses of the Roman principle that mandated torture for certain groups* and made evidence non-admissable in court unless it could be proven that the suspect had been properly tortured.
There were also strong hints of ‘if we can legally torture, then we can do anything. So let’s set precedent!’.
*slaves in particular. It was legal doctrine that (untortured) slaves always lie in court
Under the Bush administration one got the impression that torture to a degree became a goal in itself with highly successful information gathering at times aborted in favor of torture (and not always because the info gathered otherwise was ‘inconvenient’ because it contradicted the current policy justifications). And at least in the rhetorics I think I caught glimpses of the Roman principle that mandated torture for certain groups* and made evidence non-admissable in court unless it could be proven that the suspect had been properly tortured.
There were also strong hints of ‘if we can legally torture, then we can do anything. So let’s set precedent!’.
*slaves in particular. It was legal doctrine that (untortured) slaves always lie in court
Hartmut: “Under the Bush administration one got the impression that torture to a degree became a goal in itself…”
Well, sure. Because those DVDs of tortured prisoners was how Cheney got his jollies.
It’s pretty bad when national policy is set by who has the freakiest kinks on the Cabinet.
As for passing a constitutional amendment against torture, wouldn’t that be redundant? I have a vague, dim memory, something about “cruel and unusual punishment”. But perhaps that was a dream, some archaic leftover of a bygone age.
You want to stop torture? Torture right-wing Republians. Like Terry Nichols. I’m sure that he could give up more co-conspirators, if given the right incentive.
Hartmut: “Under the Bush administration one got the impression that torture to a degree became a goal in itself…”
Well, sure. Because those DVDs of tortured prisoners was how Cheney got his jollies.
It’s pretty bad when national policy is set by who has the freakiest kinks on the Cabinet.
As for passing a constitutional amendment against torture, wouldn’t that be redundant? I have a vague, dim memory, something about “cruel and unusual punishment”. But perhaps that was a dream, some archaic leftover of a bygone age.
You want to stop torture? Torture right-wing Republians. Like Terry Nichols. I’m sure that he could give up more co-conspirators, if given the right incentive.
Why not start with the ‘I am not a witch’ lady? 😉
(Christine O’Donnell not Connie Booth just to be ckear)
Why not start with the ‘I am not a witch’ lady? 😉
(Christine O’Donnell not Connie Booth just to be ckear)
As for passing a constitutional amendment against torture, wouldn’t that be redundant? I have a vague, dim memory, something about “cruel and unusual punishment”
in the mind of Scalia, at least, that doesn’t apply because torture is not punishment; nobody has been convicted of anything; it’s coercive, not punitive.
As for passing a constitutional amendment against torture, wouldn’t that be redundant? I have a vague, dim memory, something about “cruel and unusual punishment”
in the mind of Scalia, at least, that doesn’t apply because torture is not punishment; nobody has been convicted of anything; it’s coercive, not punitive.
There’s a new study out on drone strikes. Glenn has a summary, but here’s a link to the study itself (pdf file)
link
There’s a new study out on drone strikes. Glenn has a summary, but here’s a link to the study itself (pdf file)
link
“And anyone who doubts that this became and now is the supreme law of the land really needs to re-read his or her Constitution (mutatis mutandis for our non-US readers). It will do you good.”
Living constitution. You can’t bring a constitution to “life” and have it live only the way you want. Doesn’t work that way. You set things up so the parts of the Constitution you don’t like won’t be enforced, the parts you do like won’t get enforced either.
Mechanisms for defeating a constitution aren’t that selective.
“And anyone who doubts that this became and now is the supreme law of the land really needs to re-read his or her Constitution (mutatis mutandis for our non-US readers). It will do you good.”
Living constitution. You can’t bring a constitution to “life” and have it live only the way you want. Doesn’t work that way. You set things up so the parts of the Constitution you don’t like won’t be enforced, the parts you do like won’t get enforced either.
Mechanisms for defeating a constitution aren’t that selective.
What does “cruel and unusual punishment” mean, Brett?
What does “cruel and unusual punishment” mean, Brett?
Ever notice how it’s always the one same clause, every time?
The argument against living constitutionalism isn’t that the entire Constitution is perfectly unambiguous. It’s that it isn’t ALL ambiguous. You can’t just point to one clause that practically screams out, “this is a judgement call”, and use it as an excuse to treat the entire document like a Rorschach blot.
“Cruel and unusual” demands the exercise of judgement. But I know this: It’s not elastic enough to permit water boarding.
What does “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” mean, Phil? Growing something in the garden in your back yard?
Ever notice how it’s always the one same clause, every time?
The argument against living constitutionalism isn’t that the entire Constitution is perfectly unambiguous. It’s that it isn’t ALL ambiguous. You can’t just point to one clause that practically screams out, “this is a judgement call”, and use it as an excuse to treat the entire document like a Rorschach blot.
“Cruel and unusual” demands the exercise of judgement. But I know this: It’s not elastic enough to permit water boarding.
What does “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes” mean, Phil? Growing something in the garden in your back yard?
The argument against living constitutionalism isn’t that the entire Constitution is perfectly unambiguous.
Oh, but it is, Blanche, it is!
The argument against living constitutionalism isn’t that the entire Constitution is perfectly unambiguous.
Oh, but it is, Blanche, it is!
Brett skrev:
You can’t just point to one clause that practically screams out, “this is a judgement call”
This is a judgement call.
Brett, I’d love to know how to distinguish which parts of the Constitution are judgement calls, and which are not. If you have a rubric or a dichotomy for this distinction, please say on.
Brett skrev:
You can’t just point to one clause that practically screams out, “this is a judgement call”
This is a judgement call.
Brett, I’d love to know how to distinguish which parts of the Constitution are judgement calls, and which are not. If you have a rubric or a dichotomy for this distinction, please say on.
Bush didn’t kill?
Of course he did.
What the phrase refers to is Obama having figured out that the whole torture business is tedious, ineffective and bad press, while instead simply killing “the bad guys” is a much easier sell.
Except for the sociopathic contingent of society everybody is squeamish about torture, but you can have even “progressives” hail you as a strong leader who is tough on terror if you just kill “those people down there” instead*. Because then the usual marketing of “it’s war, so people get killed – tough, but that’s life” works again.
(Not that the US has stopped torturing, it’s just been relegated to the shadows again.)
*(and a lot of innocent bystanders, see Donald’s link).
Bush didn’t kill?
Of course he did.
What the phrase refers to is Obama having figured out that the whole torture business is tedious, ineffective and bad press, while instead simply killing “the bad guys” is a much easier sell.
Except for the sociopathic contingent of society everybody is squeamish about torture, but you can have even “progressives” hail you as a strong leader who is tough on terror if you just kill “those people down there” instead*. Because then the usual marketing of “it’s war, so people get killed – tough, but that’s life” works again.
(Not that the US has stopped torturing, it’s just been relegated to the shadows again.)
*(and a lot of innocent bystanders, see Donald’s link).
“Brett, I’d love to know how to distinguish which parts of the Constitution are judgement calls, and which are not. If you have a rubric or a dichotomy for this distinction, please say on.”
Well, just look at that paragraph you quoted: Essentially every word in it has a clear and objective meaning, allowing you to parse it on a machine like level. No opinions called for.
“Cruel”? Almost pure opinion. “Unusual”? You could give it a statistical gloss, but still opinion. Compared to the 8th amendment, the paragraph you cited is practically computer code.
The problem with living constitutionalism is that, having taken ambiguity as a license to attribute to a clause any meaning you think would be a good idea, rather than a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant, the living constitutionalist is faced with an incredibly strong incentive to see everything as ambiguous. The originalist faces no such incentive, because ambiguity just implies more work, rather than empowering you.
The whole school of interpretation is basically a training ground for sophists, competing to see who can do a more extreme job of rationalizing.
Which is why what I grow in my garden is subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause: The interpretation of the clause has been cut almost completely free from the clear denotation of the words.
Once you set up a system like this to empower the rulers and render a written constitution futile, don’t be surprised if it renders the parts you might happen to like futile, too. Like the 8th amendment. Once again the left forges a weapon to use on it’s enemies, and finds it’s enemies can wield it, too.
“Brett, I’d love to know how to distinguish which parts of the Constitution are judgement calls, and which are not. If you have a rubric or a dichotomy for this distinction, please say on.”
Well, just look at that paragraph you quoted: Essentially every word in it has a clear and objective meaning, allowing you to parse it on a machine like level. No opinions called for.
“Cruel”? Almost pure opinion. “Unusual”? You could give it a statistical gloss, but still opinion. Compared to the 8th amendment, the paragraph you cited is practically computer code.
The problem with living constitutionalism is that, having taken ambiguity as a license to attribute to a clause any meaning you think would be a good idea, rather than a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant, the living constitutionalist is faced with an incredibly strong incentive to see everything as ambiguous. The originalist faces no such incentive, because ambiguity just implies more work, rather than empowering you.
The whole school of interpretation is basically a training ground for sophists, competing to see who can do a more extreme job of rationalizing.
Which is why what I grow in my garden is subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause: The interpretation of the clause has been cut almost completely free from the clear denotation of the words.
Once you set up a system like this to empower the rulers and render a written constitution futile, don’t be surprised if it renders the parts you might happen to like futile, too. Like the 8th amendment. Once again the left forges a weapon to use on it’s enemies, and finds it’s enemies can wield it, too.
Once again the left forges a weapon to use on it’s enemies, and finds it’s enemies can wield it, too.
yeah, “the left” invented tactical interpretation of ambiguous rules. nobody had ever done that before “the left” came up with it.
Once again the left forges a weapon to use on it’s enemies, and finds it’s enemies can wield it, too.
yeah, “the left” invented tactical interpretation of ambiguous rules. nobody had ever done that before “the left” came up with it.
Which is why what I grow in my garden is subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause
What do you want to grow in your garden that is subject to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause?
I think your overall point here is not without merit, however I’m puzzled by this example.
Which is why what I grow in my garden is subject to regulation under the interstate commerce clause
What do you want to grow in your garden that is subject to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause?
I think your overall point here is not without merit, however I’m puzzled by this example.
Sensimilla?
Sensimilla?
Brett’s thinking of Wickard v. Filburn, I believe.
Brett’s thinking of Wickard v. Filburn, I believe.
Hey, lookie who’s trying to ban political speech! (HINT: NOT “THE LEFT.”)
Hey, lookie who’s trying to ban political speech! (HINT: NOT “THE LEFT.”)
a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant,
and having gone back in time, having read the minds of the people who wrote the law, and having discovered that they were deliberately ambiguous (for political, practical or parsimonious reasons), what should an originalist do?
a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant,
and having gone back in time, having read the minds of the people who wrote the law, and having discovered that they were deliberately ambiguous (for political, practical or parsimonious reasons), what should an originalist do?
Hey, lookie who’s trying to ban political speech!
oh now, let’s be fair. he’s only trying to ban the speech of those he disagrees with. we have no evidence that he doesn’t favor free speech for everybody else!
Hey, lookie who’s trying to ban political speech!
oh now, let’s be fair. he’s only trying to ban the speech of those he disagrees with. we have no evidence that he doesn’t favor free speech for everybody else!
A quote:
This line of reasoning might apply to some other groups or institutions, I’m thinking. I’m sure Romney will apply it consistently.
A quote:
This line of reasoning might apply to some other groups or institutions, I’m thinking. I’m sure Romney will apply it consistently.
Funny. I’m not…
He’s actually got a point concerning the incestuous relationship between unions and politicians during negotiations. But censorship is not the answer.
Funny. I’m not…
He’s actually got a point concerning the incestuous relationship between unions and politicians during negotiations. But censorship is not the answer.
Oaxacan
Oaxacan
Threadjack….oh, what the hell…
He’s actually got a point concerning the incestuous relationship between unions and politicians during negotiations.
Please distinguish clearly the criteria for assessing the “incestuousness” of the relationship between politicians and any other organized group having an economic stake in the political outcome.
Threadjack….oh, what the hell…
He’s actually got a point concerning the incestuous relationship between unions and politicians during negotiations.
Please distinguish clearly the criteria for assessing the “incestuousness” of the relationship between politicians and any other organized group having an economic stake in the political outcome.
From the piece on Romney and teachers’ unions:
This is a man with a serious lack of self-awareness.
From the piece on Romney and teachers’ unions:
This is a man with a serious lack of self-awareness.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself,
Sorry Brett, I’m can’t tell if you are dinging Russell for a lack of seriousness, complimenting Romney on his seriousness or none of the above. I’m also thinking that you need to be a bit more specific about how unions are different that business (I’m not saying they are not different, so please don’t yell ‘mask slippage!!’) cause I may disagree or agree with the points you make, but can’t do so until you actually make them.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself,
Sorry Brett, I’m can’t tell if you are dinging Russell for a lack of seriousness, complimenting Romney on his seriousness or none of the above. I’m also thinking that you need to be a bit more specific about how unions are different that business (I’m not saying they are not different, so please don’t yell ‘mask slippage!!’) cause I may disagree or agree with the points you make, but can’t do so until you actually make them.
I think “generalizing it to business” is exactly what russell did, but one has to be a native English speaker to really see it.
I think “generalizing it to business” is exactly what russell did, but one has to be a native English speaker to really see it.
You can generalize it to business if the business is government owned. I guess Government Motors comes pretty close.
You can generalize it to business if the business is government owned. I guess Government Motors comes pretty close.
Well, I play at being a native English speaker, though being over here for 20+ years, I find my skills deteriorating at an alarming pace. But, I guess what I want to know what ‘generalizing it to business’ actually means. Is Brett postulating some public/private split, and saying that unions are public entities? Or is it the fact that businesses make money that is the dividing line? Or is it the amount of money that is donated? Furthermore, does he think that Romney’s suggestion was serious and if so, how is it implemented?
I’d be surprised if there was some thought behind it, but I live to be surprised.
Well, I play at being a native English speaker, though being over here for 20+ years, I find my skills deteriorating at an alarming pace. But, I guess what I want to know what ‘generalizing it to business’ actually means. Is Brett postulating some public/private split, and saying that unions are public entities? Or is it the fact that businesses make money that is the dividing line? Or is it the amount of money that is donated? Furthermore, does he think that Romney’s suggestion was serious and if so, how is it implemented?
I’d be surprised if there was some thought behind it, but I live to be surprised.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
LOL, I didn’t realize this was directed at me.
My position on this, of some long standing, and documented at great if not tedious length here on ObWi, is that people, which is to say real live individual human people, have the right to engage in political speech.
No other entity deserves the constitutional right to engage in political speech. Full stop, with a cherry on top.
I’d extend that to groups of individual people and only individual people who organize themselves into a properly qualified corporation for the sole purpose of engaging in political speech, and no other purpose.
That would exclude both unions and for-profit corporations.
If the past is any predictor of the future, you (Brett) will now weigh on about how corps are really just big groups of people, Seb will weigh in on how a change of that sort will mean the end – the absolute end – of organized issue advocacy, and if Farber is still around he’ll explain about how the freedom of the press requires a corporate right of free speech.
To all of which I’m happy to say f*** it, I’ll take my chances.
I’m fine with unions having ABSOLUTELY NO constitutionally protected right to engage in any form of political speech, as long as the same prohibition extends to for-profit corps (and probably most other corporate forms).
We’ve been around this maypole eight bazillion times, so maybe we can just all acknowledge that we differ on this point and leave it at that.
My point about Romney, in case it actually needs unpacking, is that he’s happy to deny the right to engage in political speech to unions, but doesn’t seem to see the FREAKING OBVIOUS parallel to for-profit corps.
So, a lack of self-awareness.
Or, in other words, what Phil and hairshirt said.
I continue to be amazed at Romney’s general lack of a clue in any form. It astounds me that the man had a successful career in business, however I do understand that venture capital is a pretty specialized little world.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
LOL, I didn’t realize this was directed at me.
My position on this, of some long standing, and documented at great if not tedious length here on ObWi, is that people, which is to say real live individual human people, have the right to engage in political speech.
No other entity deserves the constitutional right to engage in political speech. Full stop, with a cherry on top.
I’d extend that to groups of individual people and only individual people who organize themselves into a properly qualified corporation for the sole purpose of engaging in political speech, and no other purpose.
That would exclude both unions and for-profit corporations.
If the past is any predictor of the future, you (Brett) will now weigh on about how corps are really just big groups of people, Seb will weigh in on how a change of that sort will mean the end – the absolute end – of organized issue advocacy, and if Farber is still around he’ll explain about how the freedom of the press requires a corporate right of free speech.
To all of which I’m happy to say f*** it, I’ll take my chances.
I’m fine with unions having ABSOLUTELY NO constitutionally protected right to engage in any form of political speech, as long as the same prohibition extends to for-profit corps (and probably most other corporate forms).
We’ve been around this maypole eight bazillion times, so maybe we can just all acknowledge that we differ on this point and leave it at that.
My point about Romney, in case it actually needs unpacking, is that he’s happy to deny the right to engage in political speech to unions, but doesn’t seem to see the FREAKING OBVIOUS parallel to for-profit corps.
So, a lack of self-awareness.
Or, in other words, what Phil and hairshirt said.
I continue to be amazed at Romney’s general lack of a clue in any form. It astounds me that the man had a successful career in business, however I do understand that venture capital is a pretty specialized little world.
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
Sorry Russell. I believe this was lobbed at me. Oh! My! Brett, your mask is slipping!
I’d think you a bit more serious yourself, if instead of denying the problem with unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect, you generalized it to business, too.
Sorry Russell. I believe this was lobbed at me. Oh! My! Brett, your mask is slipping!
No, actually it was directed at Russell.
“But, I guess what I want to know what ‘generalizing it to business’ actually means.”
Public unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect are in an incestuous position. They are helping to elect their only customer. A business which was similarly situated, (The local government is it’s only customer.) would be in an equally incestuous position if it were dedicating a large fraction of it’s revenue to local politics.
But censorship is never the answer. Yes, businesses, AND unions, are made up of people. There’s nobody else there to censor.
The problem here is that, however positive you might in principle think the effects of a particular type of censorship would be, in practice it’s going to be conducted by people who face a freaking huge conflict of interest: Incumbent politicians. It’s just not worth it.
No, actually it was directed at Russell.
“But, I guess what I want to know what ‘generalizing it to business’ actually means.”
Public unions negotiating with politicians they helped elect are in an incestuous position. They are helping to elect their only customer. A business which was similarly situated, (The local government is it’s only customer.) would be in an equally incestuous position if it were dedicating a large fraction of it’s revenue to local politics.
But censorship is never the answer. Yes, businesses, AND unions, are made up of people. There’s nobody else there to censor.
The problem here is that, however positive you might in principle think the effects of a particular type of censorship would be, in practice it’s going to be conducted by people who face a freaking huge conflict of interest: Incumbent politicians. It’s just not worth it.
“The problem with living constitutionalism is that, having taken ambiguity as a license to attribute to a clause any meaning you think would be a good idea, rather than a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant, the living constitutionalist is faced with an incredibly strong incentive to see everything as ambiguous. The originalist faces no such incentive, because ambiguity just implies more work, rather than empowering you.”
But everyone does this, including so-called “originalist” jurists. Their originalism stops exactly at the point that it leads to a conclusion they don’t like.
“The problem with living constitutionalism is that, having taken ambiguity as a license to attribute to a clause any meaning you think would be a good idea, rather than a mandate to do further research to find what the people at the time it was ratified thought it meant, the living constitutionalist is faced with an incredibly strong incentive to see everything as ambiguous. The originalist faces no such incentive, because ambiguity just implies more work, rather than empowering you.”
But everyone does this, including so-called “originalist” jurists. Their originalism stops exactly at the point that it leads to a conclusion they don’t like.
I’m beginning to understand Joe Paterno’s quandary a little better.
I’m beginning to understand Joe Paterno’s quandary a little better.
Their originalism stops exactly at the point that it leads to a conclusion they don’t like.
see also: religion.
Their originalism stops exactly at the point that it leads to a conclusion they don’t like.
see also: religion.
ok, to be fair, make that literalist / fundamentalist religion.
ok, to be fair, make that literalist / fundamentalist religion.
Back to the original topic of the thread, this article in the NYT today seems to be relevant to how Obama’s policies would differ from Romney’s:
Back to the original topic of the thread, this article in the NYT today seems to be relevant to how Obama’s policies would differ from Romney’s:
It also notes that the Army Field Manual is available on the Internet, so enemies can study it.
Study it to what end? I’m guessing they’d somehow prepare themselves for whatever it is the AFM allows, since the manual wouldn’t tell anyone what specific interrogation methods, among those allowed, would be used in a given situation in the future.
But, is that really possible, and is the manual full of really super-secret stuff, anyway?
Or, might the commitment to a known and humane standard of treatment improve our moral standing as a nation? Is that not worthwhile? Could that actually improve our security?
It also notes that the Army Field Manual is available on the Internet, so enemies can study it.
Study it to what end? I’m guessing they’d somehow prepare themselves for whatever it is the AFM allows, since the manual wouldn’t tell anyone what specific interrogation methods, among those allowed, would be used in a given situation in the future.
But, is that really possible, and is the manual full of really super-secret stuff, anyway?
Or, might the commitment to a known and humane standard of treatment improve our moral standing as a nation? Is that not worthwhile? Could that actually improve our security?
But censorship is never the answer.
Couldn’t agree more.
Yes, businesses, AND unions, are made up of people. There’s nobody else there to censor.
And, as always, I feel obliged to point out that people who participate in businesses, unions, scrabble clubs, and baseball teams, all possess an inalienable right to say whatever the hell they like.
The business, union, scrabble club, or baseball team, not so much.
And that’s all I’m gonna say on the topic, because we’ve been through it all a million times already.
But censorship is never the answer.
Couldn’t agree more.
Yes, businesses, AND unions, are made up of people. There’s nobody else there to censor.
And, as always, I feel obliged to point out that people who participate in businesses, unions, scrabble clubs, and baseball teams, all possess an inalienable right to say whatever the hell they like.
The business, union, scrabble club, or baseball team, not so much.
And that’s all I’m gonna say on the topic, because we’ve been through it all a million times already.
Or, might the commitment to a known and humane standard of treatment improve our moral standing as a nation? Is that not worthwhile? Could that actually improve our security?
That was certainly the idea that I was brought up believing in.
Or, might the commitment to a known and humane standard of treatment improve our moral standing as a nation? Is that not worthwhile? Could that actually improve our security?
That was certainly the idea that I was brought up believing in.
Crooked Timber has a couple of posts up about whether one should vote for the lesser of two evils. They are thinking specifically about the drone policy. Here’s the first–
link
Henry puts it in a more argumentative way–Is it moral for lefties to vote for Obama?
My own feelings these days are that it is a lesser of two evils vote, there are costs to doing so, but the costs of not voting for Obama are greater. Of course if you live in a safe state then you can do the protest voting thing, but in this case on this election I’m still voting Obama despite living in a safe state because the Republicans are sufficiently loathsome on so many issues I want them to be unmistakably defeated in the polls by as big a popular vote as possible. I don’t think the media pays any attention to the protest votes as signalling anything–they’d only care if some “centrist” like what’s his name in the 90’s was running and won a big chunk.
Crooked Timber has a couple of posts up about whether one should vote for the lesser of two evils. They are thinking specifically about the drone policy. Here’s the first–
link
Henry puts it in a more argumentative way–Is it moral for lefties to vote for Obama?
My own feelings these days are that it is a lesser of two evils vote, there are costs to doing so, but the costs of not voting for Obama are greater. Of course if you live in a safe state then you can do the protest voting thing, but in this case on this election I’m still voting Obama despite living in a safe state because the Republicans are sufficiently loathsome on so many issues I want them to be unmistakably defeated in the polls by as big a popular vote as possible. I don’t think the media pays any attention to the protest votes as signalling anything–they’d only care if some “centrist” like what’s his name in the 90’s was running and won a big chunk.
And that’s all I’m gonna say on the topic, because we’ve been through it all a million times already.
Dude, this is a blog, like, on the internet. You must remain ever vigilant of the wrongness thereon.
And that’s all I’m gonna say on the topic, because we’ve been through it all a million times already.
Dude, this is a blog, like, on the internet. You must remain ever vigilant of the wrongness thereon.
Donald, the Crooked Timber link was entertaining. I wholeheartedly agree with NBarnes when he said this:
I’m happy that you’ve chosen the “lesser of two evils,” as you see it, Donald. I happen to think Obama is great (in the true sense of that word), not the lesser evil, so it’s easy for me to support him. But that’s not news.
Donald, the Crooked Timber link was entertaining. I wholeheartedly agree with NBarnes when he said this:
I’m happy that you’ve chosen the “lesser of two evils,” as you see it, Donald. I happen to think Obama is great (in the true sense of that word), not the lesser evil, so it’s easy for me to support him. But that’s not news.
Lesser evil, Green Lanternism, “it’s all Nader’s fault”….LGM has many very good threads on this topic.
Sapient should check them out. Scott Lemieux and the gang are very persuasive (for your position)….almost enough to make me want to get my PCO card again. They have swayed me on this subject.
Lesser evil, Green Lanternism, “it’s all Nader’s fault”….LGM has many very good threads on this topic.
Sapient should check them out. Scott Lemieux and the gang are very persuasive (for your position)….almost enough to make me want to get my PCO card again. They have swayed me on this subject.
Thanks, bobbyp. I look at LGM sometimes, but have never bookmarked it. Now I will.
Thanks, bobbyp. I look at LGM sometimes, but have never bookmarked it. Now I will.
Much of the of the lefty purity bashing at LGM and other places seems as self-indulgent as the lefty purists they criticize. For all the talk of egoism on the part of the Naderites, there’s more than a little ego and chest pounding on the other side too. People who say they stand for pragmatism should be scrupulous in acknowledging the validity of criticisms made by Greenwald and others and should also admit that when we vote for Democrats no matter what, it does give them a license to move to the right, just so long as they are still noticeably better than Republicans on other issues. Instead, I see people often (though not always) belittling the issues where Democrats are not good.
Republicans are so bad on so many issues they end up being the best advocates for the Democrats. Bad is still a lot better than awful. But I understand and can sympathize with people who say that we ought to be drawing a line somewhere. Personally, I’m going to come out of a voting booth feeling a little sick no matter who I vote for. But right now the Republican Party is completely insane. Their moderates are mostly extinct. So it makes it easy for me to vote for the Dems.
Without trying to get into why this is or how intentional it is, the way the political system in the US has worked since the late 70’s is that Republicans stake out a far right position, Democrats move partway there, their position becomes the new leftward position, and then the cycle repeats. The one big exception to this would be the social issues, presumably because in that case only the conservative religious types are really motivated to fight against, say, gay marriage.
Much of the of the lefty purity bashing at LGM and other places seems as self-indulgent as the lefty purists they criticize. For all the talk of egoism on the part of the Naderites, there’s more than a little ego and chest pounding on the other side too. People who say they stand for pragmatism should be scrupulous in acknowledging the validity of criticisms made by Greenwald and others and should also admit that when we vote for Democrats no matter what, it does give them a license to move to the right, just so long as they are still noticeably better than Republicans on other issues. Instead, I see people often (though not always) belittling the issues where Democrats are not good.
Republicans are so bad on so many issues they end up being the best advocates for the Democrats. Bad is still a lot better than awful. But I understand and can sympathize with people who say that we ought to be drawing a line somewhere. Personally, I’m going to come out of a voting booth feeling a little sick no matter who I vote for. But right now the Republican Party is completely insane. Their moderates are mostly extinct. So it makes it easy for me to vote for the Dems.
Without trying to get into why this is or how intentional it is, the way the political system in the US has worked since the late 70’s is that Republicans stake out a far right position, Democrats move partway there, their position becomes the new leftward position, and then the cycle repeats. The one big exception to this would be the social issues, presumably because in that case only the conservative religious types are really motivated to fight against, say, gay marriage.
There’s another post on the evils of lesser evilism at Crooked Timber–
link
I’ve only looked at a few of the comments in the thread so far, but it looks like both sides are making good points. This is way better than the usual foodfights I’ve seen when this subject comes up.
Not that it’ll change my mind regarding what to do this November.
There’s another post on the evils of lesser evilism at Crooked Timber–
link
I’ve only looked at a few of the comments in the thread so far, but it looks like both sides are making good points. This is way better than the usual foodfights I’ve seen when this subject comes up.
Not that it’ll change my mind regarding what to do this November.
Much of the of the lefty purity bashing at LGM and other places seems as self-indulgent as the lefty purists they criticize.
I would point out that this most recent round (and in the comments, I think one of the other posters explains why the blog will often have a cluster of posts about the same topic) was started off by this Conor Friedersdorf essay that will probably find its way into a dictionary under the definition of a concern troll. That ‘lefty purists’ (Donald’s term, not mine) pop up to contest posts that have the Friedersdorf pos as its origins, well, I guess he would say mission accomplished. Though I agree that there are points to both sides.
My favorite comment was this one
In the immortal words of Steven Brust, “I’m a leftist. I don’t argue with anyone unless they agree with me.”
Much of the of the lefty purity bashing at LGM and other places seems as self-indulgent as the lefty purists they criticize.
I would point out that this most recent round (and in the comments, I think one of the other posters explains why the blog will often have a cluster of posts about the same topic) was started off by this Conor Friedersdorf essay that will probably find its way into a dictionary under the definition of a concern troll. That ‘lefty purists’ (Donald’s term, not mine) pop up to contest posts that have the Friedersdorf pos as its origins, well, I guess he would say mission accomplished. Though I agree that there are points to both sides.
My favorite comment was this one
In the immortal words of Steven Brust, “I’m a leftist. I don’t argue with anyone unless they agree with me.”
“Republicans are so bad on so many issues they end up being the best advocates for the Democrats.”
And visa versa. Both Republicans AND Democrats vote for the candidates their parties puke up, only as the lesser of two evils. While the two evils have crafted laws and practices which ensure that there will only be two real choices.
“Republicans are so bad on so many issues they end up being the best advocates for the Democrats.”
And visa versa. Both Republicans AND Democrats vote for the candidates their parties puke up, only as the lesser of two evils. While the two evils have crafted laws and practices which ensure that there will only be two real choices.
“I would point out that this most recent round (and in the comments, I think one of the other posters explains why the blog will often have a cluster of posts about the same topic) was started off by this Conor Friedersdorf essay that will probably find its way into a dictionary under the definition of a concern troll. ”
Possibly so, because the term “concern troll” is often tossed at people to dismiss them if they fall outside the usual Democrat/Republican divide. It has its legitimate uses too, of course, but this seems to fall into the unfairly dismissive category.
I might start reading Friedersdorf. I won’t take his voting advice, but it would be nice if the libertarians received much more attention on foreign policy issues and on the drug war, even if their market utopianism would wreck the country if ever enacted. Outside the blogging world, I rarely see the nastier violent side of US foreign policy addressed in mainstream progressive politics. The Democrats are mostly the kinder gentler face of the national security state and differences over torture and unjust wars are treated as policy differences (unlike whistleblowers, who are criminals), so most of the serious criticism is on the margins, where the lefty purists and the libertarians and other concern trolls hang out.
“Lefty purists” isn’t my term originally, of course–it is commonly used in venues like LGM where this argument is a perennial one. I saw LGM taking shots at the pure of heart a couple of weeks ago, before Friedersdorf.
“I would point out that this most recent round (and in the comments, I think one of the other posters explains why the blog will often have a cluster of posts about the same topic) was started off by this Conor Friedersdorf essay that will probably find its way into a dictionary under the definition of a concern troll. ”
Possibly so, because the term “concern troll” is often tossed at people to dismiss them if they fall outside the usual Democrat/Republican divide. It has its legitimate uses too, of course, but this seems to fall into the unfairly dismissive category.
I might start reading Friedersdorf. I won’t take his voting advice, but it would be nice if the libertarians received much more attention on foreign policy issues and on the drug war, even if their market utopianism would wreck the country if ever enacted. Outside the blogging world, I rarely see the nastier violent side of US foreign policy addressed in mainstream progressive politics. The Democrats are mostly the kinder gentler face of the national security state and differences over torture and unjust wars are treated as policy differences (unlike whistleblowers, who are criminals), so most of the serious criticism is on the margins, where the lefty purists and the libertarians and other concern trolls hang out.
“Lefty purists” isn’t my term originally, of course–it is commonly used in venues like LGM where this argument is a perennial one. I saw LGM taking shots at the pure of heart a couple of weeks ago, before Friedersdorf.
I agree with LJ, and think that “concern troll” is an extremely appropriate term for someone who is too conservative to vote for Obama, but is trying to rally liberals to reject him because he is insufficiently liberal, in favor of someone who is grossly worse.
it would be nice if the libertarians received much more attention on foreign policy issues and on the drug war, even if their market utopianism would wreck the country if ever enacted.
Libertarians tend to be isolationists. It’s easy to rant against unjust wars, but solving the problem of how to engage in the world is a much more difficult project. I don’t think that 9/11 is an excuse for bad foreign policy, but it is an example of what happens when malevolent groups of people become organized and aren’t sufficiently challenged. Leaving them alone isn’t an option, IMO. Whenever I request an answer as to what the policy should be against known groups of terrorists … crickets …
The reason why people choose the “lesser of two evils” is perhaps because people accept their policies as necessary evils.
And, Donald, when you said upthread that Democrats have found a license to move right: Most Democrats don’t want to move right, and aren’t looking for such a license. An active foreign policy, including some use of the military, is not necessarily right wing. Roosevelt was an interventionist.
I agree with LJ, and think that “concern troll” is an extremely appropriate term for someone who is too conservative to vote for Obama, but is trying to rally liberals to reject him because he is insufficiently liberal, in favor of someone who is grossly worse.
it would be nice if the libertarians received much more attention on foreign policy issues and on the drug war, even if their market utopianism would wreck the country if ever enacted.
Libertarians tend to be isolationists. It’s easy to rant against unjust wars, but solving the problem of how to engage in the world is a much more difficult project. I don’t think that 9/11 is an excuse for bad foreign policy, but it is an example of what happens when malevolent groups of people become organized and aren’t sufficiently challenged. Leaving them alone isn’t an option, IMO. Whenever I request an answer as to what the policy should be against known groups of terrorists … crickets …
The reason why people choose the “lesser of two evils” is perhaps because people accept their policies as necessary evils.
And, Donald, when you said upthread that Democrats have found a license to move right: Most Democrats don’t want to move right, and aren’t looking for such a license. An active foreign policy, including some use of the military, is not necessarily right wing. Roosevelt was an interventionist.
Gee, I wonder who Libertarians vote for?
Gee, I wonder who Libertarians vote for?
True, Phil. Libertarians also tend not to make any sense.
True, Phil. Libertarians also tend not to make any sense.
Well, I don’t know if my advice carries any weight, but Friedersdorf is a libertarian thinker in the same way Michelle Malkin is one, in that it is just a stalking suit and when push comes to shove, he is going to go along with whatever bs is served up. I won’t try and present some links, as it would invite an accusation of cherry picking, but look thru his postings here and tell me if he really is a person whose judgement you would value and whose concern you would want.
As far as the concern troll label, it’s like that smirk that some pundits get when they catch flak and say ‘well, if I am upsetting both sides, I must be on to something’. Just because concern troll gets used in situations you might think is not appropriate (and I don’t believe anyone at LGM has referred to Greenwald as a concern troll and I’d be interested to know where you think I have used it where it was not appropriate) doesn’t mean that the use of the term is proof that the person should be taken seriously.
Well, I don’t know if my advice carries any weight, but Friedersdorf is a libertarian thinker in the same way Michelle Malkin is one, in that it is just a stalking suit and when push comes to shove, he is going to go along with whatever bs is served up. I won’t try and present some links, as it would invite an accusation of cherry picking, but look thru his postings here and tell me if he really is a person whose judgement you would value and whose concern you would want.
As far as the concern troll label, it’s like that smirk that some pundits get when they catch flak and say ‘well, if I am upsetting both sides, I must be on to something’. Just because concern troll gets used in situations you might think is not appropriate (and I don’t believe anyone at LGM has referred to Greenwald as a concern troll and I’d be interested to know where you think I have used it where it was not appropriate) doesn’t mean that the use of the term is proof that the person should be taken seriously.
Sorry, one more point. My attributing ‘lefty purist’ to you is not that I think it’s your term, it’s that I don’t want to be accused of harboring all the attitudes that you feel someone using that term carries when you are the one who introduces it to the conversation. I have no doubt that someone over at LGM used it at some time, but that doesn’t mean that I totally agree with how they use it or what they mean by it.
Sorry, one more point. My attributing ‘lefty purist’ to you is not that I think it’s your term, it’s that I don’t want to be accused of harboring all the attitudes that you feel someone using that term carries when you are the one who introduces it to the conversation. I have no doubt that someone over at LGM used it at some time, but that doesn’t mean that I totally agree with how they use it or what they mean by it.
I’m not familiar with Friedersdorf beyond that one post, which seemed fine to me. I’ll look at his history later–if I don’t like what I see then I probably won’t become a regular reader, but I do respect some people who claim to be libertarian and are opposed to our foreign policy. For a long time Jim Henley was in that category, though he seems to have returned to the liberal fold–as best I can tell his position and mine are about the same these days. Some of his commenters are in the libertarian group. “Thoreau” might still be. There are even self-described conservatives who I like. Andrew Bacevitch is a self-described conservative Catholic, or at least I think he is, and he’s written some books criticizing our (bipartisan) interventionist tendencies. I might very well disagree with him on some domestic issues, but I don’t know offhand what his positions are on such things.
It doesn’t surprise me that most libertarians are Republicans in practice, but I wasn’t talking about most of them, just about how I’d like to see libertarian views on foreign interventions and the drug war make their way into mainstream political debate.
On the lefty purity thing, I wasn’t taking anything you said personally, LJ or really referring specifically to you at all when I use that term ironically, except that I think you used it here and I picked up on it. I’m making a comment more generally about how these arguments seem to go on liberal blogs. It usually turns nasty, with a lot of namecalling, and from my POV there’s plenty of fault on both sides for that. The morally pure left (I’ll use the derogatory term to describe people like me) tends to downplay the very real differences between Democrats and Republicans and the “pragmatists” or the “grownups” or whatever self-flattering term is in vogue for the opposing team often (not always) downplay the very real crimes of Democrats. Since both sides are being a bit dishonest when they do this, it’s entirely natural that both sides will then turn to posturing, name-calling and the rest.
“Whenever I request an answer as to what the policy should be against known groups of terrorists … crickets …”
Oh brother. Here’s my position. If you really know that high-ranking Al Qaeda members are in a given location and there’s no way to arrest them, then I’m not going to get too upset if we kill them. I’d like to have another way, but if it really is impossible to arrest people who are plotting terrorist attacks against us, then on the grand list of things that upset me, an assassination of bin Laden (which appears to be what that was) is probably somewhere around number 123,000 on my list of things to be upset about. The same for other genuinely high-ranking Al Qaeda types if we happen to know where some are, and can’t arrest them.
But the drone policy is clearly doing more than that. It’s hitting low level people and it’s killing innocents and it is making life hell for ordinary people. So yeah, that bothers me.
And on the deeper level, you know that we do things overseas that give legitimate reasons for people to despise us. Not legitimate reasons to blow innocent people up–there is no such thing. We support dictators up until the point where it’s clear that we can’t do so safely anymore–I give Obama some credit for abandoning Mubarak at the last minute, since it sounds like Romney or at least some on the right think we should have backed him up if he’d gone the Tiamammen Square route. But it was up until the last minute. We are backing a repressive monarchy in Bahrain and our Saudi pals are the same. And of course there is Israel, which has been getting away with murder for a very long time, with bipartisan support and standing ovations to one of the dumbest leaders on the scene today. (Netanyahu in Congress in the summer of 2011 got 29 standing ovations. Bipartisan ones, of course.)
And the double standards issue is a core one. Americans seem to think it’s some sort of legitimizing excuse to say that it is politically impossible to hold our own war criminals to account, people who are responsible for horror on a massive scale, and then we turn right around and award ourselves the right and duty to assassinate bad people elsewhere, and make excuses for when we hit the wrong people. I think a little moral consistency would go a long way to persuading people in the Middle East to be on our side. It won’t change the minds of the worst fanatics, but it’ll cut down on the recruiting. And I’ll give Obama some more credit–I’m not sure if the Libyan thing was the right thing to do because I don’t know enough, but it’s pretty unusual for a Middle Eastern country to have the bulk of the people in the town supportive of us and angry at the people who killed our representatives. So for once maybe we did do the right thing. But that was an exception.
I’m not familiar with Friedersdorf beyond that one post, which seemed fine to me. I’ll look at his history later–if I don’t like what I see then I probably won’t become a regular reader, but I do respect some people who claim to be libertarian and are opposed to our foreign policy. For a long time Jim Henley was in that category, though he seems to have returned to the liberal fold–as best I can tell his position and mine are about the same these days. Some of his commenters are in the libertarian group. “Thoreau” might still be. There are even self-described conservatives who I like. Andrew Bacevitch is a self-described conservative Catholic, or at least I think he is, and he’s written some books criticizing our (bipartisan) interventionist tendencies. I might very well disagree with him on some domestic issues, but I don’t know offhand what his positions are on such things.
It doesn’t surprise me that most libertarians are Republicans in practice, but I wasn’t talking about most of them, just about how I’d like to see libertarian views on foreign interventions and the drug war make their way into mainstream political debate.
On the lefty purity thing, I wasn’t taking anything you said personally, LJ or really referring specifically to you at all when I use that term ironically, except that I think you used it here and I picked up on it. I’m making a comment more generally about how these arguments seem to go on liberal blogs. It usually turns nasty, with a lot of namecalling, and from my POV there’s plenty of fault on both sides for that. The morally pure left (I’ll use the derogatory term to describe people like me) tends to downplay the very real differences between Democrats and Republicans and the “pragmatists” or the “grownups” or whatever self-flattering term is in vogue for the opposing team often (not always) downplay the very real crimes of Democrats. Since both sides are being a bit dishonest when they do this, it’s entirely natural that both sides will then turn to posturing, name-calling and the rest.
“Whenever I request an answer as to what the policy should be against known groups of terrorists … crickets …”
Oh brother. Here’s my position. If you really know that high-ranking Al Qaeda members are in a given location and there’s no way to arrest them, then I’m not going to get too upset if we kill them. I’d like to have another way, but if it really is impossible to arrest people who are plotting terrorist attacks against us, then on the grand list of things that upset me, an assassination of bin Laden (which appears to be what that was) is probably somewhere around number 123,000 on my list of things to be upset about. The same for other genuinely high-ranking Al Qaeda types if we happen to know where some are, and can’t arrest them.
But the drone policy is clearly doing more than that. It’s hitting low level people and it’s killing innocents and it is making life hell for ordinary people. So yeah, that bothers me.
And on the deeper level, you know that we do things overseas that give legitimate reasons for people to despise us. Not legitimate reasons to blow innocent people up–there is no such thing. We support dictators up until the point where it’s clear that we can’t do so safely anymore–I give Obama some credit for abandoning Mubarak at the last minute, since it sounds like Romney or at least some on the right think we should have backed him up if he’d gone the Tiamammen Square route. But it was up until the last minute. We are backing a repressive monarchy in Bahrain and our Saudi pals are the same. And of course there is Israel, which has been getting away with murder for a very long time, with bipartisan support and standing ovations to one of the dumbest leaders on the scene today. (Netanyahu in Congress in the summer of 2011 got 29 standing ovations. Bipartisan ones, of course.)
And the double standards issue is a core one. Americans seem to think it’s some sort of legitimizing excuse to say that it is politically impossible to hold our own war criminals to account, people who are responsible for horror on a massive scale, and then we turn right around and award ourselves the right and duty to assassinate bad people elsewhere, and make excuses for when we hit the wrong people. I think a little moral consistency would go a long way to persuading people in the Middle East to be on our side. It won’t change the minds of the worst fanatics, but it’ll cut down on the recruiting. And I’ll give Obama some more credit–I’m not sure if the Libyan thing was the right thing to do because I don’t know enough, but it’s pretty unusual for a Middle Eastern country to have the bulk of the people in the town supportive of us and angry at the people who killed our representatives. So for once maybe we did do the right thing. But that was an exception.
And yes, it would have been politically impossible for Obama to have prosecuted members of the Bush team for war crimes and expect to get anything else done. But then the proper response on the part of us ordinary Democratic voters is not to accept that and say nothing when Obama says we need to look forward (while not giving whistleblowers the same courtesy). The proper response it to act like Glenn Greenwald and scream and rant and yell about the hypocrisy. Say that you like Obama, if you do, and you understand why he did what he did, but what he said is BS. If he’s really a liberal inside then secretly he will agree with you, and will hope that with enough people yelling we might eventually get to the point where politics will allow the rule of law to apply to everyone. I don’t see how things change otherwise. Obama changed his views on gay marriage (his public views, that is) because attitudes changed.
And if, like me, you don’t entirely trust Obama’s motives here, point out that no President is likely to want to see a precedent established where any Western leader is brought to court on war crimes charges. Again, I don’t see why any American President would ever want to change the status quo on this unless there is a lot of pressure to do so.
And yes, it would have been politically impossible for Obama to have prosecuted members of the Bush team for war crimes and expect to get anything else done. But then the proper response on the part of us ordinary Democratic voters is not to accept that and say nothing when Obama says we need to look forward (while not giving whistleblowers the same courtesy). The proper response it to act like Glenn Greenwald and scream and rant and yell about the hypocrisy. Say that you like Obama, if you do, and you understand why he did what he did, but what he said is BS. If he’s really a liberal inside then secretly he will agree with you, and will hope that with enough people yelling we might eventually get to the point where politics will allow the rule of law to apply to everyone. I don’t see how things change otherwise. Obama changed his views on gay marriage (his public views, that is) because attitudes changed.
And if, like me, you don’t entirely trust Obama’s motives here, point out that no President is likely to want to see a precedent established where any Western leader is brought to court on war crimes charges. Again, I don’t see why any American President would ever want to change the status quo on this unless there is a lot of pressure to do so.
And as if by magic, Glenn has yet another story about who is subject to the rule of law and who isn’t. This one is about an Iraqi in Missouri who has been convicted for violating the sanctions on Iraq during the Saddam era–he sent money to his family. This is a link to the local newspaper article on his case–
link
Here’s Glenn–
link
There’s a petition you can sign at Glenn’s site.
And as if by magic, Glenn has yet another story about who is subject to the rule of law and who isn’t. This one is about an Iraqi in Missouri who has been convicted for violating the sanctions on Iraq during the Saddam era–he sent money to his family. This is a link to the local newspaper article on his case–
link
Here’s Glenn–
link
There’s a petition you can sign at Glenn’s site.
I don’t see why any American President would ever want to change the status quo on this unless there is a lot of pressure to do so.
Maybe. I think there’s more at stake here though, which will take more than a few years to resolve. Namely, the national security establishment probably has a good deal of power of its own, and it’s hard to assess how much, or how that power could be wielded. I would feel much more confident criticizing a Democratic president if Democrats had a longer and firmer grip on power.
When Obama was elected, I think there was a certain degree of “winning over” the intelligence services, which sounds creepy, but there you go. Obviously, this borders on conspiracy theory/spy novel theorizing, and maybe is totally off base. But things may be more complicated than they seem.
I don’t see why any American President would ever want to change the status quo on this unless there is a lot of pressure to do so.
Maybe. I think there’s more at stake here though, which will take more than a few years to resolve. Namely, the national security establishment probably has a good deal of power of its own, and it’s hard to assess how much, or how that power could be wielded. I would feel much more confident criticizing a Democratic president if Democrats had a longer and firmer grip on power.
When Obama was elected, I think there was a certain degree of “winning over” the intelligence services, which sounds creepy, but there you go. Obviously, this borders on conspiracy theory/spy novel theorizing, and maybe is totally off base. But things may be more complicated than they seem.
“I think there was a certain degree of “winning over” the intelligence services, which sounds creepy, but there you go. Obviously, this borders on conspiracy theory/spy novel theorizing, and maybe is totally off base. ”
I’m in agreement there, by which I mean you might be right and then again you might also be right that it might be totally off base. It’s pretty hard to tell when talking about organizations which are secretive by their very nature.
“I think there was a certain degree of “winning over” the intelligence services, which sounds creepy, but there you go. Obviously, this borders on conspiracy theory/spy novel theorizing, and maybe is totally off base. ”
I’m in agreement there, by which I mean you might be right and then again you might also be right that it might be totally off base. It’s pretty hard to tell when talking about organizations which are secretive by their very nature.
I looked at several of Friedersdorf’s postings at the site you gave, LJ, and am somewhat baffled. It’s a small sample that I read, so maybe by a statistical fluctuation I picked the more reasonable ones, but they don’t seem so bad. That’s not to say I’m going to agree with him on everything–as he is some sort of libertarian there’s no chance I would. Here’s one that irritated me slightly in a few ways–he seems to say that both the left and the right say stupid things, but I get the impression he thinks the right is more prone to this and less prone to self-criticism. I bridled a bit at the criticism aimed at Krugman (what did he have in mind there?) , but obviously some lefties do say dumb things from time to time and it’d be hard for a lefty to quarrel with his conclusion that the right is worse–
link
Here’s an older piece tearing apart DInesh D’Souza and some stupid thing he wrote about Obama–
link
There’s some other articles I glanced through there, one about how to fire bad teachers, which I didn’t care for as it suggests he might think Bad Teachers are the big problem in public schools, which I doubt, but I don’t expect to like him on everything. Anyway, there wasn’t enough detail for me to tell how reasonable or unreasonable he is.
At his current Atlantic posting he just put out another post on drones, but I won’t link, as I gather from what others have complained about that there’s a limit on the number of links you can post. But I thought it was very good.
I looked at several of Friedersdorf’s postings at the site you gave, LJ, and am somewhat baffled. It’s a small sample that I read, so maybe by a statistical fluctuation I picked the more reasonable ones, but they don’t seem so bad. That’s not to say I’m going to agree with him on everything–as he is some sort of libertarian there’s no chance I would. Here’s one that irritated me slightly in a few ways–he seems to say that both the left and the right say stupid things, but I get the impression he thinks the right is more prone to this and less prone to self-criticism. I bridled a bit at the criticism aimed at Krugman (what did he have in mind there?) , but obviously some lefties do say dumb things from time to time and it’d be hard for a lefty to quarrel with his conclusion that the right is worse–
link
Here’s an older piece tearing apart DInesh D’Souza and some stupid thing he wrote about Obama–
link
There’s some other articles I glanced through there, one about how to fire bad teachers, which I didn’t care for as it suggests he might think Bad Teachers are the big problem in public schools, which I doubt, but I don’t expect to like him on everything. Anyway, there wasn’t enough detail for me to tell how reasonable or unreasonable he is.
At his current Atlantic posting he just put out another post on drones, but I won’t link, as I gather from what others have complained about that there’s a limit on the number of links you can post. But I thought it was very good.
Well, here are the ones that stick out for me
Obama’s grandmother
I found this one really vile where he argues that because Obama drew an equivalence between Rev Wright and his grandmother on his mother’s side, one should also make Rev Wright equivalent with the black community.
in favor of a physical wall
Or this piece of wankery. Is it Swiftian or not? really hard to tell
I realize that those are not from the link I gave you, but I just pulled up the American Scene link because I assumed it would have links to what he wrote in other places (which also seems a bit dubious, but maybe he is unorganized like me. Still, if you want to live by what you write, it seems that you would want to be able to collate what you have written). He also subs for Andrew Sullivan, but I think he has kept a lower profile there, though I have a vague memory of various comments and such. As they say, the opposite of love isn’t hate, it is indifference, so getting incensed about the odd conclusion, or the offhand comment means that I was actually interested in what he said and am willing to think about it deeply, and since I’m not talking to him, I’m really not. It’s quite possible I had a preformed prejudice against him, just like someone rubs you the wrong way when you meet and you tend not to cut him any slack, so there’s that.
I’d also point to Jim Henley who feels this is “quality concern-trolling.” and there is also this TBogg post that, after not beating around the bush, cites the tweets where CF admits that he’s just stumped for the Libertarian candidate even though he has no idea what his economic policy means. Pushing libertarian candidates while ignoring there economic policy is like choosing a restaurant because you like the color of their walls.
It really underlines the point (I think first made at LGM, but I can’t find it there) that CF is simply a privileged white man for whom the presidential election will have little to no effect on the way that he lives his life.
There’s also the fact that Romney has advisors who are urging him to rescind Obama’s limitations on torture that was in the 9/28 NYTimes (it is the end of the month and I’m past my limit of NYT articles, so if interested, please google)
I’m not trying to unload on you here, but it seems that this pundit niche where ‘gee, I’m shocked at both sides, and therefore I’m above it all’ enables a lot of crap and CF is a good example of that. This might be a silly parallel, but we call a person a bank robber even though they are only actually robbing a bank for a short period of time. I suppose on the other hand, someone is a good batter if they can get a hit 3 times out of 10. Still, it is not totalling up the number of times CF puts out idiocies, the test is whether he holds on to them, and when he employs them.
Well, here are the ones that stick out for me
Obama’s grandmother
I found this one really vile where he argues that because Obama drew an equivalence between Rev Wright and his grandmother on his mother’s side, one should also make Rev Wright equivalent with the black community.
in favor of a physical wall
Or this piece of wankery. Is it Swiftian or not? really hard to tell
I realize that those are not from the link I gave you, but I just pulled up the American Scene link because I assumed it would have links to what he wrote in other places (which also seems a bit dubious, but maybe he is unorganized like me. Still, if you want to live by what you write, it seems that you would want to be able to collate what you have written). He also subs for Andrew Sullivan, but I think he has kept a lower profile there, though I have a vague memory of various comments and such. As they say, the opposite of love isn’t hate, it is indifference, so getting incensed about the odd conclusion, or the offhand comment means that I was actually interested in what he said and am willing to think about it deeply, and since I’m not talking to him, I’m really not. It’s quite possible I had a preformed prejudice against him, just like someone rubs you the wrong way when you meet and you tend not to cut him any slack, so there’s that.
I’d also point to Jim Henley who feels this is “quality concern-trolling.” and there is also this TBogg post that, after not beating around the bush, cites the tweets where CF admits that he’s just stumped for the Libertarian candidate even though he has no idea what his economic policy means. Pushing libertarian candidates while ignoring there economic policy is like choosing a restaurant because you like the color of their walls.
It really underlines the point (I think first made at LGM, but I can’t find it there) that CF is simply a privileged white man for whom the presidential election will have little to no effect on the way that he lives his life.
There’s also the fact that Romney has advisors who are urging him to rescind Obama’s limitations on torture that was in the 9/28 NYTimes (it is the end of the month and I’m past my limit of NYT articles, so if interested, please google)
I’m not trying to unload on you here, but it seems that this pundit niche where ‘gee, I’m shocked at both sides, and therefore I’m above it all’ enables a lot of crap and CF is a good example of that. This might be a silly parallel, but we call a person a bank robber even though they are only actually robbing a bank for a short period of time. I suppose on the other hand, someone is a good batter if they can get a hit 3 times out of 10. Still, it is not totalling up the number of times CF puts out idiocies, the test is whether he holds on to them, and when he employs them.
Well, Conor is a libertarian, so I’d expect him to have views on the economy that would smack of privileged white man status. It sorta goes with the territory. (Not in all cases, of course.)
What he said in your first link is this–
“It is weird, however, that the people who do think Obama’s construction implies moral equivalence are outraged that he is comparing his grandmother to a bigot like Wright… and apparently totally untroubled by the fact that — by their logic — he is meanwhile drawing a moral equivalence between all blacks and a bigot.”
He’s criticizing the moral equivalence mongers and their logic, not endorsing any of the equivalences. Incidentally, I’m bothered by that post for a different reason, because I think that though Wright said some stupid things and even a few things that were bigoted, I thought that most of America trashed him unfairly. But I don’t want to get into that.
Henley’s main point was that Conor was making a legitimate point regarding drones and it should make progressives uncomfortable. I don’t know what “quality concern trolling” means–I thought it was a cute way of saying he was trying to stir up a debate, and clearly he succeeded. I’m glad he did. Vote Democratic by all means, but there needs to be a lot of people like Conor and GG writing outraged pieces about policies that currently have no traction in mainstream politics (and almost never do).
Anyway, I haven’t seen anything that will keep me from reading Conor–I read some people who I like on some issues and dislike on others. The only drawback to reading Conor is that he might be a sort of secondhand Glenn Greenwald on the issues where I think he’s good–I might as well go straight to the source.
Well, Conor is a libertarian, so I’d expect him to have views on the economy that would smack of privileged white man status. It sorta goes with the territory. (Not in all cases, of course.)
What he said in your first link is this–
“It is weird, however, that the people who do think Obama’s construction implies moral equivalence are outraged that he is comparing his grandmother to a bigot like Wright… and apparently totally untroubled by the fact that — by their logic — he is meanwhile drawing a moral equivalence between all blacks and a bigot.”
He’s criticizing the moral equivalence mongers and their logic, not endorsing any of the equivalences. Incidentally, I’m bothered by that post for a different reason, because I think that though Wright said some stupid things and even a few things that were bigoted, I thought that most of America trashed him unfairly. But I don’t want to get into that.
Henley’s main point was that Conor was making a legitimate point regarding drones and it should make progressives uncomfortable. I don’t know what “quality concern trolling” means–I thought it was a cute way of saying he was trying to stir up a debate, and clearly he succeeded. I’m glad he did. Vote Democratic by all means, but there needs to be a lot of people like Conor and GG writing outraged pieces about policies that currently have no traction in mainstream politics (and almost never do).
Anyway, I haven’t seen anything that will keep me from reading Conor–I read some people who I like on some issues and dislike on others. The only drawback to reading Conor is that he might be a sort of secondhand Glenn Greenwald on the issues where I think he’s good–I might as well go straight to the source.
He’s criticizing the moral equivalence mongers and their logic, not endorsing any of the equivalences.
Isn’t he missing the forest for the trees? The people who made that equivalency were right-wingers who were looking for a gotcha to appeal to potential racial animus in whites. This seems like classic concern trolling, that CF is worried that Obama is saying black people are the same as a bigot. This is completely separate from your point (which I agree with) that Wright was trashed unfairly. One could also say that Wright was expressing some uncomfortable truths so you could either be outraged that Obama ‘threw him under the bus’ (wasn’t that the origin of that phrase in the campaign?) or understand that there were other considerations involved. Which seems to me something one also has to take into account when talking about drones.
As for ‘quality concern trolling’, since Henley cites Lemieux, I don’t think he is patting CF on the back for being a stirrer.
He’s criticizing the moral equivalence mongers and their logic, not endorsing any of the equivalences.
Isn’t he missing the forest for the trees? The people who made that equivalency were right-wingers who were looking for a gotcha to appeal to potential racial animus in whites. This seems like classic concern trolling, that CF is worried that Obama is saying black people are the same as a bigot. This is completely separate from your point (which I agree with) that Wright was trashed unfairly. One could also say that Wright was expressing some uncomfortable truths so you could either be outraged that Obama ‘threw him under the bus’ (wasn’t that the origin of that phrase in the campaign?) or understand that there were other considerations involved. Which seems to me something one also has to take into account when talking about drones.
As for ‘quality concern trolling’, since Henley cites Lemieux, I don’t think he is patting CF on the back for being a stirrer.
I think you’re misreading Conor in a really weird way–he’s criticizing the conservatives in the moral equivalence post, not defending them or attacking Obama at all.
I also think you’re misreading Henley and could get into that, but I’m getting sort of tired of arguing about Conor, a person I’d only read for the first time in the last day or two. I’ll read him sometimes, probably, think he did a good thing writing that post even if his voting recommendation is wrong, but me convincing you or you convincing me on what he said or what Henley meant or the rest of it probably isn’t the pressing moral issue of our time. Besides, there are other people being wrong on the internet that I’ve got to straighten out. Civilization hangs in the balance.
I think you’re misreading Conor in a really weird way–he’s criticizing the conservatives in the moral equivalence post, not defending them or attacking Obama at all.
I also think you’re misreading Henley and could get into that, but I’m getting sort of tired of arguing about Conor, a person I’d only read for the first time in the last day or two. I’ll read him sometimes, probably, think he did a good thing writing that post even if his voting recommendation is wrong, but me convincing you or you convincing me on what he said or what Henley meant or the rest of it probably isn’t the pressing moral issue of our time. Besides, there are other people being wrong on the internet that I’ve got to straighten out. Civilization hangs in the balance.
This isn’t directly related, but looking at LGM, they had this in a comment
http://www.isidewith.com/ and got this (though at the bottom of most yes/no choices, there is a button to select answers with some nuance) The slider on the side of how much this matters to you, which is really hard for me to answer, seems to effect things and I suspect that choosing the more nuanced answers tends to raise the approval of the minor party candidates.
90% Jill Stein Green on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, social, immigration, and science issues
85% Barack Obama Democrat on foreign policy, economic, social, environmental, science, healthcare, and immigration issues
64% Rocky Anderson Justice on foreign policy, social, economic, environmental, domestic policy, and immigration issues
9% Gary Johnson Libertarian on social and immigration issues
6% Mitt Romney Republican no major issues
Virgil Goode Constitution no major issues
59% American Voters on foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental, social, science, and immigration issues.
Who you side with by party…
96% Democrat
93% Green
24% Libertarian
6% Republican
This isn’t directly related, but looking at LGM, they had this in a comment
http://www.isidewith.com/ and got this (though at the bottom of most yes/no choices, there is a button to select answers with some nuance) The slider on the side of how much this matters to you, which is really hard for me to answer, seems to effect things and I suspect that choosing the more nuanced answers tends to raise the approval of the minor party candidates.
90% Jill Stein Green on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, social, immigration, and science issues
85% Barack Obama Democrat on foreign policy, economic, social, environmental, science, healthcare, and immigration issues
64% Rocky Anderson Justice on foreign policy, social, economic, environmental, domestic policy, and immigration issues
9% Gary Johnson Libertarian on social and immigration issues
6% Mitt Romney Republican no major issues
Virgil Goode Constitution no major issues
59% American Voters on foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental, social, science, and immigration issues.
Who you side with by party…
96% Democrat
93% Green
24% Libertarian
6% Republican
99% – Gary Johnson – economic, domestic policy, social, foreign policy, healthcare, environmental, immigration, and science issues
56% – Virgil Goode – environmental issues
52% – Mitt Romney – environmental issues
13% – Jill Stein – no major issues
9% – Rocky Anderson – no major issues
6% – Barack Obama – no major issues
88% – Libertarian
72% – Republican
23% – Green
3% – Democrat
99% – Gary Johnson – economic, domestic policy, social, foreign policy, healthcare, environmental, immigration, and science issues
56% – Virgil Goode – environmental issues
52% – Mitt Romney – environmental issues
13% – Jill Stein – no major issues
9% – Rocky Anderson – no major issues
6% – Barack Obama – no major issues
88% – Libertarian
72% – Republican
23% – Green
3% – Democrat
I did the test too with similar results but checking the details it looks a bit shaky on the lower end.
94% Stein
64% Anderson
60% Johnson
83% Obama
4% Romney
3% Goode
—
94% Green
84% Dem
17% Libertarian
3% GOP
My similarities with Romney are not that similar (mutually exclusive caveats) while they match far better with Goode (should I rethink my position? 😉 )
As far as parties go it looks resonable.
Over here I tend to follow the principle of supporting small(er) parties on the local level where I agree on issues while concentrating on electability on the higher levels. Fortunately our mixed system of 1 vote for candidate and 1 for party allows high flexibility there, so my vote for favored party goes into the general pool and is not lost while not hurting the lesser evil party candidate for the district. In the US that would be Green party but Dem candidate, in essence a vote for a Green-Dem coalition with the Green party working as a regulative keeping the Dems from drifting to the right too much.
I did the test too with similar results but checking the details it looks a bit shaky on the lower end.
94% Stein
64% Anderson
60% Johnson
83% Obama
4% Romney
3% Goode
—
94% Green
84% Dem
17% Libertarian
3% GOP
My similarities with Romney are not that similar (mutually exclusive caveats) while they match far better with Goode (should I rethink my position? 😉 )
As far as parties go it looks resonable.
Over here I tend to follow the principle of supporting small(er) parties on the local level where I agree on issues while concentrating on electability on the higher levels. Fortunately our mixed system of 1 vote for candidate and 1 for party allows high flexibility there, so my vote for favored party goes into the general pool and is not lost while not hurting the lesser evil party candidate for the district. In the US that would be Green party but Dem candidate, in essence a vote for a Green-Dem coalition with the Green party working as a regulative keeping the Dems from drifting to the right too much.
Try Project Vote Smart for another angle on candidate preference.
Try Project Vote Smart for another angle on candidate preference.
I think the isidewith is the better one since it allows for a far wider range of answers, e.g. allowing to differentiate between opposition to the ACA because it goes too far and not going far enough. It asks for the actual reasons and alternatives etc. How it weighs the answers is another thing but I have yet to find any tool that has no problems there.
In the case of Romney there is of course the problem that a lot of his ‘views’ change by the hour of the day (and so does his campaign but often out of synch with the candidate).
I think the isidewith is the better one since it allows for a far wider range of answers, e.g. allowing to differentiate between opposition to the ACA because it goes too far and not going far enough. It asks for the actual reasons and alternatives etc. How it weighs the answers is another thing but I have yet to find any tool that has no problems there.
In the case of Romney there is of course the problem that a lot of his ‘views’ change by the hour of the day (and so does his campaign but often out of synch with the candidate).
96 Stein, 86 Obama 79 Anderson (who?) 4 Romney and I forget the rest. I was 98 percent Democrat and 95 Green. I didn’t like some of my answers, even with the other options feature, but I didn’t want to take the time to spell out exactly what I thought. This came up in the intervention question, where I’d favor intervention in some Rwanda type situation with massive numbers of people being killed (and where it wouldn’t trigger WWIII to intervene, since otherwise we should also have intervened at certain times in Mao’s China), but otherwise would be anti-interventionist. I ended up picking an option that probably made me sound like someone who’d intervene every time someone said “human rights violation, we gotta go and stop this.”
96 Stein, 86 Obama 79 Anderson (who?) 4 Romney and I forget the rest. I was 98 percent Democrat and 95 Green. I didn’t like some of my answers, even with the other options feature, but I didn’t want to take the time to spell out exactly what I thought. This came up in the intervention question, where I’d favor intervention in some Rwanda type situation with massive numbers of people being killed (and where it wouldn’t trigger WWIII to intervene, since otherwise we should also have intervened at certain times in Mao’s China), but otherwise would be anti-interventionist. I ended up picking an option that probably made me sound like someone who’d intervene every time someone said “human rights violation, we gotta go and stop this.”
Stein 95%
Obama 79%
Anderson 75%
Johnson 58%
Romney 7%
Goode 6%
I’m 97% Democrat, 85% Green, 36% Libertarian, and 1% Republican. I would have expected to reverse the Democrat and Green numbers. No surprise on the Libertarian and Republican numbers.
Apparently I side with 56% of US voters, which surprises the hell out of me. There must be some kind of Venn diagram thing going on there.
If Obama continues to be a slam-dunk in MA, I will likely vote for Stein for President. She got my vote for governor when she ran, and IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
Stein 95%
Obama 79%
Anderson 75%
Johnson 58%
Romney 7%
Goode 6%
I’m 97% Democrat, 85% Green, 36% Libertarian, and 1% Republican. I would have expected to reverse the Democrat and Green numbers. No surprise on the Libertarian and Republican numbers.
Apparently I side with 56% of US voters, which surprises the hell out of me. There must be some kind of Venn diagram thing going on there.
If Obama continues to be a slam-dunk in MA, I will likely vote for Stein for President. She got my vote for governor when she ran, and IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
If Obama continues to be a slam-dunk in MA, I will likely vote for Stein for President.
That’s cool, but are there states where Obama is winning handily, but the state could go to Romney if voter suppression gets ramped up? When I see stuff like this this, I get the impression that no state is a slam-dunk.
If Obama continues to be a slam-dunk in MA, I will likely vote for Stein for President.
That’s cool, but are there states where Obama is winning handily, but the state could go to Romney if voter suppression gets ramped up? When I see stuff like this this, I get the impression that no state is a slam-dunk.
IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
Why?
I realize that D or R might not wholly represent all that is russell, but please explain how having third parties would bring the country to a place that’s closer to your point of view. All I see in countries with multiple parties is more instability, with occasional wins by both far-right and far-left candidates.
On the other hand, a huge outpouring of support for Obama would validate the things he’s trying to accomplish in opposition to Republicans, which is the real fight the country faces in government.
IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
Why?
I realize that D or R might not wholly represent all that is russell, but please explain how having third parties would bring the country to a place that’s closer to your point of view. All I see in countries with multiple parties is more instability, with occasional wins by both far-right and far-left candidates.
On the other hand, a huge outpouring of support for Obama would validate the things he’s trying to accomplish in opposition to Republicans, which is the real fight the country faces in government.
liberal japonicus is correct that no state is a slam dunk, and even if it is, wouldn’t it be better to give your vote to a popular vote nationwide referendum for Obama? Even if the electoral college went to Romney, it might be helpful to take away the argument for a mandate if Obama won the popular vote. Obviously, the Republicans would ignore that, but don’t you want to stand in solidarity with Obama?
How perplexing, russell, and (excuse the term) disappointing.
liberal japonicus is correct that no state is a slam dunk, and even if it is, wouldn’t it be better to give your vote to a popular vote nationwide referendum for Obama? Even if the electoral college went to Romney, it might be helpful to take away the argument for a mandate if Obama won the popular vote. Obviously, the Republicans would ignore that, but don’t you want to stand in solidarity with Obama?
How perplexing, russell, and (excuse the term) disappointing.
IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
Why?
Because it demonstrates a constituency for the issues that they (parties other than D or R) support.
Trust me, if I vote for Stein, it’s not going to throw MA to Romney. If the Greens get 1% of the popular vote in MA, let alone in the US, I’ll be shocked.
This will be my 10th time voting in a Presidential election. I’ve voted third party two or three times before this. The republic still stands.
We get into this every time anybody expresses less than full support for Obama. I don’t really have anything new to say about it, above and beyond the same things I’ve said 100 times before.
People should vote for who they want.
IMO it’s actually useful to demonstrate some level of visible constituency for parties other than (D) and (R).
Why?
Because it demonstrates a constituency for the issues that they (parties other than D or R) support.
Trust me, if I vote for Stein, it’s not going to throw MA to Romney. If the Greens get 1% of the popular vote in MA, let alone in the US, I’ll be shocked.
This will be my 10th time voting in a Presidential election. I’ve voted third party two or three times before this. The republic still stands.
We get into this every time anybody expresses less than full support for Obama. I don’t really have anything new to say about it, above and beyond the same things I’ve said 100 times before.
People should vote for who they want.
That’s cool, but are there states where Obama is winning handily, but the state could go to Romney if voter suppression gets ramped up?
Quite possibly.
Mine (MA) is probably not one of them.
That’s cool, but are there states where Obama is winning handily, but the state could go to Romney if voter suppression gets ramped up?
Quite possibly.
Mine (MA) is probably not one of them.
People should vote for who they want.
No argument there, dude. Indulge!
People should vote for who they want.
No argument there, dude. Indulge!
I don’t want to replay d’affaire de Conor here, and I’m not trying to sneakily trick anyone, just noting that with vote suppression, things become a lot less clearer, something that I don’t think has been mentioned elsewhere, as the focus is on the individuals and their voting preferences. Apologies if it came off like that.
I don’t want to replay d’affaire de Conor here, and I’m not trying to sneakily trick anyone, just noting that with vote suppression, things become a lot less clearer, something that I don’t think has been mentioned elsewhere, as the focus is on the individuals and their voting preferences. Apologies if it came off like that.
I think that’s actually a good point to raise LJ, and if I didn’t live in MA I would be more inclined to vote strategically, and less inclined to vote to “send a message” as it were.
I look at the option of voting for what is, in our political context, essentially a fringe party as something of a luxury.
And for the record, about an hour before engaging in the exchange with sapient, I sent Obama $100. He’s not just running in MA.
I look at my vote as a resource that I have to spend. My decisions about who to vote for are basically a matter of what I think will yield the biggest “bang for the buck”.
I think that’s actually a good point to raise LJ, and if I didn’t live in MA I would be more inclined to vote strategically, and less inclined to vote to “send a message” as it were.
I look at the option of voting for what is, in our political context, essentially a fringe party as something of a luxury.
And for the record, about an hour before engaging in the exchange with sapient, I sent Obama $100. He’s not just running in MA.
I look at my vote as a resource that I have to spend. My decisions about who to vote for are basically a matter of what I think will yield the biggest “bang for the buck”.
i wish more of the “protest” voters in safe states, especially influential and high-profile bloggers, would show that they realize that there are many states which are very close, and it’s those states that are going to decide this election. and so, even if they don’t lovelovelove Obama, but still truly don’t want a GOP win, it would be nice if they could calibrate their criticisms of Obama so as to not turn off people in the swing states.
make the case that Obama has faults, fine. but, if you really don’t want a GOP win, don’t make the case that voting for Obama is a sign of outrageous and unprecedented moral bankruptcy. if you really don’t want a GOP win, you have to acknowledge that, at this point, Obama is truly the only other choice there is.
(this isn’t directed at anyone on this thread)
i wish more of the “protest” voters in safe states, especially influential and high-profile bloggers, would show that they realize that there are many states which are very close, and it’s those states that are going to decide this election. and so, even if they don’t lovelovelove Obama, but still truly don’t want a GOP win, it would be nice if they could calibrate their criticisms of Obama so as to not turn off people in the swing states.
make the case that Obama has faults, fine. but, if you really don’t want a GOP win, don’t make the case that voting for Obama is a sign of outrageous and unprecedented moral bankruptcy. if you really don’t want a GOP win, you have to acknowledge that, at this point, Obama is truly the only other choice there is.
(this isn’t directed at anyone on this thread)
It would be very difficult to vote for an incumbent president without voting for someone who has engaged in some morally questionable activities. People who haven’t held that office have the advantage of not having had the chance to get their hands dirty in the way presidents tend to.
(Should I bother offering my opinion that Jimmy Carter, a one-term president, may have been one of the cleanest in recent history?)
It would be very difficult to vote for an incumbent president without voting for someone who has engaged in some morally questionable activities. People who haven’t held that office have the advantage of not having had the chance to get their hands dirty in the way presidents tend to.
(Should I bother offering my opinion that Jimmy Carter, a one-term president, may have been one of the cleanest in recent history?)