Q: Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
A: Why, to protest America’s descent into the depths of evil, of course!—a gesture meant to signify performatively that “no one in future generations will be able to defend America’s honor, without having [our degrading and inhumane treatment of jihadists] thrown back in their faces. Or, if you prefer, one can interpret the crossing as an artistic metaphor for his resignation that the “people who legalized, defended and endorsed torture are still in power”—and that, for all his heroic efforts to make stick the criminalization of such barbarism, some people continue to blindly support these neocon monsters in their efforts to besmirch the reputation of a once great nation.
That, and he was dying for a soft pretzel—and by a cruel twist of fate, in Manhattan, one simply must go to them!
****
(h/t Allah; and for my own recent take on the “torture” question, see here.)
How much of the torture & guantanamo divide is actually a divide over whether the people in guantanamo & torture are actually jihadists, vs a divide over whether we should be sending jihadists its a bigger disagreement than what we let on.to torture & guantanamo.
It seems like the oft unstated undercurrent of our disagreement. At least its unstated by Sully in this case, but your point is stated in yours.
Eh?
Oops. The del key effed somethin up:
vs a divide over whether we should be sending jihadists to torture & guantanamo.</blockquote>
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
To prove he wasn’t going straight.
Because he decided it was time to go left.
Because the other side is where he could have a massive pledge drive then immediately duck off for a month’s vacation from his blog.
Because the side he was on had a nice, easy-to-read, black-type-on-white-background format, while he preferred going where the illegible white-on-purple-and-blue design could be found.
I don’t know, we could go on and on…
actus: paragraph torturer
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
Because Andrew’s just so damn Catholic he can’t help himself.
No one is torturing anyone at Gitmo unless you count Eminem blaring at high decibels torture.
Sigh…ok, in a move that will cause Jeff to grind his teeth, I’ll give some ground on the torture definition in that one case.
Other than that, Adrew Sullivan is just grumpy over the gay marriage thing. Next!
I don’t know if anyone still reads Belgravia Dispatch. It fell off my radar a while ago, perhaps because of posts like
these
But the dude seems to have gone off his meds on the “torture” issue.
Either that or he’s taking the same meds as Sully.
I really really don’t understand these people.
Meanwhile back on planet earth those poor innocents at Gitmo seem to know a helluva a lot, no?
No kidding. “act-us” is Jeff’s own code, running in left-space on MoonBatD-, and designed, eventually, to stimulate conversation.
It’s only in beta right now but so far it gets 1st post every time:
See?
There is a lot more torture going on here every time actus pops in, than ever happens at Gitmo. I demand the International Red Cross gets involved!
An article about how fifth-column leftist protest the Patriot Act.
Some people (not the fashion-parroting sheeple) are genuine fifth-columnists that want to hurt America. Thus, the contradictions between popposing BOTH the Iraq War AND the PA are worth exposing.
People who oppose both, and still offer no solution to fight Islamic terrorists, instead claiming that the US is oppressing them, are a fifth column, and should be treated as such.
I used to really dig Andrew Sullivan. At his best, he is a truly outstanding liberal capitalist, a prototype even. When it comes to Iraq, he carried a tremendous amount of water defending the Bush administration, and when the administration needed it most, because for whatever reason they weren’t defending themselves.
But then Bush had to stupidly shoot off his big mouth during the run-up to 2004 about gay marriage, and Sullivan, understandably really, took it very, very personally; he has never forgiven Bush for it and most likely never will. And it just so happened, right as Bush was making enemies out of gay Americans, the whole Abu Ghraib thing hit the fan. Sullivan jumped into Bush’s shit with both boots, pioneering really the whole six-degrees-to-Kevin-Bacon “reasoning” tying Bush directly to Abu Ghraib, and then conflating the scandal with the cautiously scupulous use of aggressive interogation techniques at the Guantanamo facility, muddying the waters to the point of redining any treatment less polite than a foot rub as “torture.”
The moral of the story? If you’re a politician, avoid attacking people’s very identity. There may be more at stake than how fast your most strident supporters drive to the polls to vote for you.
yours/
peter.
Peter,
Please explain how opposing gay marriage (I don’t) becomes attacking a gay person’s identity. Especially in an election year.
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
Because he just got out of his sixteenth screening of Brokeback Mountain and he needed a little, er, “private time.”
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
Because he couldn’t get his dick out of the chicken.
wishbone!
I’ll do way better than that; I’ll let Virginia Postrel do it for me. I might as well since I’m just parroting her to begin with:
Americans care, of course, about their economic interests. But they care first about their identities. Consider the tax-paying, socially conservative Latinos who went Democratic in droves thanks to Pete Wilson’s “They keep coming” campaign for Proposition 187. If voters feel personally attacked–because they are Latinos, or working women, or housewives, or evangelical Christians, or gays–they will bolt the party that serves their economic interests. Their “natural enemies” will start to look like their friends. And if they are courted, valued, and made to feel at home, they will reciprocate. Hence, as the saying goes, American Jews have the incomes of Episcopalians and the voting patterns of Puerto Ricans.
The people Wired identifies as the “connected” and Hewitt calls the “Party of Wealth” are in fact defined neither by their gadgets nor by their money. They have a cultural identity, a cluster of distinguishing values, and a worldview. When you ask Silicon Valley executives why they do what they do, they almost never mention money, and they certainly don’t brag about their cell phones. They talk about “the ability to constantly learn new things,” about “constant change, challenge, learning, growth,” about “creating something significant.”
Although they are most visible in Silicon Valley, you can find people with the same attitudes everywhere. Theirs is not the Party of Wealth but, in a broad cultural sense, what F.A. Hayek called “the party of life”: They value learning and achievement. They accept trial-and-error experiments. They look forward to the future. They believe in creativity, enterprise, and progress.
Ronald Reagan spoke their language, which is why a remnant of Republican leaders (and a lot of big Republican donors) still imagine they belong in the GOP. A quintessential Californian, Reagan combined the state’s Midwestern work ethic with its Western sense of possibility and self-fashioning. He imagined America as a city on a hill: “a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity.” In less-poetic tones, another Midwesterner who made it big in the Golden State speaks for that lost Reaganite vision. In America, Rush Limbaugh tells anyone who will listen, “ordinary people can do extraordinary things.”
You would think that the vision of Reagan and Limbaugh would be at home in the Republican Party. But you would be wrong. In mainstream Republican rhetoric, the city on a hill has been replaced by a swamp of iniquity, the God of blessing by the God of wrath. No wonder Bob Dole’s 1996 convention speech promised to build a bridge to the past. Dole was pandering to the party’s imagined base. All the present holds, he said, “is crime and drugs, illegitimacy, abortion, the abdication of duty, and the abandonment of children.” Americans are horrible, evil people, and our civilization offers nothing of merit. Hewitt writes, “The country, in the eyes of the faithful, may be irretrievably diseased.”
As the 1996 election returns suggest, this bitter alienation turns off a lot of Americans. The typical suburbanite does not see our culture as “irretrievably diseased” merely because it is not perfect. Telling voters that America is awful is the fastest way to electoral defeat. And that gloomy, repressive vision especially repels the party of life. It strikes at their core values, attacks their identity.
Nowadays, the GOP’s agenda is set by people whose highest legislative priorities include finding some way to regulate the Internet, which they portray as nothing more than a sea of sin, and banning human cloning and related medical research. For the party of life, these are neither cheap, symbolic issues nor narrow, wonkish concerns. They are cultural touchstones, every bit as charged with identity as matters of race or gender. The Internet is, for millions of forward-looking Americans, what Israel is to Jews. When Dick Armey gives speeches about mad scientists and suggests that biomedical research defies God’s will, he may win some points with Gary Bauer. But he is handing the future–and all it represents–to the Democratic Party.
The whole thing is here.
yours/
peter.
HA!
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
I’m gobsmaked by this question. Email #675 “of the day” says “The gay marriage chip on his shoulder was too heavy so he set it down and ran to gitmo for salvation.” And that of course is a “money quote”
The bottom line is that Guantanamo Bay is the most humane prisoner camp in the history of humanity.
And yet, despite all his protestations, and all his avowals that he really, really wanted to get married, and despite being resident in state where same sex marriage is legal, he still hasn’t done it.
TW: BECAUSE OF THE… anyone?
Serious question:
Would it have been torture to show Gitmo prisoners Brokeback Mountain?
I’m not dissing the movie- I plan to see it next week. But if urine touching a Koran, fake menstrual blood, and flirtatious women are so disrespectful of muslim culture that Sullivan considers such actions abusive…what would he say if some homosexual tolerance literature was distributed to the Gitmo guys?
Sullivan:
No one in future generations will be able to defend America’s honor, without having this thrown back in their faces.
I love my country because I don’t have to idealize it. Certain people are so stuck in an imaginary present that you know why they can’t look too deeply into America’s past: because that is where all the ugly stuff happened that made the present a possibility. So, instead, Sullivan talks about a mythic future where America is crippled by moral culpability incurred today. Which is garbage. If we are “better” than “that” —whatever “that” is— then when did we become better? When we weren’t fighting wars of conquest and wasting billions and abusing intelligence and betraying our fidelity to the Constitution?
Hmmmm…..I’m starting to wonder myself whether “actus” is Jeff’s version of “Mike” at Ace’s.
Not that I object in principle, but how will torturing the International Red Cross get rid of actus?
I wonder why the Shrimpy McHilterburton Administration would go to the trouble to “legalize” torture if they did not “consider themselves bound by the law.”
Sadly, Andy doesn’t deign to enlighten us.
Toby, excellent point.
I find people that say things such as “I want my country back” or “I can’t stand what my country has become” have the same lack of ability (desire?) to look into the past.
To which decade would they like to point back the clock? What do they think they would go back to?
Jeff- I wish you would limit the number of good posts you generate in a day, because I really need to get some stuff done around my house.
Because he couldn’t get his dick out of the chicken. That is just gobsmackingly elegant.
We had some POW camps here in the mainland during WWII. Gitmo is better than that? No interrogations there.
Serious question, if a bit off topic:
Why is Andrew Sullivan so frequently heralded as “a great writer”?
I don’t mean “why do so many people like his blog” or “why do so many appreciate his thoughts about such-and-such topic.” I’m referring specifically to the volume of praise he receives—even from political opponents—about his skill as a writer.
I mean, sure, obviously Sullivan is not bad at writing. He can competently arrange words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into articles or essays.
But so can a gazillion other journalists and pundits. I’ve read plenty of Sullivan over the years, and I can’t recall ever stopping to think, “My, what a deft touch as a wordsmith.” His prose has never displayed some distinct style or flair, some exceptional talent at using words as words—i.e., as great writing.
I know that a fair number of literary sorts lurk around here, so I’m hoping somebody can shed some light on this whole thing. How did it become conventional wisdom that Andrew Sullivan is a masterful writer?
And trust me, this is a very real meme. The following Google search produces 27,300 hits:
“andrew sullivan” “good writer” OR “excellent writer” OR “great writer”
Sure, that doesn’t necessarily mean 27,300 testaments to Sullivan’s writing genius—there’s plenty of noise and unrelated context among those pages. But presuming that this same noise ratio applies to any similar search, the results are pretty startling when you substitute various names where “andrew sullivan” is above. Here’s a sampling of writers from various realms, including political punditry:
Tom Wolfe: 17,100
J.D. Salinger: 15,300
George Will: 10,300
Mark Steyn: 11,100
P.J. O’Rourke: 523
In other words: What the fuck? Am I legitimately missing something in Andrew Sullivan’s work, or is there something legitimately screwed up about all the kudos?
Toby, excellent point.
I find people that say things such as “I want my country back†or “I can’t stand what my country has become†have the same lack of ability (desire?) to look into the past.
It’s OUR fucking country, but then…liberals have always been sorta selfish with that.
Cecil Turnern always seems to figure out this argument, now doesn’t he
Actus, once again, you show a complete ignorance of history. A rational person would begin to notice that their every opinion was based on false premises and begin to alter their opinions. You merely refuse to accept reality and deny historical fact.
Fort Hunt was used for interrogating prisoners of war during WWII. Read the sanitized National Park Service description of what went on there.
Uh, Actus, I think I’d need a citation on that. We sure interrogated the bejeezus out of German POWs in Europe.
Robin, that’s very interesting. It would appear that FDR also thought he had the right to, er, stretch the Geneva Conventions on interrogation.
“I’ve read plenty of Sullivan over the years, and I can’t recall ever stopping to think, “My, what a deft touch as a wordsmith.â€Â
He speaks with an English accent so it goes hand in hand with a deft pen?
Torture/Gay Marriage has become his cause wedgie that he can’t quite dislodge from his ass. Until he does, he’ll be tedious.
Come on! Nutshells not allowed.
OT but you know….
While Jeff and Tom Maguire are working on the “cultist manifesto, liberals are making [url=”http://media.nationalreview.com/090424.asp” target=”_blank”]
advances[/url]
<a href=”[url=”http://media.nationalreview.com/090424.asp” target=”_blank”]
“ target=”_blank”>grrrrrr[/url]
3 times would be humiliating for most people but um…
Not me!
Actus takes positions that are more or less logically valid, if not vapid, watery, reprehensible, silly, disturbing, pedantic or just plain needlessly contrary.
Mike’s just a full blown fucking idiot. He’s not smart enough to form or express the McCarthyite bullshit actus kept shovelling about Alito, for example.
They both still suck, but it’s different flavors of suck. Like one’s slippery and slimy, and the other’s just a free floating mass of retarded hate.
Pardon me, I forgot to include “factually inaccurate” to actus’ list of flaws.
<a href=”http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="andrew+sullivan+is+a+great+writer"”>Google Search – Refined>
–
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
He was safety-pinned to a beagle
–
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
He didn’t. Andrew’s never changed his position. The road changed its.
–
Why did Andrew Sullivan cross the road?
Because Glenn Reynolds suggested that he hadn’t.
—
But then Bush had to stupidly shoot off his big mouth during the run-up to 2004 about gay marriage, and Sullivan, understandably really, took it very, very personally; he has never forgiven Bush for it and most likely never will.
This despite the fact that Kerry took exactly the same stance on the issue as Bush, yet Andy didn’t seem to let that interfere with his support for Johnny.
Odd, that.
Charlie,
Basically, George W. Bush is the most tyrannical wartime president we’ve ever had … so long as you exclude every other wartime president, ( especially Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and FDR ), we’ve ever had.
Actus’ ignorance is wilful.
Andy Sullivan is definitely against gratuitous torture with no cover charge…
Couple o things:
1. I continue to support the torture of jihadists. Apparently, this is not a popular position but quite frankly, I put terrorists in the same category as child molesters- they prey on the innocent- these people should be treated accordingly- there is no reason we must respect their so called rights (they don’t have any) or their religon (they waived any right they may have to tolerence when they picked up the gun and bomb in the name of jihad).
2. PeterJacksons comments about Bush’s stance on gay marriage are rather silly. Sullivan’s bullshit stance on the war on terror was suddenly undercut by Bush’s stance on gay marriage ? And thats somehow Bush’s fault ? You are comparing apples and oranges. Sullivan either supported the war on terror/war in Iraq because he believed it was right, not b/c he assumed Bush would make some concession to the gay commnuity for Sullivan’s support- like a petulant child, Sullivan’s blog became all gay marriage all the time and it became readily apparent that “gay” is what Sullivan is really about (well that and ego). My personal opinion is he’s a manipulative little shit and bloggers spent entirely too much time agonizing over his distances himself from conservatives.
3. Leave the question of gay marriage to the states.
False. Bush supported amending the Federal Constitution. Kerry supported amending the Massachussets Constitution but opposed amending the Federal one.
Without getting overly technical, I think we’re probably talking rooster here.
Wow, we are all dirtier for having heard that. Thanks, Sticky
Anyone know offhand what the symptoms of HIV-related dementia are?
No one in future generations will be able to defend America’s honor, without having this thrown back in their faces.
Pure projection here. Dearest Andrew assumes that most red-blooded Americans would wilt under such a vigorous verbal assault (ha) because that is precisely what he has already done.
This red-blooded American would invite the individual who dared to speak such a calumny to my face to drink long and drink deeply from my throbbing member. Sorry, Andrew, that would be meant as an insult, not an invitation.
Who decides who is a jihadist? Do you defer to the admin that whoever is in guantanamo is a jihadist? Or would you like some procedure for determining that they are enemy combatants?
Who decides who is a jihadist? Do you defer to the admin that whoever is in guantanamo is a jihadist? Or would you like some procedure for determining that they are enemy combatants?
Me? I defer to the military who rounded them up.
Do you ever have a point, actus?
*Who decides who is a jihadist? Do you defer to the admin that whoever is in guantanamo is a jihadist? Or would you like some procedure for determining that they are enemy combatants? *]
Honestly, I think thats a good question. I would defer to the people on the ground to determine who is a jihadist- i.e. the military and related intelligence services. There won’t be a litmus test. I’m not sure the “administration” (which I’m assuming you mean the Bush administration) is the best candidate to make that determination- obviously, SecDef and other administration officials will have input but I think we must rely on our military, who are out in the field, to make that determination.
Captured “enemy combatents” (who are, in my mind, terrorists) are what I consider jihadists. Individuals either in or with close ties to Al Queda are jihadists. Any muslim individuals planning attacks on the United States, other western nations or even middle eastern countries (ie taking a shot at Mushareef) are jihdists. Those who raise a gun or a bomb or a knife against an American soldier, those people are jihadists.
I realize this is a broad classification, in some respects. At the same time, I have doubts that there are many, if any, wrongfully accused individual in Gitmo and I will always believe that should ere on the side of protecting this country from outside threats when determining who is a jihadist.
For someone thought to be intelligent, Andrew seems to have zero knowledge of the history of war, including torture, prior to 2003. If he only knew of the torture and real war crimes prior to that time, he would be filled with heartache. I’m not even sure anything that happened at Abu Gharib or Gitmo even qualifies as torture or a war crime. There was more torture and war crimes carried out by all sides during WWII in a single day than has occurred during the past two or years in total.
I’m guessing 1977 to 1981. A more humble United States, you know?
I decide. I thought we were all clear on that point.
No way, dude! I decide!
Actus forgets that the Geneva Convention specifies the procedure for determining illegal combatant status and requires that it be by military tribunal. It is actually a violation of the Geneva Convention to have civilian courts try prisoners unless all of a nation’s military forces are also tried by civilian courts – which is not the case in the US.
There is actually a reason for this policy decision by the convention. It was thought that military personnel would actually better understand the usages of war than civilian courts.
The point being that saying ‘I’m ok with the torture of jihadists’ doesn’t quite capture all that is at play in the torture debate. We have a guy like Maher Arar, whose torture was outsourced. We have people in guantanamo that are not jihadists. Someone that says ‘I support the torture of jihadists’ doesn’t really speak to the issue of whether the torture of those people is proper, because I don’t know how you decide that someone is a jihadist. I don’t know how much torture of innocents you accept. I don’t know who should pay the price of the torture of innocents—the innocents, or the US taxpayer that is protected by the torture policy.
That’s why I ask, because I think the issue that teh government makes mistakes is a big one in the torture debate.
We have people in guantanamo that are not jihadists.
And you know this…how, actus?
Actus forgets
Entirely too generous.
Sullivan’s stance on the WOT remain unchanged; he takes it very seriously. His stance of Bush himself is another matter. Sullivan went from being a Bush defender to being an antagonist.
:peter
TW: services. Yeah. So does Jeff edit this list on a post by post basis or what? Has anyone gotten chicken yet?
Stuart Taylor addressed Guantanamo detainees issue in the National Journal earlier this month. It is now behind a subscription wall but appears to have been reproduced in full here.
Sullivan’s stance on the WOT remain unchanged; he takes it very seriously.
Could have fooled me. Andy “heartache” Sullivan’s tender concern for terrorists’ sensitivities strikes me as something a little less than serious support for an aggressive campaign against global terror.
I don’t know how much torture of innocents you accept.
1. The torture is designed to extract the information that will determine their jihad-ness duh
2. I think I’m okay with few extra Harry Potter readings
Begging the question squared.
A. No one has established that torture occurs at Gitmo. Period. Over and out. Finito.
B. Who the hell said anything to this point about any of these assholes being innocent?
You’re taking it to new heights, actus. Or should that be depths? Or a kind of rhetorical chaos event in 3-D?
Did he marry the chicken?
Because we’ve released people that we’ve found to be non-jihadist. We’re also holding people that we’ve found to be non-jihadist.
Which is far from saying that everyone there is innocent. All that it means is that bein in guantanamo doesn’t mean you’re a jihadist.
Which Convention?
Ah. So that is more than torturing jihadists. That’s torturing people that might be jihadists.
I addressed the question to the guy that said they support torture of jihadists.
I did. Because some of these assholes are.
I think we’re trying to apply American jurisprudence standards to military action, which is unrealistic and couterproductive. I’m not sure it’s wise to presume innocence when you’re dealing with hostiles captured on the battlefield (my understanding of where the bulk of the Gitmo detainees come from).
This argument has been made over and over – the WoT is not a law enforcement action, period. Bad shit happens to good people (ask any of the families of the 3000+ that died on 9/11, although I’m not sure all of them were saints; heck, some of them might have had overdue library books); expecting anything different under the circumstances is childish. If a few “innocents” get rounded up and “made uncomfortable” (call it “torture” if you’re so inclined but understand I may disagree) during a time of war, they might want to ask why their countrymen decided to start this mess by murdering U.S. civilians on American soil in the first place.
So, yes, I think more than a few of us are comfortable with the unfortunate detainment of non-combatants. Unlike a lot of people, I believe that neither the Bush Administration nor the military has any vested interest nor sadistic desire to incarcerate anyone “innocent” so we trust the system to treat these people accordingly. Like most everything in life, perfection is neither expected nor demanded.
Actus, one of the difficulties here is that in some sense most of the jihadis are “innocent.” Taking up arms against an enemy isn’t a crime, which is one reason the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions in particular (see, eg, this UN publication specify that prisoners of war may be interned (Article 21) and held until the cessation of hostilities (article 118). Repatriation is permitted before then but not required, but inder no circumstances may a repatriated person be redeployed to active duty (article 117).
It’s worth reading, actually reading the Geneva Conventions. A lot of things that people presume is required under the Conventions turns out not to be.
* We have people in guantanamo that are not jihadists. *
I do not think the article you cited proves that there are innocent people at Gitmo- I mostly see alot of lawyers posturing, which is what they do for a living. But lets assume those 4 individuals are “innocent”. Explain the, what would be the motivation for the government to hold “innocent people”? If its a question of burecracy (ie these people are caught in the system), that should be addressed and quite honestly, I have doubt it is/will be addressed. Again, because what is the motivation for holding an innocent person or a person of no interest to government. And again, we’re talking about 4 people- is it my understanding that you would sacrifice the potential security of our country and people for 4 Chinese Muslims, who, for whatever reason, were picked up in Pakistan (presumably by Pakistani forces)? To me, that is acceptable. We can quibble over how many is too many if you want to do so but I can tell you my response is going to be to ere on the side of protecting this country from jihadists. If you want an exact figure, well how many innocents were killed by jihadists during 9-11? We can start there if you like.
Actus, it seems to me that ultimately, the sticking point is that you don’t trust the goverment – maybe b/c its Bush’s government, maybe because you don’t trust government in general, maybe you don’t trust the military. If so, please just state that. And then tell me who you think should make these decisions ? And understand, I’m not baiting you – I’d like an honest answer- if our military doesn’t make the decision as to who is “innocent”, who should do that ? Or, should we simply release everyone just in case there are innocents being held ? I mean, what is your solution ?
I trust the government to manage the war on terror and I trust the military to execute the war. Many of us do. We also believe that the military and intelligence services are in a far better position to determine who is held and who is released then you or I or any other armchair quarterback.
Finally, I want you to understand- I dont believe we should be holding these terrorists at Gitmo- I would much prefer they be lined up against a wall and shot. I don’t care about their “rights” to a Koran, their right to 3 meals a day, etc. They have declared themselves my enemy and I believe we should take them at their word. I suspect the military will ultimately determine, based on the outcry about holding prisoners, that maybe they should just take less prisoners. In that manner, I am afraid that the liberal take on GItmo prisoners will end up backfiring on them.
I hit your link, actus. Pretty thin gruel, son. Pretty thin. And I concur with Matt, esq. that if you think holding enemy combatants is wrong, then fucking say so. If you think the military should be taking these assholes from the battlefield then fucking say so.
I’m fine with that plan, BTW. I think more of them should be sent to Allah courtesy of the the US Military.
If you think the military SHOULD NOT be taking these assholes…
I’d like to float the idea of a new hit reality show on FOX, “Best of the Vest” (working title)
You put a suicide vest on a bunch of Gitmo detainees and none of them know which one has the radio operated detonator. Then you get them to do all sorts of crazy hijinks in the vein of Jackass. eg shock to the balls, sparkler insterted into the urethra, dipped in honey and dropped in the Grizzly exhibit, etc. etc.
At the end, the nation votes who should be detonated and then devote a half hour show the next night to counting down who it’s going to be. Pants pissing hilarious imho. Run a few commercials and then the grand finale is “Habdul, I’m sorry but you will not be going through to the next round. It ends here for you. But don’t let go of your dream.”
And then tell him to take off running and BOOM. That’s TV!!!
I’m sorry. When I say innocent, I mean not enemy combatants.
Really? Did you read the part that said “Even the US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants.” Is that just posturing?
That sounds like a smart standard: just what the jihadists do.
I’d like basic concepts of due process: fair hearing before an impartial fact-finder. I think the military can do this, but I don’t automatically trust that they are.
As an aside, I do believe that its unfair for us to cause damage to innocents for our protection. Ie: we owe them reparations. We should pay the cost of our protection, not them. Its kind of silly for us to sit here and say we find what happens to innocents in our cause to protect ourselves ‘acceptable’ when we’re not paying the price. The Maher Arars of our world are. If anything, they are on the frontline of the war on terror more than any commenter on any blog.
The link doesn’t make the case for their innocence, because its uncontroversial. The controversy, and what the article talks about, is that we don’t know what to do about them.
I think we should have a good process to determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant. And then we can discuss holding enemy combatants, surer that that is what we are talking about: enemy combatants, not innocents.
*Really? Did you read the part that said “Even the US military has found that the men, members of the besieged Uighur ethnic group, are not enemy combatants.†Is that just posturing? *
Why are they being held? Again, please answer the question -what is the governments motivation for holding innocent people ? If its a mistake, then I believe it will be rectified. I do know that neither you nor I know the full story.
*That sounds like a smart standard: just what the jihadists do.*
I’m not sure I understand your comment. I don’t believe that is what the jihadists do. What they do is cause the initial casualties. I would prefer that no innocents are swept up in it and in a perfect world, that would be the case. But it is not a perfect world and you cannot tell me that the people in the Towers in New York “had it coming”. My comment was simply a response to your next question which I assume would have been “how many is too many, how few is too few”. Again, would you mind answering the question for me please- I have answered it for you. You may not like my answer and find it morally repugnant and I am fine with that. I simply want to know what your position is on the subject.
*I’d like basic concepts of due process: fair hearing before an impartial fact-finder. I think the military can do this, but I don’t automatically trust that they are. *
You are then extending “rights” to terrorists/enemy combatants that our own citizens have under the Constitution. Do you honestly believe that an enemy combatant is entitled to “due process?” in the same way our citizens are entitled to it? The criminal justice system is based on the notion that every citizen will be tried by a jury of their peers and there are safeguards in place in the system to assure that is the case. Who are the peers of a captured jihadist ? Other jihadists ? Would you permit a military tribunal to sit in judgment ? Not to mention, what standard of evidence would you suggest using during a trial ? Beyond reasonable doubt ? Preponderence of the evidence ? More likely then not ? These are things you have to consider and reconcile if you prefer this system and I submit to you that it is not reconcilable.
Additionally, lets assume a trial is possible- you simply cannot put together a case against an enemy combatant b/c you will be unable to gather evidence on the battlefiend- the standard for guilt would have to be very lose, otherwise every jihadist would go free. For example, I do aviation work and if there has been crash, I will generally read the NTSB’s report, where they go into the field immediately and gather evidence. How exactly do you expect the military to do that on the battlefield ? Again, this is an honest question and I would like to see if you have an answer.
*Its kind of silly for us to sit here and say we find what happens to innocents in our cause to protect ourselves ‘acceptable’ when we’re not paying the price. *
Again, please tell me what the alternative is?
Actus, I think several of us are making a legitimate atempt to engage you and get you to explain your position- however, I feel like you are purposely ignoring questions posed, not b/c they are baited questions (they’re not) but because you don’t have an answer. At this point, I would take an answer I don’t particularly care for simply so we’ll know what your position is. My take on your last paragraph is you believe we should hold no prisoners so that no innocents are caught in the net? Is that what you are saying? If so, simply state that.
Ah, the cycle of
violenceavoidance continues. Nice to see that some things never change.Transnational progressives are not required to provide answers to legitimate questions about their firmly held positions. Indeed, they are not required to even possess firmly held positions. They are above such trivialities. Socratic method and world-weary cynicism hurled at the doers are the weapons by which these mere talkers seek to capture a pedestal on which to exalt themselves. Bow down, you pest exterminators, you middle managers, you Wal-Mart cashiers, bow down before your intellectual superiors.
Because we don’t know what to do with them—they’ll be abused if sent to China. Government can be kafkaesque, you know.
I also believe we’ll find some way to rectify this. The only reason I point to it is to make the point that some people are mistakenly in guantanamo.
And you pointed to the numbers of deaths caused by the jihadists. And I pointed out that this sounded like a smart standard for us to use in guiding how many innocents we will kill: the same number as the jihadists do.
No. I think our justice system has many more things than just a fair hearing before an impartial factfinder. Things which we don’t need in order to determine enemy combatant status.
I said the military can do this hearing.
Pay the innocent people. We destroyed Maher Arar’s life. If a doctor’s malpractice had done that, he would be owed damages. Same principle here. No fair to make him bear the cost of the war on terror that protects us.
Well, welcome to the world of due process.
You are an asshat.
Indeed. How one feels about whether the innocent man, tortured for a year because of us, and to protect us, should have his life restored by us is the test of Asshattery.
Well I appreciate you responding to my questions :
*Because we don’t know what to do with themâ€â€they’ll be abused if sent to China. Government can be kafkaesque, you know. *
Hmm, so the reason they’re being held is b/c we don’t want them to be abused by the chinese government ? Then aren’t we doing them a favor ?
*And you pointed to the numbers of deaths caused by the jihadists. And I pointed out that this sounded like a smart standard for us to use in guiding how many innocents we will kill: the same number as the jihadists do. *
Ok fair enough but the point, to me, is that we actually don’t do this. If this was the case, we’d have carpet bombed Mecha. Instead, the administration is taking a measured approach. Also, I have no idea to harm innocents- but I think as a practical reality, its going to happen.
*No. I think our justice system has many more things than just a fair hearing before an impartial factfinder. Things which we don’t need in order to determine enemy combatant status. *
You want somehthing more informal then a trial by jury ? I suppose thats reasonable but again, we’re back to “whats the burden of proof”. Imagine the incredible drain on government resources if the government had to prepare a case against every captured combatant. I also suspect there are standards in place for evaluating a captured prisoners status, probably carried out by military intelligence. Again, in my mind, this is appropriate.
*Pay the innocent people. We destroyed Maher Arar’s life. If a doctor’s malpractice had done that, he would be owed damages. Same principle here. *
Ok, I don’t agree with doing this but it does make more sense then simply releasing all the prisoners. How do we calculate what a person is paid ? Who pays for it ? And how does a prisoner prove he’s entitled to reparations. Again, it seems like you are looking at it from a legal process perspective- ie a suit for damages- but how would said suit be brought ?
Anyway, we got some answers and I appreciate it.
By holding them in gitmo? not really. I think their lawyers are trying to get them released to somewhere else.
Its not going to be that hard. How sure are we that this guy is an enemy combatant? That’s really all we’re determining.
If they’re innocent, and have been hurt. We, the taxpayer, owe them. They suffered for our safety. We should pay for that. not them.
I’d rather it be given to them after they walk out the door. This can be handled by all sorts of processes, both within the executive and in a court.