quote: But then something remarkable happened to Bill Clinton. Suddenly one day he wakes up and decides that intervening in foreign countries is a good idea. The embassy bombings in East Africa had made the U.S. look impotent and showed just how useless our intelligence agencies can be against a determined enemy that can strike anywhere. It was suddenly in our vital interests to retaliate. You know, the way Reagan bombed Libya to retaliate for terrorist acts that Khaddafi had sponsored. FOOTNOTE
And there's suddenly a deadline for taking action. Clinton can't wait around for our intelligence services to determine who the bombers actually were. Because there's a matter of vital national interest that requires immediate action:
Monica's dress.
Got to have something on the front pages when the lab reports on the presidential sperm count. And those embassy bombings in East Africa are the perfect excuse. We've got to have the name of the perpetrators and we've got to take a big, splashy action against them.
So the missiles fly, the bombs drop, things blow up, and there's Bill Clinton, oiling his way through the explanation: It was this Osama bin Laden guy, and they were planning yet another imminent action and our bombs have definitely thwarted him.
Only there's one tiny problem. We didn't know where Bin Laden was, nor did we know anything about his plans.
Furthermore, our missiles and bombs were utterly useless and we knew it when they were fired. He's a guerrilla fighter, like Castro in the mountains of Cuba. We can't touch him with missiles.
So we bombed a medicine factory in Khartoum, with only the most ludicrous "evidence" that it was involved in chemical weapons production.
And we bombed "terrorist camps" in Afghanistan. Our intelligence was so bad that two of them turned out to be Pakistani-operated bases -- our allies -- and as for the ones that might have been associated with our enemies ... well, Mr. Bill tipped our hand by withdrawing nonessential U.S. personal from the area before sending the missiles. They had plenty of time to get out of the way.
So we achieved no surprise. If our missiles killed any terrorists or damaged any of their equipment, it was a lucky accident.
Of course, Mr. Bill and his apologists could claim complete success because, after all, there was an "imminent terrorist attack" and, after we fired all those missiles, the attack didn't happen!
That's like the old joke about the guy who walks along banging two pans together. "Why are you doing that?" "To scare the elephants away." "There aren't any elephants around here." "See? It's working."
There was no imminent terrorist attack. We did not know who set off those bombs in East Africa, and even if we had known, hitting those targets did not punish them in any way, did not prevent anything.
And here's what really sticks in my craw. People died from those bombs. Bill Clinton killed people in the name of the United States of America, for his own political gain.
Moreover, he grossly violated international law. He bombed the territory of two nations with which we are not at war. One is ruled by a hostile regime, and Afghanistan is barely governed at all. They may have provided shelter for those who attack us, but that doesn't change the fact that we have declined to declare war on them and do not have the right to simply bomb them whenever our president feels like it.
But for Bill Clinton, all that matters is that Sudan and Afghanistan are poor countries without the power to retaliate in kind. He could bomb them and kill people within their borders and blow up a plant that made medicine for half a continent, and nobody could do anything about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry but...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's the best response I could come up with.
Edit to add:
Read the 9/11 Commission Report.
Read some of the news that's come out recently.
Join me in a bittersweet laugh.
[ September 28, 2006, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Wow. That is interesting. Thanks.
Posted by JimmyCooper (Member # 7434) on :
I completely agree with Osc on this.
quote: Let's retroactively give meaning to the deaths of those good sons and daughters of America, by becoming a people who value honor above money, freedom above security, law above private advantage, and virtue above charm.
You know. The character thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JC, Dude, burn.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
<Fair enough>
[ September 29, 2006, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I believe the terms of service forbid personal attacks on members, Orincoro. OSC is a member here, too, not to mention our host. Perhaps you could express your feelings without calling him names?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Besides, what party hack? He still calls himself a Democrat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is it possible for someone to have a serious shift in ideology following a critically important event such as 9-11-01 without being ridiculous? Personally, I don't think so.
I make no claims whether OSC has or hasn't had such a shift, but clearly some people think he has and that it is ridiculous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Surely people are allowed.
My reaction to that article is the hysterical irony, consider what Bush has done in the last six years. It doesn't mean I think he's wrong to change what he supports, if that is in fact what he did, but either way it's amusing that so many of his criticisms are things Bush has done, only to the Nth degree. If I didn't know any better I'd say that Card was trying to go after Democratic opponents of Bush by comparing him to Clinton, but the timing makes that impossible. Either way it is what it is, and what it is, is ironically comical.
And my reaction is to the almost comical ignorance of Clinton's response to terrorism. He either doesn't have a good grasp of the 90's terror and anti-terror efforts, or he's being intentionally dishonest. I like to think he has far too much character for the latter, so I'm inclined to believe the former. But I think that's excused by the fact that the article in question was written six years ago, long before we know all that we know now, which is why I find it more amusing that outright stupid.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Besides, what party hack? He still calls himself a Democrat.
Calls himself. But fine, I'm an astronaut. That's what I call myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because, after all, what defines a Democrat is approval or disapproval of President Bush, right Orincoro?
Of course right!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
OSC shouldn't try to base arguments on the assumption the he knows the true, secret motivations behind Clinton's actions when (1) OSC doesn't know Clinton or have any expertise on Clinton, (2) OSC's claims conflict with why Clinton himself said he did what he did, (3) Clinton's explanations of his own decisions fit the evidence at least as well as OSC's alternate explanation. It'd be kinda like some random person writing that OSC secretly wrote Ender's Game in order to promote genocide, when OSC himself has said otherwise.
Just because you can create a story for why someone did what they did does not mean that story is true - and it is not going to be convincing if you base political arguments on the assumption that your story is true, except to those who are simply looking for any reason to accept your conclusion.
So, I'm not convinced that Bill Clinton lacks character just because OSC can come up with a story in which Clinton went to war over Monica.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
While I will never hold OSC's views when he wrote this essay against him in a post 9-11 world, it does mirror all the unsupported bull that Clinton had to fight his way through when dealing with Al Queda before 9-11.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's funny -- at least in light of another current thread -- is that I remember discussing this very issue with OSC and others on the BML site. One of the observations made was that people would feel differently if Bush -- meaning the previous Bush -- had done the same thing.
We as a country were all so freakin' naive. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wrote two editorials in the spring of 1999. One was how the internet bubble was built on nothing and was going to burst any second. The other was how Osami bin Laden was not nearly as much of a threat as he was being made out to be and declaring him this terrifying threat just created a martyr and galvanized the cause unnecessarily.
Score: 1:1
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm trying to figure out why this topic was started.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno, Katie. I think you were right in both cases.
-----
Scott R, I presume it was to point out a perceived inconsistency in a pundit's observations of two somewhat similar events.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I presume it was to point out a perceived inconsistency in a pundit's observations of two somewhat similar events.
I'm glad I asked. I just don't see the similarities-- or rather, I see how other people might see the similarities. I think a more thorough examination of the situation dispels any hypocrisy, though.
Ah, well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Is it possible for someone to have a serious shift in ideology following a critically important event such as 9-11-01 without being ridiculous? Personally, I don't think so.
I make no claims whether OSC has or hasn't had such a shift, but clearly some people think he has and that it is ridiculous.
Sure, it's possible, but it's wrong.
9/11 was a tragedy, an evil act. It was horrifying. But that it should make us to frightened that we forget our ideals, forget liberty, forget who we are is ridiculous.
And that is what we have done. 3000 people died, tragically, horribly, sadly. But that should not have been enough to cripple us. Our own fear, exploited by our leaders, is what is doing that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not aware that 'serious shift in ideology' necessarily means 'forget our ideals, forget liberty, forget who we are...'.
Actually, although I don't pay as much attention as I used to to Card's columns-well, the Internet in general really-I can't be sure when I say this, but Card hasn't much commented on the entire civil rights aspect of Bush's presidency, has he? He has been almost exclusively focused, from what I remember, on Bush's foreign policy agenda and actions.
Unless I'm wrong about that, I think it's pretty hysterical to start imprinting all of these hated (yes, hated) beliefs onto Card, if he hasn't remarked on them yet.
Once again, given that I do not believe that 'serious shift in ideology' equates to 'abandoning a bunch of civil rights', I do not believe it's very ridiculous.
----------------
On an unrelated note, I also have issues with your statements along the lines of 'who we are'. Historically, we've been willing-just like any other society on Earth, really-to abandon one or two or even many civil rights in the face of danger, whether in a legal sense or a political sense or a moral sense, or all three.
The Civil War, and President Lincoln's suspension of certain rights. Alien and Sedition Acts. Our good buddy Joe McCarthy. WWII and Japanese Americans. The violence during the Civil Rights movement. Hell, the United States's treatment of African-Americans (at the very least) prior to the Civil Rights movement.
If we are crippled now, kmbboots, we have been crippled before as well. While I resonate in part with your arguments and passion on this subject, I believe you do yourself and your beliefs a disservice by making such statements that are obviously untrue. It gives people something to latch on to, and ignore the rest of what you're saying.
I think that the direction the Bush Administration and a whole lot of Congress is heading with respect to how we treat prisoners suspected of terrorism is a very, very important thing-too important to risk by making statements that are easily discounted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that the direction the Bush Administration and a whole lot of Congress is heading with respect to how we treat prisoners suspected of terrorism is a very, very important thing-too important to risk by making statements that are easily discounted.
Which statements would you use?
[ September 29, 2006, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Accurate ones, without hyperbole and cute little pieces of fiction that mangle the actual issues.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like...?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So because we have gotten it wrong in the past (and I like to think I would have been upset about it then, had I been around) we should be okay with getting it wrong now? "Well we never really were a great country anyway..."
My comment was not directed at Mr, Card's specific shift in ideology; it was directed at your premise that 9/11 should cause such a shift in ideology.
I don't know whether Mr. Card's ideology has shifted. Perhaps it has and maybe after 9/11 he wrote a retraction article apologizing for underestimating the threat and misinterprating President Clinton's motives? Did he?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Like...?
Like, "the current bill is very complex, and until I've fully analyzed it, I won't be making generalizations about it."
Or, "I think that the bill should appoint counsel to assist all defendants who desire to represent themselves."
Or, "I think habeas corpus should be available to those making the claim that they are not an enemy combatant."
Or, even, "The bill prevents detainees from raising a habeas claim that they are not an enemy combatant."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it was directed at your premise that 9/11 should cause such a shift in ideology.
And Rakeesh's comment was directed at the assumption implicit in your post that a shift of ideology after 9/11 must amount to "forget[ing] our ideals, forget[ing] liberty."
There are many shifts in ideology that would be justified by 9/11 that do not amount to either of those things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about "the fact that we are talking about limiting habeus corpus at all terrifies me."
It was wrong when we have done it before. It is wrong now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
You are suggesting something other than what I actually said.
quote:...it was directed at your premise that 9/11 should cause such a shift in ideology.
I merely said a person could have a serious shift in ideology without necessarily being ridiculous in the face of 9-11. I've been careful not to say that I think 'serious shift in ideology' means 'become pro-torture' for just that reason, as a matter of fact.
This isn't the first time that criticizing hyperbolic and untrue statements gets me tarred with that particular brush, although it hasn't happened nearly as often to me as it has to Dagonee. I suppose that's why I get where he's coming from.
Still annoying as hell, though.
quote:So because we have gotten it wrong in the past (and I like to think I would have been upset about it then, had I been around) we should be okay with getting it wrong now?
Like that, for instance. Please, as a favor to me, point to where I said or implied that. In fact I went out of my way to say that I considered this issue so very important that we shouldn't make statements that make it easier to dismiss!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, Dagonee, have you really not heard the phrase, "it's a different world since 9/11" coming from politicians? How about, "it's a post 9/11 world"? Maybe heard politicians criticized for their "pre-9/11 thinking"?
How many things have been justified by that rhetoric?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Accurate ones, without hyperbole and cute little pieces of fiction that mangle the actual issues.
quote:And there's suddenly a deadline for taking action. Clinton can't wait around for our intelligence services to determine who the bombers actually were. Because there's a matter of vital national interest that requires immediate action:
Monica's dress.
Got to have something on the front pages when the lab reports on the presidential sperm count. And those embassy bombings in East Africa are the perfect excuse. We've got to have the name of the perpetrators and we've got to take a big, splashy action against them.
So the missiles fly, the bombs drop, things blow up, and there's Bill Clinton, oiling his way through the explanation: It was this Osama bin Laden guy, and they were planning yet another imminent action and our bombs have definitely thwarted him. . . . There was no imminent terrorist attack. We did not know who set off those bombs in East Africa, and even if we had known, hitting those targets did not punish them in any way, did not prevent anything.
And here's what really sticks in my craw. People died from those bombs. Bill Clinton killed people in the name of the United States of America, for his own political gain. . . .
But for Bill Clinton, all that matters is that Sudan and Afghanistan are poor countries without the power to retaliate in kind. He could bomb them and kill people within their borders and blow up a plant that made medicine for half a continent, and nobody could do anything about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess this is the part where the vague political rhetoric of others is reasonable to apply criticism to the specific statements of people here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Engage the sidestepping engine!
Edit to note: I suppose that's not really sidestepping, Mr. Squicky. It is, although only to the issue I'm talking about with kmbboots. However, that's certainly not the only conversation happening here, so it didn't really apply. My bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So because we have gotten it wrong in the past (and I like to think I would have been upset about it then, had I been around) we should be okay with getting it wrong now?
Like that, for instance. Please, as a favor to me, point to where I said or implied that. In fact I went out of my way to say that I considered this issue so very important that we shouldn't make statements that make it easier to dismiss!
Then what, exactly, is your purpose when I get upset about what we are doing now, in pointing out that we have done it before? It certainly sounds to me like you are saying that those really aren't our ideals anyway. I feel that, they are, even when we fail to live up to them. Perhaps you and I just have very different ideas about what we think this country is about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How about "the fact that we are talking about limiting habeus corpus at all terrifies me."
It was wrong when we have done it before. It is wrong now.
The framers placed a mechanism for limiting habeas right in the Constitution. I'm not sure why it frightens you to discuss it at all.
quote:Honestly, Dagonee, have you really not heard the phrase, "it's a different world since 9/11" coming from politicians? How about, "it's a post 9/11 world"? Maybe heard politicians criticized for their "pre-9/11 thinking"?
So? This would seem a responsible reply to someone who opposed all searches at airports or who says that terrorism isn't a threat.
The fact that the phrase has been misused does NOT mean that all uses of it are bad.
quote:How many things have been justified by that rhetoric?
States' rights rhetoric has justified horrible things. That doesn't mean all invocation of states' rights are bad.
"Innocent life should be protected" is invoked to justify bans on abortion. Should people who oppose such bans declare that the justification is wrong no matter when it is invoked?
"People should be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin" has been used to justify good changes (civil rights act)and, according to many people, bad things (revocation of affirmative action programs). Should the principle be discarded by those who favor AA because their opponents misuse it?
Hey Squick, care to explain how that's at all relevant to what I said?
I haven't ventured a comment on OSC's article, and I seriously doubt your ability to guess what my comment would be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I haven't ventured a comment on OSC's article
And you won't. Nor will you entertain this the next time you go to bat for him. That pretty much says it all to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Perhaps not, and perhaps my purpose is what I stated it to be.
quote:I think that the direction the Bush Administration and a whole lot of Congress is heading with respect to how we treat prisoners suspected of terrorism is a very, very important thing-too important to risk by making statements that are easily discounted.
I think it's safe to say you have very little idea what I think this country is about, at least safe to say on the basis of your perceptions of what I'm actually writing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess this is the part where the vague political rhetoric of others is reasonable to apply criticism to the specific statements of people here.
I don't take issue with your suggestion that 9/11 caused an ideological shift for Mr. Card. (was there a retraction?) I take issue with the premise - not necessarily yours, and I should have made that clearer - the tragedy of 9/11 should justify ideological shifts for this country.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I haven't ventured a comment on OSC's article
And you won't. ... That pretty much says it all to me.
What it should say is that I'm not going to go comment on this, especially when you haven't bothered to do so yourself, and nothing else.
But it won't sy that to you, because you are the all-knowing motive reader.
quote:Nor will you entertain this the next time you go to bat for him.
Not if, in typical fashion, you attempt to use this article to prove that he meant something other than what he's actually saying in the next article you decide to post about.
I'm guessing that's a "no," by the way, on explaining why that post was at all relevant to what I said. Big surprise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given your repeated willingness to impute beliefs and motives to him, Dagonee, based only on his criticisms of factually and legally incorrect statements you make about President Bush, I can easily imagine he'd be reluctant to do so and expose himself to further misrepresentations and insults.
Perhaps if you weren't so obviously gnawing at the bit to catch him in something and jump him for it-and given your past jumpings, it's equally clear you won't let little things like what he actually says get in your way-he might talk about things on your terms.
Because apparently that's a requirement around here. "Talk about this issue in my terms, or you're going to bat for the person!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmm... I just realized you might mean something else by "And you won't. Nor will you entertain this the next time you go to bat for him. That pretty much says it all to me." That I'm going to defend something he says, and that this is a wrong thing to do because something earlier he said wasn't worth defending.
I hope you doin't mean that, because, if you do, it would be a really petty and anti-intellectual thing to be thinking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rakeesh, could you please clarify to whom that's addressed?
That is, is ", Dagonee," supposed to give specificity to the "him" to whom motives are being imputed to or is ", Dagonee," supposed to indicate that whole post is addressed to me and I am doing the imputing?
I think I know, but I don't want to presume.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was to Mr. Squicky, about reasons why I imagine you (Dagonee) might be reluctant to enter a discussion on his (Mr. Squicky's) terms.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, what do you think this country should be about? You're right; I can't guess. While you say you think some things are important, you seem only to be interested in curbing the response of someone who thinks they are important enough to get upset about.
So I'll ask (and Dagonee can jump in here, too).
Do you think that 9/11 is sufficient justification to make the changes we have and are making with regards to secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, wire tapping without warrant, torture, and holding people without trial?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I believe that this establishes, pretty clearly, that OSC at least sometimes makes vitriolic perjorative statements about people with little to no evidence, little concern for the fairness of his accusations, and, when they turn out to be wrong, no appology or even aknowledgement.
From a man who has publically looked down on both of us (which, incidentally, speaks to me about the validity of your "he didn't say what you think that obviously says" defenses) as obviously not considering what he writes about as much as he does, this seems like a serious flaw.
---
I find this relevant especially because of the recent hypocritical attacks on Bill Clinton, many from the same people did as OSC did and unjustly attacked him at the time for his attempts to get bin Laden. I don't have a problem with people saying that the timing seemed somewhat suspicious. But hurling invective with absolute conviction seems to me a bit overboard. It seems to me that publicly, falsely smearing someone so vigorously would suggest a need for some sort of apology or perhaps just acknowledgement.
You know. The character thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While you say you think some things are important, you seem only to be interested in curbing the response of someone who thinks they are important enough to get upset about.
Is it really difficult to guess? I have trouble believing that, frankly. I say I think the direction we're going with regards to civil rights in the United States is very important, to the extent I want to make it more difficult for people who agree with that direction to discount criticisms easily.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I believe that this establishes, pretty clearly, that OSC at least sometimes makes vitriolic perjorative statements about people with little to no evidence, little concern for the fairness of his accusations, and, when they turn out to be wrong, no appology or even aknowledgement.
Without discussing the merits of what this article "establishes," I don't see why you think I don't agree with that statement - with the all important word "sometimes" that you included.
quote:I find this relevant especially because of the recent hypocritical attacks on Bill Clinton, many from the same people did as OSC did and unjustly attacked him at the time for his attempts to get bin Laden. I don't have a problem with people saying that the timing seemed somewhat suspicious. But hurling invective with absolute conviction seems to me a bit overboard.
Add this is relevant to me or the quote I made how, exactly? Or were you just using that quote to finally comment on the article you posted?
If so, I'm flattered. Usually you're capable of using your own words to comment on OSC's articles. I think only part of my statement actually applies to the article, though.
quote:From a man who has publically looked down on both of us (which, incidentally, speaks to me about the validity of your "he didn't say what you think that obviously says" defenses) as obviously not considering what he writes about as much as he does, this seems like a serious flaw.
And thank goodness you're here to dig through 6-year old editorials to point out his flaws!
quote:It seems to me that publicly, falsely smearing someone so vigorously would suggest a need for some sort of apology or perhaps just acknowledgement.
You know. The character thing.
Did I miss your retraction and apology for your accusation that Novak was being treated differently than Miller and the other reporter because he was favorable to the administration? I'm sorry if I did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yet instead of actually criticizing them, you spend your time taking me to task for how I criticize them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I say I think the direction we're going with regards to civil rights in the United States is very important, to the extent I want to make it more difficult for people who agree with that direction to discount criticisms easily.
Given that, I submit that a more useful approach than criticising criticisms that you consider easy to discount might be to make criticisms which are harder to discount.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:While you say you think some things are important, you seem only to be interested in curbing the response of someone who thinks they are important enough to get upset about.
Is it really difficult to guess? I have trouble believing that, frankly. I say I think the direction we're going with regards to civil rights in the United States is very important, to the extent I want to make it more difficult for people who agree with that direction to discount criticisms easily.
Apparently, it is. So I'll ask again:
Do you think that 9/11 is sufficient justification to make the changes we have and are making with regards to secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, wire tapping without warrant, torture, and holding people without trial?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yet instead of actually criticizing them, you spend your time taking me to task for how I criticize them.
quote:Given that, I submit that a more useful approach than criticising criticisms that you consider easy to discount might be to make criticisms which are harder to discount.
I sympathize with Rakeesh's reluctance to do this. He might have different reasons, but I interpret the less accurate criticisms as a possible attempt to score political points rather than discuss the actual issues. I also fear being seen to implicitly support such criticisms and to provide fodder for spreading them, something that happens even if I qualify where I agree with such criticisms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Apparently, it is. So I'll ask again:
Do you think that 9/11 is sufficient justification to make the changes we have and are making with regards to secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, wire tapping without warrant, torture, and holding people without trial?
With respect to this question, for example, I wouldn't answer until the changes under discussion are actually defined. This would require agreement about what the policies were with regard to these areas prior to 9/11 and what the policies are now, both of which I have very good reason to believe we disagree on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Actually, although I don't pay as much attention as I used to to Card's columns-well, the Internet in general really-I can't be sure when I say this, but Card hasn't much commented on the entire civil rights aspect of Bush's presidency, has he? He has been almost exclusively focused, from what I remember, on Bush's foreign policy agenda and actions.
Unless I'm wrong about that, I think it's pretty hysterical to start imprinting all of these hated (yes, hated) beliefs onto Card, if he hasn't remarked on them yet.
See, I don't agree with this. OSC has often expressed fulsome praise of President Bush and frequently risen to his defense. I don't know that he's ever raised any but mild criticisms of the President of his administration.
After a certain point, silence on prominent matters of a type you regularly commented on in other essays in the face of very frequent praise-filled essays (OSC has liked George Bush to the next coming of Abraham Lincoln for Pete's sake) is reasonably interpreted as consent or at the very least willful silence. Likewise, if someone often claims to stand for a principle, but only seems to stand for that principle in defense of specific groups and people, it's reasonable to doubt his commitment to that principle.
If you're discussing, say, the Civil War, and you take the side of the Confederates, defending many of their actions and likening them to a near ideal civilization while avoiding any mention of the whole slavery thing, I don't think that you're behaving responsibly.
If a lawyer takes a serious of unpopular cases, for say white supremicists, but claims it's because he believes that everyone deserves representation, I think it really damages his claim for motivation if he constantly ignores and even refuses people in near the exact same situation but who are black.
To me, silence is at least sometimes not merely inaction, but a choice of inaction. Choosing to do or say nothing is still a choice, often an irresponsible or even immoral one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I think you must have missed my acknowledgement I was wrong in the Novak thing, but I did make it. I'll make it again here. I was grossly misinformed in that case. Of couse, I didn't actually come close to approaching OSC's level, but, nonetheless, public faults generally should be met with public apologies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Apparently, it is. So I'll ask again:
Do you think that 9/11 is sufficient justification to make the changes we have and are making with regards to secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, wire tapping without warrant, torture, and holding people without trial?
With respect to this question, for example, I wouldn't answer until the changes under discussion are actually defined. This would require agreement about what the policies were with regard to these areas prior to 9/11 and what the policies are now, both of which I have very good reason to believe we disagree on.
Do you think that there haven't been changes since 9/11? Do you think those changes if any are good? Do you think that there may have been changes that are not good, but that people aren't using 9/11 to justify them to the American people? How do you think we disagree?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think this whole thread is tacky. If any other forum member was being picked apart in this way, I think you'd see an outcry from the forum. If you want to attack OSC, I think it would be a lot better to do it at sake or somewhere else. It's hard to blame OSC for ceasing to post on this side of the board.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's a much wider issue here than OSC's failings in this particular instance. That there were many unjust attacks on Bill Clinton's attempts to deal with al Queda and Osama bin Laden is a relevant issue now.
Holding up OSC, a superior writer who has told us that he obviously considers issues much more we do, as an example of this, pointing out the actual words he used, illustrates the type of things President Clinton was met with.
OSC is also one of the many, many pundits who have neither apologized for, nor even mentioned the falseness of their castigation of President Clinton. He hasn't - yet, anyway - gone with the Republican party line of trying to blame it all on President Clinton, though there are plenty of people doing that right now.
So, I considered this important.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Amanecer, I started this thread with only OSC's own words. How is that tacky?
edit: If using someone's own words, without any comment, constitutes an attack, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the problem is with that person or at least their words, rather than with me.
I can't agree that OSC should be able to interact here without being faced with the things he said. To me, that's treating him much different than any other poster here.
[ September 29, 2006, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If any other forum member was being picked apart in this way, I think you'd see an outcry from the forum.
In all honesty, I doubt it. In fact, I know for a fact it's not true, since several people have reposted things that other people posted in the past to demonstrate perceived inconsistencies.
quote:I interpret the less accurate criticisms as a possible attempt to score political points rather than discuss the actual issues.
Hrm. This explains a lot. From my POV, most of these attempts to "score political points" are attempts to discuss the actual issues; the attempts are born of frustration with the issues themselves. It might be easier to focus narrowly on the specific problematic elements of each issue than you think, once you go to the trouble of pointing out what you think they are.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: From my POV, most of these attempts to "score political points" are attempts to discuss the actual issues; the attempts are born of frustration with the issues themselves.
That's my view as well. I tried to make a post expressing that a few minutes ago, but couldn't come up with the phrase I was looking for. This is a good way to describe it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it can be either or in fact both; much like objecting to simplistic characterizations can either be an attempt to defend what was being attacked or a desire for the attacks to be more effective and grounded in what is true.
I do know that when I object to simplistic attacks when I agree with the larger point, I generally do more than refute the attack, especially if it's something I'm very concerned about.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IMO, when objecting to a simplistic characterization not because you disagree with the implications but rather because you found it ineffective, an ideal response is:
"I consider criticism X to be weak. A better observation is Y, the ramifications of which are just as troublesome."
Otherwise, all you've done is counter criticism X, doing direct damage to a broader argument you actually support.
I'm not saying that such counters aren't useful for both practical and ideological reasons; I'm saying that if you really believe an issue is important and believe your side should "win," you can make more of a contribution to your side by actually providing them with the better arguments that you believe exist in lieu of merely insisting that such arguments are out there somewhere.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you must have missed my acknowledgement I was wrong in the Novak thing, but I did make it. I'll make it again here. I was grossly misinformed in that case. Of couse, I didn't actually come close to approaching OSC's level, but, nonetheless, public faults generally should be met with public apologies.
Yes, I did miss it. I apologize.
I disagree about the severity of the accusation you were making, though.
quote:Do you think that there haven't been changes since 9/11? Do you think those changes if any are good? Do you think that there may have been changes that are not good, but that people aren't using 9/11 to justify them to the American people? How do you think we disagree?
Why don't you answer some of these questions from your perspective? This is starting to sound like an interrogation.
I think there have been changes. I suspect we disagree about the extent of those changes. Therefore, if I say "I <favor/oppose> the changes related to X" you will not have an accurate perception of what it is I favor or oppose.
Suffice it to say I favor some changes, oppose others, think some of the ones I oppose are far worse than it seems many Bush critics do, and think some of the ones I oppose are far less worse than it seems many Bush critics do.
I'm not going to give general summaries on particular issues until I know we are discussing the same changes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Heck, even if you don't necessarily agree with them, but realize that there is some valid criticisms and consider discussion of the issue important, you may want to show them what a more sophisticated argument might look like.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I started this thread with only OSC's own words. How is that tacky?
I think it's tacky because it demonstrates hostility, not a desire to engage the person in conversation. OSC is both a public figure and a forum member. Here you are approaching the topic like you would for any public figure. I don't think that's appropriate when he is also a forum member. Hence my suggestion that it would be more appropriate elsewhere.
quote: In fact, I know for a fact it's not true, since several people have reposted things that other people posted in the past to demonstrate perceived inconsistencies.
Sure, people have in the course of conversation brought up inconsistencies in what a person has said to that person. I don't know that I've ever seen a thread randomly started, without some discussion with that person immediately preceding it, for the sole purpose of pointing out a person's inconsistencies. If such a thing was done, I think it would be interpreted as malicious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Suffice it to say I favor some changes, oppose others, think some of the ones I oppose are far worse than it seems many Bush critics do, and think some of the ones I oppose are far less worse than it seems many Bush critics do.
The thing is, reading this, I understand it on general principles and yet still come away with absolutely no idea of what you actually think about any given issue.
----------
quote:I think it's tacky because it demonstrates hostility, not a desire to engage the person in conversation.
It's worth noting that in my direct personal experience, expressing a desire to engage OSC in conversation on a specific point of disagreement is apparently enough to justify future accusations of crazed, destructive fanboyism. So perhaps it's best that people who disagree with him do so at arm's length, as if he were a random figure of punditry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do know that when I object to simplistic attacks when I agree with the larger point, I generally do more than refute the attack, especially if it's something I'm very concerned about.
I make a point of not doing this, for the very simple reason that I won't place myself at the rhetorical disadvantage this creates.
And I mean that from the perspective of one thinks that real rhetoric is essential to the discovery of truth, not from an "I want to win" perspective.
quote:From my POV, most of these attempts to "score political points" are attempts to discuss the actual issues; the attempts are born of frustration with the issues themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are acknowledging that inaccurate or over-general characterizations are an understandable product of frustration, I might agree. But that doesn't change my mind about the futility of enganing prior to the frustration being replaced with a desire to exhange accurate ideas.
quote:Otherwise, all you've done is counter criticism X, doing direct damage to a broader argument you actually support.
The damage is done by the original statement, not the correction of it. If criticism X is not a genuine criticism, then damaging it does not damage the broader argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For example:
I think that holding anyone without trial for more than a couple of days as we have been doing is contrary to the ideals of this country. Whether or not such things have been done before.
I think that 9/11 has been used to justify this.
I think that listening in on the phone conversations of citizens without a warrant or judicial review is wrong whether or not we have done so before.
I think that 9/11 has been used to justify that.
I think that 9/11 has been used to justify the use of torture in interrogating subjects. I think that this is wrong - whether or not it has been done before.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So perhaps it's best that people who disagree with him do so at arm's length, as if he were a random figure of punditry.
So why not do that somewhere where he actually is a random figure?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The thing is, reading this, I understand it on general principles and yet still come away with absolutely no idea of what you actually think about any given issue.
I didn't intend that you should.
There are issues you know my opinion on: abortion, I'm betting. The detention of citizens without full criminal charges should be another. Civil gay marriage. Spiritual marriage.
An opinion is a powerful thing. I try not to let one out until I know it's not going to do something bad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think it's tacky because it demonstrates hostility, not a desire to engage the person in conversation. OSC is both a public figure and a forum member. Here you are approaching the topic like you would for any public figure. I don't think that's appropriate when he is also a forum member. Hence my suggestion that it would be more appropriate elsewhere.
You just said that OSC doesn't post on this side. He's a member of this forum, but he very rarely interacts with it, even on the other side, except through the indirect method of posting his articles. Are you saying that we shouldn't discuss his articles, except in taking the very, very off chance that he respond to the discussion being personally directed to him.
Because I don't agree with that. Nor do I agree that if we had another poster who almost never posted, but wrote articles that were linked to from this site that people found interesting to discuss, that I would treat their articles only in a personal manner.
I especially don't agree that going off to some other site to talk about OSC behind not just his back but the backs of most of the forum participants is not incredibly tacky. If you think it's okay to go to another site to say bad thigns about someone on this forum, you and I have very different ideas as to what is tacky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that holding anyone without trial for more than a couple of days as we have been doing is contrary to the ideals of this country. Whether or not such things have been done before.
This opinion needs to be reconciled with the idea of prisoners of war. They are not tried, and are held for a longish time. I can't envision this not being necessary at times.
quote:I think that listening in on the phone conversations of citizens without a warrant or judicial review is wrong whether or not we have done so before.
I think that searching citizens without a warrant is generally wrong. However, I also recognize that there are times when we as a society consider it to be acceptable or even desirable. A citizen returning from Mexico can be searched. Almost everything that crosses our international border can be.
quote:I think that 9/11 has been used to justify the use of torture in interrogating subjects. I think that this is wrong - whether or not it has been done before.
I agree with the sentence. We probably disagree about what is torture and what isn't.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Are you saying that we shouldn't discuss his articles, except in taking the very, very off chance that he respond to the discussion being personally directed to him.
Not at all. I see his articles as a form of communication that are free to be commented on. If you had made your comments in response to a recent article and then linked the old article, that would seem a lot more appropriate than bringing this up at what seems like random.
quote: I especially don't agree that going off to some other site to talk about OSC behind not just his back but the backs of most of the forum participants is not incredibly tacky. If you think it's okay to go to another site to say bad thigns about someone on this forum, you and I have very different ideas as to what is tacky.
I see your point, but I think that by going to another site it's then somewhat more acceptable to treat OSC like a completely impersonal public figure who can be attacked at random. I do not think that is appropriate here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think that your attitude was changed because of 9/11?
The specific issue I am addressing in this thread is that "9/11" is being used by politicians as a magic word to justify a lot of things that I (and you may not agree) think are dangerous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think that your attitude was changed because of 9/11?
Yes. For example, it forced the consideration - consideration not yet completed - of how to apply the principle "prisoner of war" to informal combatants.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We had informal combatants before.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Amancer, I already explained why I made my comments:
quote:There's a much wider issue here than OSC's failings in this particular instance. That there were many unjust attacks on Bill Clinton's attempts to deal with al Queda and Osama bin Laden is a relevant issue now.
Holding up OSC, a superior writer who has told us that he obviously considers issues much more we do, as an example of this, pointing out the actual words he used, illustrates the type of things President Clinton was met with.
OSC is also one of the many, many pundits who have neither apologized for, nor even mentioned the falseness of their castigation of President Clinton. He hasn't - yet, anyway - gone with the Republican party line of trying to blame it all on President Clinton, though there are plenty of people doing that right now.
So, I considered this important.
If you don't agree with this reasoning, there it is, ready for you to say why you don't agree with it. I would, however, appreciate it if you didn't characterize it as an attack at random without at least acknowledging that I did post my reasons for why I thought it was relevant.
edit: Thinking about it, I think it's possible that you weren't aware of the recent stuff with Bill Clinton, nor the thread we had about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes. For example, it forced the consideration - consideration not yet completed - of how to apply the principle "prisoner of war" to informal combatants.
And this to me has been one of the major problems I've seen with the Bush administration's approach to the somewhat undefined areas like domestic wiretapping or informal detainees.
If you're going out into unknown territory that you think is very important, it is incumbent on you to develop a system that ensures that the lines are going to be respected and enforced. It does not give you the license to do whatever the heck you feel like. The domestic wiretapping is a good example of this. If there are cases where the already broad FISA provisions don't fit, then you design and get authorized a system that includes some sort of oversight and explicitly bypasses FISA. You don't just decide to ignore FISA and engage in what is essentially a program that, because there is no oversight, allows you to spy on anyone you want.
Likewise, with the detainees, I can understand that this need developed without enough time to have a system in place for it. But having people sit for 3 years with the idea that "we can do whatever we want to them without any vetted system in place" is very wrong to me. If the situation develops, I think it is important to pursue, espeditiously as possible, a system for dealing with it that is consistent with our laws and values. If you're going to make an arguement that they are not POWs but also not going to be charged with any crime, you need to get a new designation and way of dealing with people with this designation passed through Congress.
Posted by Don Domande (Member # 8287) on :
Gonna jump in and jump out, 'cuz I don't have time to follow this all that much.
I did find the OP a bit deceptive, because all that was posted was the followup to another group of statements that pointed out that Clinton had never shown much interest in using military force to address terrorist attacks or other world events. This puts those statements into a whole differenct context that does not make his written opinions after 9/11 that out-of-character:
quote:We are at war, by the way. That's the thing that everybody seems to miss. This was not a terrorist attack. Those who planned the attack might also have planned terrorist attacks like the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, but this attack, at least, followed the rules of war.
They attacked a military target. They attacked soldiers in uniform. They achieved surprise, at the cost of their own soldiers dying in performing the mission. But if this had been an operation by, say, Navy SEALs against an enemy power, we would regard it as a successful and legitimate military operation meant to unsettle and demoralize the enemy.
So when our news media persist in calling the attackers "terrorists," that leads us to a dangerous mindset. It makes us complacent -- this is a matter for police, we think, because we're dealing with brutal criminals, and our goal should be to arrest them and bring them to justice.
But in war, your goal is not to arrest the enemy. Your goal is to destroy the enemy's will and capability to fight.
In war, you don't have a trial. You find the enemy, you bring superior force to bear, and you win however you can. That's what they're doing. It's insane that we're not taking them seriously.
Sending an unescorted ship to refuel in a port where any rational person would recognize dire and immediate threat -- that's like the Israeli military sending their tanks to gas stations in Syria for a fill-up.
Then, the text that immediately proceeds the original post:
quote: I think it's time that we remembered Bill Clinton's track record on valuing human life.
Let's start with his utter disregard for the weeks and months of slaughter in Rwanda. A sovereign nation. An internal matter. The U.S. couldn't intervene. Might lose a U.S. soldier, and after all, it was just a bunch of tribesmen killing each other with machetes. We can't police the world, right?
Bosnia. Uh-oh. This time it was Serbia backing their co-"Christians" in the territory of a breakaway nation. We watched as they herded thousands of Bosnian Muslim men into a stadium. We knew they were going to murder them all. But once again, Bill Clinton did nothing. Not the policeman of the world, yadda yadda.
Rwanda and Bosnia showed the world that we have learned nothing at all since the Holocaust. It not only can happen again, it has happened, and we stood and watched.
It actually is pretty prophetic in a way - he states that we are in a war, whether or not we are actually awake to that fact. The whole criticism of Clinton seems to be that it wasn't UNTIL the Lewinski affair that he took any steps to address it, and did so in a rather haphazard fashion.
Agree or not, that is a far cry from changing your tune when a new president is in the White House that you like.
Just sayin'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:An opinion is a powerful thing. I try not to let one out until I know it's not going to do something bad.
As long as you understand that other people will always be justly upset by your limited participation in conversations of this sort, that's fine. What isn't sensible is a reaction of "why are you getting upset when I'm just correcting the specifics of this opinion, which I may or may not agree with and may or may not think is important, and which I almost certainly will not help you accurately restate."
If you're okay with that, no problem. But I've seen you complain about it before.
quote:The damage is done by the original statement, not the correction of it.
I disagree almost entirely. That's only true if flawed arguments are unable to achieve valid ends, which is demonstrably false. Undermining a flawed argument does not in and of itself advance the cause that argument was intended to support; in fact, in practice, the opposite is generally true.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I did find the OP a bit deceptive, because all that was posted was the followup to another group of statements that pointed out that Clinton had never shown much interest in using military force to address terrorist attacks or other world events. This puts those statements into a whole differenct context that does not make his written opinions after 9/11 that out-of-character:
Yu're making a faulty assumption as to what I was trying to say. I have frequently made many statements regarding this, none of which has said anything like what you are talking about. If I'm to be judged deceptive in pursuit of a point, I would ask that it's the point that I've repeated said I was trying to make and not one you've invented for me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We had informal combatants before.
Yes, but not in a manner that caused me to think about it. So what do you think is the proper way to detain people captured in combat who are not actually prisoners of war? For that matter, do you think it's acceptable to keep prisoners of war absent trial?
quote:As long as you understand that other people will always be justly upset by your limited participation in conversations of this sort, that's fine
Why is this just? I'm annoyed enough by the near-constant miststating of legal issues to comment. Why should people be upset that I choose to comment on that and not other things?
Especially when things are demanded of me that aren't given. For example, I've been asked a dozen or so questions in this thread by someone who hasn't answered several or most of them.
You, especially, are incredibly guilty of that, although not in this thread. Beyond that, very often, when I have responded to one of your interrogations, you simply ignopre what I've said and never acknowledge it.
quote:What isn't sensible is a reaction of "why are you getting upset when I'm just correcting the specifics of this opinion, which I may or may not agree with and may or may not think is important, and which I almost certainly will not help you accurately restate."
Why isn't that sensible? Why are you getting upset. I've NEVER seen a satisfactory answer to this question. Even now, you've simply said "it's just that they're upset" without bothering to explain why.
quote:If you're okay with that, no problem. But I've seen you complain about it before.
I've complained far more about people who draw inaccurate conclusions about my views. I've been even far more vehement when, after I correct those conclusions, someone insists on acting as if the correction didn't occur and reiterates the conclusions.
quote:I disagree almost entirely. That's only true if flawed arguments are unable to achieve valid ends, which is demonstrably false. Undermining a flawed argument does not in and of itself advance the cause that argument was intended to support; in fact, in practice, the opposite is generally true.
When I speak of damage, I speak of damage to the truth. You might think it a good thing to convince someone to agree with a good conclusion and bad "subconclusions" or reasons, but I don't. I think this is more harmful, because it covers up the errors and leaves them to sprout new, harmful conclusions later.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You've specifically addressed me on several occasions when I've stated that a significant number of members of certain groups have undesirable characteristics (such as bigotry) with saying that you don't see how saying that is going to change their opinion.
Should I have, in those occasions, been less truthful in order to be more persuasive to those groups? I'm not sure how this fits into what you said above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You've specifically addressed me on several occasions when I've stated that a significant number of members of certain groups have undesirable characteristics (such as bigotry) with saying that you don't see how saying that is going to change their opinion.
Should I have, in those occasions, been less truthful in order to be more persuasive to those groups? I'm not sure how this fits into what you said above.
You really don't? Do you see the difference between a factual error in the premises that support an opinion and the characteristics of a group that holds a particular opinion?
I don't see why you would assume I would treat the two types of statements the same.
No matter why you do make that assumption, simply know that I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even now, you've simply said "it's just that they're upset" without bothering to explain why.
I'm sorry. I honestly didn't realize you didn't understand why this upsets people.
Picking apart details -- major or minor -- of someone's argument is generally perceived (rightly) as a criticism. When the argument in question has been advanced as part of a larger argument against some perceived problem, the other person -- unless they consider accuracy to be more important than any other virtue, and specifically the issue they were discussing -- will not recognize that you have struck a blow FOR accuracy, but rather believe that you have struck a blow AGAINST them. And when their argument is really a component of a larger argument, and you do not submit replacement components, their perception is going to be that you have struck a blow against their argument in general.
And if it appears to be an either/or situation, and you have not presented a third path, people will inevitably assume that this represents a blow FOR whatever they were arguing against.
If you don't make your motivations explicit, then, or take steps to offer what your target would consider constructive criticism, they will almost inevitably be "upset" in direct proportion to the importance they place on the issue. Saying "oh, I'm not saying I'm FOR X. I'm just saying your support of Y is flawed" will only make them more upset.
quote:When I speak of damage, I speak of damage to the truth.
This is why I've called you Lawful Neutral, you know.
For most people, truth is perceived as a variable, not a constant -- and even then it's a local user variable. To put it another way, discussions of accuracy and "truth" are generally perceived as irrelevant intellectual exercises, the kind of thing that Tresopax engages in; "truth" in law is especially regarded this way, since it depends on both interpretation and precedent and is therefore more an indication of precision than of virtue or an accurate depiction of reality. (Consider the flap over words like "unlawful combatant." The whole point here is to, through law, redefine reality to conform to a given view. This can be done precisely, but is it truthful?)
The idea that "the Truth" is more important than, say, whether or not we should be holding people indefinitely without trial is a concept that will upset many, many individuals. It just WILL, period. They won't understand that accuracy is a more critical issue to you; they will see your criticisms as a defense of torture, and I don't necessarily blame them.
It's important to be precise in one's criticisms when dealing with law, because Evil will use loopholes against you. But increasing that level of precision can be done in a constructive fashion, and when it's not, I don't think people should necessarily appreciate the "help."
[ September 29, 2006, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if it appears to be an either/or situation, and you have not presented a third path, people will inevitably assume that this represents a blow FOR whatever they were arguing against.
I'm at a complete loss as to why people consider this an either/or situation. I almost never discuss either/or situations, and, when I do, there's no doubt about which side I come down on.
The issues today have not been either/or, and, in fact, my insistence on not allowing them to be treated as such is what comes under attack most often.
quote:The idea that "the Truth" is more important than, say, whether or not we should be holding people indefinitely without trial is a concept that WILL upset many, many individuals.
What I've posted does not suggest that truth is more important than whether we should hold people indefinitely without trial.
However, whether or not we actually are holding people indefinitely without trial seems pretty important to such a discussion. Further, when someone responds to a bill about how trials should be conducted with complaints about holding people without a trial, I think some clarification is in order before we can actually figure out what we should be upset about.
It's clear that prisoner of war rules (which would allow indefinite detention without trial and no judicial review) can't be applied to the detainees in wholesale fashion. It seems clear, to me at least, that there might be a reason not to apply criminal law in a wholesale fashion to them, either.
Again, the insistence that this be either/or - that Bush must be either a good president or a bad president, that the treatment of detainees is evil or perfect - is simply a guarantee than nothing useful will be decided.
What complicates this is that I don't know what my opinion is on much of this.
I do know that Hatrack is of no help in forming an opinion, mostly because the hype outweighs the reasoning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't see why you would assume I would treat the two types of statements the same.
I don't expect you to necessarily treat those two statements the same. I am, however, expecting consistency in your approach to the importance of rhetoric and truth.
quote:And I mean that from the perspective of one thinks that real rhetoric is essential to the discovery of truth, not from an "I want to win" perspective.
quote:When I speak of damage, I speak of damage to the truth. You might think it a good thing to convince someone to agree with a good conclusion and bad "subconclusions" or reasons, but I don't. I think this is more harmful, because it covers up the errors and leaves them to sprout new, harmful conclusions later.
In a rhetorical discussion, you found fault with my statements, not on the grounds that they weren't true, but rather that they weren't persuasive to some group not party to our discussion. If you expect me to abandon truth and sound rhetoric, to cover up the facts of the discussion and thus present and encourage an incomplete description, in order to make what I said more persuasive in that case, then I don't see how that fits with your statement of principles above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:they will see your criticisms as a defense of torture, and I don't necessarily blame them
And people who respond to "we need to stop people who are trying to destroy us" with "we can't change who we are" will be seen as a defense of terrorists.
Neither view is right, and I flat out won't indulge either one.
quote:This is why I've called you Lawful Neutral, you know.
Actually, you called me lawful evil.
Besides that, I'm not lawful anything if you're using the D&D definitions.
I think the majority of good should be determined outside the law.
For things that are the law's proper subject, the law should be shaped to do good.
It's interesting that when I respond to a "lawful" argument (What Bush did was criminal/unconstitutional/impeachable) with the law, I'm accused of sacrificing good to the law. In reality, I'm meeting the accusation its own terms.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why is this just? I'm annoyed enough by the near-constant miststating of legal issues to comment. Why should people be upset that I choose to comment on that and not other things?
While I can understand being annoyed at misstatements of legal issues, I don't think it should come as a surprise -- for example, I try to be somewhat careful, but I'm sure I mangle my statements of legal issues all the time. The obvious analogy from my standpoint is my decision to simply refrain from discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this forum, because it got to the point where I felt like I'd have to write an essay to respond to even a single one-line question. Actually, I did write an essay to answer a one-liner, but not here.
So I empathize with your frustration, and neither of the two solutions (ignoring it or addressing it; that is, posting or not posting) is ideal. You choose to post, and frankly I admire the effort, particularly given that it's an effort I have specifically chosen not to make myself. However, the precise nature of your clarifications can sometimes make things frustrating for people whose statements you're addressing. Most people, correctly or otherwise, skip over the premises of an argument and proceed directly to the exchange of ideas. I would say that Tom's first four paragraphs (of his 4:12 PM post) sum up the source of the frustration you encounter very well. For my own part, I would say that as someone who is often interested in what you think on a given issue, your desire for extreme precision in the expression of your opinions, which usually (but not always) results in a discussion of specifics that lasts long enough that the general opinion questions are never actually addressed, can be frustrating at times.
As you may have noticed, in cases where I'm particularly interested, I've taken to simply asking for your opinion if it doesn't look like it's going to come out in the context of a discussion. The straightforward approach is best, I suppose. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I sympathize, Dag. But here's the problem: the world marches on while you or I or anyone else tries to decide on the details. There's a role that needs to be played by conscience, here, a comfort zone that must be defined somewhere shy of the grey area so that, when we are forced to take time to deliberate where exactly that fuzzy line is, we don't discover too late that the cage of laws we've erected around ourselves is on the wrong side of it.
I'll admit to being particularly "sloppy" on this issue, myself, because I have little to no interest in prosecuting the War on Terror. I think it's a complete irrelevancy, and firmly believe most of the tools we're putting into law to prosecute a "war" on "terrorists" will ultimately be turned to domestic purposes via the same slow creep that affects almost all of our eroded liberties. I believe that going on the offensive against a non-state enemy is exactly what's exposed this grey area in the first place, and originally objected to our offensive on that very basis. And given that I don't accept the premise that certain elements of government should remain secret -- I've always said I'm in favor of complete and total non-tactical transparency -- I don't believe that elaborating on a specific legal method to hold massive numbers of non-military, non-criminal "detainees" is particularly important. It's the right question at hand, but it's only at hand because we've asked and answered several wrong ones.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In a rhetorical discussion, you found fault with my statements, not on the grounds that they weren't true, but rather that they weren't persuasive to some group not party to our discussion. If you expect me to abandon truth and sound rhetoric, to cover up the facts of the discussion and thus present and encourage an incomplete description, in order to make what I said more persuasive in that case, then I don't see how that fits with your statement of principles above.
Read what I said again. Please. "You might think it a good thing to convince someone to agree with a good conclusion and bad "subconclusions" or reasons." Your accusation was not a premise or a subconclusion to the conclusion being discussed.
We were discussing, "Should the law recognize civil gay marriage."
"Some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots" is not a premise supporting or opposing that conclusion. It is, quite simply, not the type of statement I was discussing in my post to Tom.
Had I made a general proposition, "Always say everything that's truthful" you might have a point here. I didn't say that, though.
What I said to you can be summarized as the proposition, "Statements, even if truthful, about the motives of a subset of those who disagree with your favored conclusion make it harder to persuade others to accept your conclusion."
What I said to Tom can be summarized as "It is not good to allow untruthful factual conclusions to stand unchallenged, even if those factual conclusions could be used to support a true conclusion."
These are very different statements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, the statements themselves are very different, but the underyling principles should be the same. In at least some of these conversations, you and I and a few others were discussing the background surrounding the gay marriage issue. You said I shouldn't say these things because they are hurt the persuasiveness of my argument (despite the fact that, as far as I could tell, there weren't any bigots as part of our discussion).
If you're saying that you don't value truth and rhetorical soundness as much as persuasiveness in situations like that, then I guess I've got no beef, but it sure sounded like you were making a stronger stand that that above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The underlying principle is the same. Who do the two propositions as I stated in the previous post contradict each other or some underlying principle.
Bringing up the views of other, unrelated people wasn't relevant to the discussion. I didn't say you should never say those things. I said you shouldn't say them when attempting to persuade.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Dag's saying that not volunteering truth isn't the same thing as actually speaking falsehood. In other words, refraining from saying truthful things for rhetorical reasons can be acceptable, whereas saying untruthful things for rhetorical reasons never is.
As an example: Dag might personally feel that OSC's essay in this thread is reprehensibly inaccurate, but does not think it necessary to say so. Someone could post and, in the course of explaining why they believe OSC's essay is reprehensible and inaccurate, say something inaccurate. Dag would then see the value in correcting their inaccuracy, and would not feel compelled to mention that he also felt OSC had been even more inaccurate since it's not of direct relevance to his correction and, for whatever reason, doesn't feel like volunteering his opinion on the subject. If someone accused him of hypocrisy as a consequence, he would be genuinely confused and hurt.
I think it took me WAY too long to understand this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The underlying principle is the same. Who do the two propositions as I stated in the previous post contradict each other or some underlying principle.
Bringing up the views of other, unrelated people wasn't relevant to the discussion. I didn't say you should never say those things. I said you shouldn't say them when attempting to persuade.
Further, there's a difference between "valuing truth" and "saying everything that happens to be true." No damage is done to truth when you refrain from discussing the alleged bigotry of some people who share a conclusion in common with your opponent.
Damage to truth is done when you say, "Law x allows the administration to do Y, therefore law x is bad" if Law x does not, in fact, allow Y. This damage occurs whether or not Law x is bad.
Edit: Or, what Tom said.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
When describing the background of the gay rights issue,acknowledging the large role anti-gay bigots play in it is, at least to me, extremely relevant. At the time, you said nothing about it being irrelevant. In these cases, you said I shouldn't say that (and strongly implied that my saying it there was a fault in what I wrote), that I should prefer pesuasiveness to rhetorical soundness, truth, and a complete picture of the situation.
If you're going to make high minded statements about those principles now and how they are more important than persuasiveness, I don't see how this situation reconciles.
edit: I agree with this statment:
quote:No damage is done to truth when you refrain from discussing the alleged bigotry of some people who share a conclusion in common with your opponent.
and if it accurately described the situation that we were discussing, I wouldn't have anytihng to say. But it doesn't. Ommitting the role bigots play in the background of the gay marriage debate does damage the truth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When describing the background of the gay rights issue,acknowledging the large role anti-gay bigots play in it is, at least to me, extremely relevant. At the time, you said nothing about it being irrelevant. In these cases, you said I shouldn't say that (and strongly implied that my saying it there was a fault in what I wrote), that I should prefer pesuasiveness to rhetorical soundness, truth, and a complete picture of the situation.
If you're going to make high minded statements about those principles now and how they are more important than persuasiveness, I don't see how this situation reconciles.
I'm sorry. I don't see how this situation contradicts in any way shape or form, so we're basically at a standstill here.
What's clear is that you don't understand the principle I'm getting at. What's also clear is that I can't restate it in any way that will make you understand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, As far as I see it, in some situations, you at least pretend to believe that persuasiveness trumps truth and rhetorical soundness and in other cases you don't. Is it the level of damage to truth that is important? Like, ommitting something relevant isn't as big a damage as claiming something that is false?
As I said, I don't have a problem with people regarding saying things that are untrue as worse than ommitting things that are true. I just don't believe that you can claim this is because of principles that would be violated in both cases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you at least pretend to believe
OK, bye.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is that description inaccurate? I'm not trying to say what ytour motives behind your statements are, so I included all the possibilities. Looking at it, I should have gone with "claim that persuasiveness..."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as I see it, in some situations, you at least pretend to believe that persuasiveness trumps truth and rhetorical soundness and in other cases you don't. Is it the level of damage to truth that is important? Like, ommitting something relevant isn't as big a damage as claiming something that is false?
I don't consider what I recomended about the "bigot" discussion ad having persuasiveness trump truth, because I didn't see truth as being in conflict with persuasiveness, nor did I see the exclusion damaging truth in any way.
This is the point on which we disagree. but it's you and me disagreeing, not me and me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't consider what I recomended about the "bigot" discussion ad having persuasiveness trump truth, because I didn't see truth as being in conflict with persuasiveness, nor did I see the exclusion damaging truth in any way.
I see exclusions of that type, of ignoring or at least not mentioning relevant bad things associated with a certain group, person, or viewpoint to be one of the worse attacks against truth. Outright falsehood is bad, but I find spun/santized descriptions of things to often be ultimately more pernicious. Baldfaced lies are generally easy to discover and combat but deliberate ommisions are not.
It may be that our difference of opinion on this leads to our very different and mutually aggravating argument styles. I'm going to have to think about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I see exclusions of that type, of ignoring or at least not mentioning relevant bad things associated with a certain group, person, or viewpoint to be one of the worse attacks against truth.
*nod* Whereas Dag does not. And to be honest, since Dag is (or will very soon be) a trial lawyer, this makes perfect sense.
I agree with you that "spin" is far, far more dangerous than falsehood, in the way that things which are pernicious are ultimately more dangerous than things which are directly harmful. But lots of people don't agree with us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree with you that "spin" is far, far more dangerous than falsehood, in the way that things which are pernicious are ultimately more dangerous than things which are directly harmful. But lots of people don't agree with us.
I actually do agree with this.
I totally disagree that excluding talk of bigotry from that conversation was spin.
Most of the statements I've been correcting today are "spin" not outright falsehood.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, what defines a Democrat is approval or disapproval of President Bush, right Orincoro?
Of course right!
Sorry to go back to the first page, but this one is directed to me.
No Rakeesh, that's not what I think. What is the point of your post? If you thought I did feel that way, then your post wouldn't be obviously sarcastic- or you would have just ignored me, because my opinion, in your view, would be unspeakably stupid. Your post depends on my seeing that the idea is dumb when explicity stated. But here's the thing- I didn't say anything of the kind.
My post expresses my opinion, that OSC is a democrat in name only. I said NOTHING about President Bush in my post. You lept to that conclusion, because you assumed I was basing my opinion on the fact that OSC does support him on a number of issues. How's this for an idea? His politics are not defined as Pro/Con on "what Bush thinks," at least for me. I am a registered democrat, and I don't identify with some of the aims of the democratic party, so I don't call myself a member of the democratic party. OSC CALLS himself a democrat, when what he means is that he is a registered democrat. In fact, he probably doesn't call himself a democrat, but only allows the fact that he is registered that way to speak somehow to his politics. It doesn't. Anyone can register and call themselves anything. I can call myself an astronaut. That was my point. That was my whole point.
I know you were reacting to my ruder post, but don't do that- they're two different statements entirely, and one of them I took back because it was just not useful. This one is- or I will just call it that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Actually, although I don't pay as much attention as I used to to Card's columns-well, the Internet in general really-I can't be sure when I say this, but Card hasn't much commented on the entire civil rights aspect of Bush's presidency, has he? He has been almost exclusively focused, from what I remember, on Bush's foreign policy agenda and actions.
Mar 12, OSC Reviews Everything
quote:The plot was built around spies coming into the neighborhood, and there was an interrogation scene (of an American citizen) that is a reminder that nobody back then even thought we had the rights that the Patriot Act is supposedly taking away.
...This from, of all things, a review of The Shaggy Dog.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Outside of gay rights, possibly abortion (i'm not sure), and foreign policy, OSC's views line up more with the Democrats than the Republicans.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: and a variety of other individual freedom issues (not that I'm saying Democrats are the only ones with individual freedom issues, just that the ones OSC disagrees with seem to be ones the Democrats are commonly thought of as championing).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
quote:I don't know what's true legally, but to me personally that falls under the category of "criminal negligence" and to hire such people for such jobs-jobs whose success or failure quite literally have an impact on the war effort-treasonous.
----
No secret foreign CIA prisons would be great. None of this talk about 'tough but humane' would be peachy. Realistic spending forecasts for war efforts would be honest, instead of 'emergency'-yet predictible-spending bills. Something to remind our people that we're at war that wasn't just, "Trust me, I'm doing things right," such as something like a "Would you like to donate $20.00 to the military spending fund," on taxes, that's an interesting idea.
---------
I reiterate something I said before, this Administration-some segments of Congress, too- seems to be outright saying, "We want the power to be able to say, 'They're terrorists because we say so, we don't have to prove it, trust us,' and have it stick legally."
That's not a power I'm comfortable granting to anyone. It's a power I would perhaps barely tolerate once in extreme, national-death circumstances but not systemically over a period of years!
----------
This entire thing highlights why I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration.
For someone purporting-or at the very least, letting others purport for him-to be a conservative, he sure seems to be saying, "It's humane/lawful/justified, trust me!" a whole lot.
Those are comments I've made in Bush-Iraq-civil rights threads you've participated in, in about the past two weeks, kmbboots. In at least a couple of cases, they're posts made before your first post in the thread-and fairly short threads, too.
I posted that list of quotes just now for a reason, and it's because I'm having a difficult time taking your words at face value when you speak as though I haven't made myself clear on this subject, to say nothing of (possibly) implying that I approve of such things.
I believe I have made myself pretty damn clear, on more than one occassion. In threads you've posted in, after I made such positions clear. So it's difficult not to be pretty angry about this, to be honest.
But while I can empathize with Dagonee, I'm not him. I don't have the skill, legal or debating knowledge, eloquence, patience (especially that), inclination, or restraint to constantly slog against the current on this and a host of other issues where obviously the lesson on Hatrack-except with people like Mig and Bean Counter-if you ain't singin' with the choir, in every chorus, there's something wrong with you Maybe you disagree with the choir.
I've made my disapproval-to say the least-quite clear on more than one occasion about the Bush Administration's stance on civil rights as they apply to terrorism suspects and 'enemy combatants'-I think they want too much power, are willing to torture with it, and want legality and anonymity. I do not know this, it is an opinion of mine based on the way things have come out of this Administration, projected (in my opinion) into the future.
I find the prospect deeply disturbing, to say the least. And I don't think the prospect is very implausible, either. So, to sum up, I am at a minimum very concerned with the way the Bush Administration wants to handle terror suspects and enemy combatants, handling in the courts and handling in the prisons. I think the prospect of granting them some of the powers they want to be one which is deeply harmful to the United States and our ideals, which I feel are antithetical to the routine practice of shipping a prisoner overseas for some good old fashioned torture, or doing some torture-light here in the United States.
Does that satisfy you, kmbboots? I certainly hope it does-I genuinely do, despite my annoyance. Because if it doesn't, well...too freaking bad. I'd prefer you be satisfied as to your question, but I'm not going to sit here and be interrogated against some sort of grading scale of acceptable answers. I ain't singing in the choir whenever you or anyone else waves their hand. There's so much of that going on that I feel no need to add my disaproving voice everytime some new disturbing revelation about the Bush Administration comes out, even though I have done so on multiple occassions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Dagonee: and a variety of other individual freedom issues (not that I'm saying Democrats are the only ones with individual freedom issues, just that the ones OSC disagrees with seem to be ones the Democrats are commonly thought of as championing).
Which ones? I tried to think of them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For instance, his perspective on the war on drugs (he's all for it).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are many, many Democrats.
Drug legalization is not a Democratic cause, at all.
It is a policy preference shared by many who happen to be Democrats, but I don't think that counts.
Although a few Democrats make an issue of some of the more egregious aspects (crack/cocaine sentencing disparities, for example), the general provisions usually receive broad bipartisan support.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I said the war on drugs, not drug legalization. Also, one could make a similar point about gay marriage -- there are a decent number of Republicans who support it, and a quite a few Democrats who oppose it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gay marriage is a plank in the Republican platform.
Again, the general provisions of the war on drugs usually receive broad bipartisan support.
Is there a plank or official position paper of the D.P. that is against the war on drugs?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, but support of the war on drugs (war against drugs, in their parlance) is a plank in the Republican platform as well, while it is not in the Democratic platform, like gay marriage.
To quote the platform:
quote:After witnessing eight years of Presidential inaction on the war against drugs during the prior Administration, we applaud President Bush for his steady commitment to reducing drug use among teens.
There are only two mentions of illegal drugs (one largely incidental) in the Democratic party platform. There are nine in the Republican platform (two or three are incidental).
So his views on the war on drugs certainly seem to line up more with the Republicans than the Democrats, by a similar criteria to what you use for gay marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Except that (edit: elected) Democrats have opposed the marriage amendment and supported most of the initiatives that form the war on drugs.
[ September 30, 2006, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The key difference between gay marriage and the war on drugs is that Republicans actively oppose gay marriage, whereas Democrats do not actively oppose the war on drugs. This means that one supporting the latter is not acting contrary to the party, whereas one supporting the marriage amendment IS acting contrary to the party.
So it might be true that OSC lines up more with Republicans on the drug war, but it doesn't seem this makes him less of a Democrat in the same way that his gay marriage stance does.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, we're generally talking in the context of elected officials here.
Of course, most Dems voted for the DOMA (signed by Clinton, too), and have voted against measures considered part of the war on drugs.
However, you're right, the war on drugs doesn't strongly resonate with any particular party (though OSC and the Republicans clearly thinks Clinton wasn't working towards it, at least).
To pick a few other positions though: divorce law, the Clinton impeachment, global warming, domestic oil drilling, legal consequences against media that 'run with a story that they knew would provoke outrage in Muslim lands, without first making sure it was true', and his desire for the government to fire a large number of professors at public universities.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Just to throw a litte more OSC in:
quote:"France still rejects any military action against France," said the newreader on Fox News on Monday night. Of course she meant "against Iraq," but when people say things incorrectly they expect the audience to be alert enough to ignore mistakes and get the main point.
I don't have a staff here to catch the mistakes I make. So I appreciate it when alert readers catch misstatements. For instance, my having spoken of the sincerely anti-war (and Germanophile) "Joseph" Chamberlain, when of course I meant Neville.
If someone had asked me to explain the difference between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain, I would have had no problem doing so. But in giving examples of sincere anti-war activists of an earlier era, I put down (accurately) the names "Chamberlain" and "Lindbergh"; then, on second glance, I decided to violate the old Jeopardy rule "last names only" and added first names.
That's when the name "Joseph" popped into mind and went into print uncorrected.
I've made other mistakes. Like conflating Clinton's meaningless (but legal) bombing of Iraq at the time of the House impeachment vote with his grossly illegal and disastrous bombing of Serbia, which began months later. And having the Chinese shoot at their own people at Tiananmen Square because they "remembered" the fall of Romania's dictator -- which didn't happen till afterward.
But it's worth pointing out that in not one of these cases did my error show anything other than the fact that I'm as susceptible as anyone to the human tendency to mix up names and dates. The errors had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make -- and correcting the error did not in any way undo my argument.
Some of those who have corrected my errors have done so as a cheerful public service, and I'm glad of it (even though of course I feel foolish).
Some, however, have corrected my errors with the glee of a high school debater who thinks that by catching an opponent in any mistake, no matter how trivial, he has somehow "refuted" the opponent's argument.
There are, of course, legitimate arguments that can be advanced in opposition to any of mine; I'm not so foolish as to think there aren't good and wise people who, using the same evidence, reach different conclusions.
But intelligent people aren't going to make up their minds on vital issues of national policy because one guy on Side A (me) made an inattentive mistake in a particular example I used.
If you want to oppose my ideas, then take on my arguments -- don't just pounce on tangential errors.
Incidentally, if I had internet access at home and if Dagonee wasn't so capable at defending his points, I'd be trying to myself; I've agreed with pretty much everything he's said in this thread. Dunno if he'd consider that a good or bad thing, *grin* but there it is.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Wait... why is it worth it to read the rest of the column...? To watch OSC spew invective at huge chunks of the country and world?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The key difference between gay marriage and the war on drugs is that Republicans actively oppose gay marriage, whereas Democrats do not actively oppose the war on drugs. This means that one supporting the latter is not acting contrary to the party, whereas one supporting the marriage amendment IS acting contrary to the party.
So it might be true that OSC lines up more with Republicans on the drug war, but it doesn't seem this makes him less of a Democrat in the same way that his gay marriage stance does.
What makes him a Democrat then, besides the fact that he is registered as a democrat? As far as I know he doesn't act "contrary" in your definition, to any of the republican party platforms- immigration included, since that is not as much a party issue as it is made out to be; members of the republican party have widely varying opinions on immigration, and his is not unreasonable for a republican to have. On the other hand, many of his beliefs are not unheard of for an (ordinary) democrat to have, even if the party leaders are dead set against them, like marriage ammendments. Still, his support for the war in Iraq seems strange in light of these comments he made years ago. Different situation yes, but we'd have to believe that OSC sees this war as having no political motivations which are selfish or self-serving. I somehow doubt he is really capable of convincing himself of that, despite the probability that selfish motives are involved, (as they are in all wars). It would seem though, at least to me, that any reasonable person would be against any war not fought purely in self-defense, or with the *extremely* clear consent of other world powers, and for a very clear purpose. Our purpose here is obviously less than clear.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What makes him a Democrat then, besides the fact that he is registered as a democrat?
Why isn't that enough?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Because anyone can register as a democrat regardless of his politics. If I told you I was a registered democrat (I am) that would still tell you nothing definitive about my beliefs, or my actual loyalties or affiliations. My Dad was a registered Republican for about 40 years before he finally re-registered democratic, but he'd already been voting democratic for 20 years.
I think OSC allows the fact that he is registered democratic to be used in his defense- so that "he's one of us after all." But the reality is, the fact that he is registered Democratic (and has been a very long time right?) says little to me about his current politics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And having the Chinese shoot at their own people at Tiananmen Square because they "remembered" the fall of Romania's dictator -- which didn't happen till afterward.
But it's worth pointing out that in not one of these cases did my error show anything other than the fact that I'm as susceptible as anyone to the human tendency to mix up names and dates. The errors had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make -- and correcting the error did not in any way undo my argument.
I would point out that in the specific case cited -- arguing that Tiananmen "happened" at least in part due to a recollection of what happened in Romania -- the error does in fact wind up undoing the argument.
It's true that OSC's arguments in his articles are rarely subject to fact-checking, since (like the Tiananmen instance) they often consist entirely of bald assertions of motive. But when you assign motives to someone and give reasons for that assignment, it does hurt your argument (such as it is) to have those reasons directly invalidated.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh,
I reveiwed our conversation. Here is how is sounds from my perspective:
While agreeing with your premise that it is possible to have one's thinking changed by 9/11, I said that I thought it was wrong to have that change your thinking. That 9/11 should not change our ideals
You then said that (from what I heard) that I shouldn't say that we have those ideals because we have always done bad stuff anyway. Which I said sounds like you are saying that America shouldn't be concerned with those ideals.
The analogy of a battle comes to mind. Things are happening, events are taking place, decisions are being made all around us. Things that I hold very dear are being attacked. "Our" side is being blown to bits with imprecise, scattershot ammo that works . You are standing there saying, "Nope can't use that weapon - it isn't quite precise enough. They may be able to counter it, so I'll counter it for them just in case." It doesn't help.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kate, that sounds a bit too much like "you're either with us or against us," or "criticism of the Iraq war is unpatriotic" for my comfort.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What it is is frustration that people who are generally in agreement are too busy nit-picking to make any forward movement. That we have screwed up in the past should not be an arguement that it is okay to screw up now.
[ October 02, 2006, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag, I do understand that, being above the fray, you need to take time to consider, but actual human beings - some surely innocent, some of them minors - have been held, without trial, for four years.
I do understand that it isn't "safe" to release these people. It won't ever be safe. Even the ones who hadn't harmed us before are likely to want to now.
It is still unjust to hold them. And being just is more important to me than being safe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What it is is frustration that people who are generally in agreement are too busy nit-picking to make any forward movement.
It's not nitpicking. It's ensuring that steps taken to affect change now don't come back to bite us later.
When I'm making a correction, it is almost always with a specific argument in mind that the uncorrected statement could be used to advance.
Typically I disagree with the arguments I'm envisioning, and I will not sacrifice those in order to obtain something else I also want.
In other words, when statement X is wrong in some way, and statement X is advanced in support of cause A by many people, there is a tendency to attribute statement X to all who support cause A.
When statement X can also be used to support cause B, with which I disagree, it becomes imperative to not let statement X stand unchallenged.
Note: this is a prioritization decision concerning my posting time, not an "I don't care about untruths that don't hurt my causes" decision.
The other problem is that much of the disagreement over policy does not acknowledge the intricacies of the situation.
When someone makes a statement such as "it's against American principles to hold people without criminal charges," I feel that needs to be qualified. We held PoWs without charges for years in WWII. Until I see a reasoned argument that we should have shipped captured soldiers back to Germany as soon as we decided not to criminally charge them, I'mnot really going to entertain that as a premise in this scenario.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dag, I do understand that, being above the fray, you need to take time to consider, but actual human beings - some surely innocent, some of them minors - have been held, without trial, for four years.
I do understand that it isn't "safe" to release these people. It won't ever be safe. Even the ones who hadn't harmed us before are likely to want to now.
It is still unjust to hold them. And being just is more important to me than being safe.
Again, I'm waiting for some analysis that acknowledges the principles underlying the concept of PoW.
I'd also appreciate if you clarified the first sentence, because I'm not entirely sure what it means.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding POW's.
POW's are under the protection of the Geneva Convention (something that this administration tried to deny them), are sometimes exchanged, and have a reasonable expectation of being released at the end of the conflict.
There is no foreseeable end to this conflict. Do we just keep people in prison forever?
Or we could deal with them as criminals. Give them trials. Have sentences based on what they have done.
When Great Britian was in the throes of the Troubles, it actually did both with the IRA. The trials were rather a joke, but there were trials. We don't even do that. There was a public record of who was there. The prisoners were allowed council and visitors. Their friends and relatives knew where they were and could communicate with them.
And before and after Margaret Thatcher's disasterous criminalization program, they also had POW protections and priveleges.
You can't imagine how horrifying it is to me that I am holding up Long Kesh as an example of better than what we are doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:POW's are under the protection of the Geneva Convention (something that this administration tried to deny them), are sometimes exchanged, and have a reasonable expectation of being released at the end of the conflict.
There is no foreseeable end to this conflict. Do we just keep people in prison forever?
Or we could deal with them as criminals. Give them trials. Have sentences based on what they have done.
It's this insistence that it's either/or that makes me unwilling to not challenge the categorical statements.
I'll note that there was no foreseeable end to WWII until about 1943 or so, and even then there was no guarantee it was going to end within 3 years.
This situation has attributes of both PoW and of criminal prosecution. I'm suspicious of a solution that ignores either side of that analysis. And I am NOT going to allow someone to restate my insistence on such analysis as wanting to keep people in prison forever, nor to artifically limit the options to "criminal trial or permanent detention." There are other options.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So what other options do you propose? The reality is that right now they are in the worst of possible worlds. While we are analyzing and being suspicious, people's lives are being taken away. Their families are without them - likely without knowing if they are alive. Their children are growing up. How long should it take us to come up with other options?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Some real mechanism for determining if people are enemy combatants, or not, and if they don't meet the criteria, either releasing them or putting them trhough standard criminal proceedings, and if they are enemy combatants granting them protections given to POWs would seem perfectly reasonable and just to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The problem, Paul, with just granting them POW protection is that we don't even know if they are "enemy soldiers". And the "War on Terror" is one with no forseeable end.
I don't agree that WWII also had no foreseaable end. It was a declared war with sovereign nations. Treaties were at least likely.
In the "war" on drugs, for example, we don't keep people suspected of dealing drugs in prison until we've "won" the "war on drugs".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Some real mechanism for determining if people are enemy combatants, or not, and if they don't meet the criteria, either releasing them or putting them trhough standard criminal proceedings, and if they are enemy combatants granting them protections given to POWs would seem perfectly reasonable and just to me.
I agree.
Some things to keep in mind concerning such a plan:
1.) This is not a criminal trial. What is being proven is not act and mental state, but status. 2.) This guarantees that people will be detained without criminal charge, let alone conviction, and that this detention will be fore a length of time not determinable now. 3.) The protections and decision making will be much different than that of criminal guilt, although many protections from criminal prosecution should be used during the status determination proceedings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem, Paul, with just granting them POW protection is that we don't even know if they are "enemy soldiers".
Paul's statement contains a condition that this status be proved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not disagreeing with most of Paul's statement.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"1.) This is not a criminal trial. What is being proven is not act and mental state, but status."
Yup. But that still means that the state has to prove that the person being detained actually meets certain criteria, and thus have to produce evidence, and the detained person should be able to see that evidence and provide opposing evidence.
"2.) This guarantees that people will be detained without criminal charge, let alone conviction, and that this detention will be fore a length of time not determinable now."
If they are enemy combatants, then we do have the right to detain them, just as we have a right to detain soldiers in war time.
"3.) The protections and decision making will be much different than that of criminal guilt, although many protections from criminal prosecution should be used during the status determination proceedings."
Agreed. Although the basic rights of procedure through the court system should be retained.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Agreed, Paul.
quote:I am not disagreeing with most of Paul's statement.
Could you please explain the sentence I quoted, then? Because, to my reading, it looked like you were objecting to people being granted PoW status when "we don't even know if they are enemy soldiers," something not possible under Paul's plan.
(Of course, it is possible that the proceedings will reach the wrong result, but some factfinding method is necessary.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I don't disagree with him about that. That point was not about his plan.
The point (I think) that Paul and I disagree on is the indefinate time issue.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I have no problems holding people indefinetely if they are, indeed, people who were trying to kill our soldiers. Thats what the POW thing is all about... you hold them til their side stops shooting at our soldiers.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Agreed, Paul."
Given that we agree, how would you go about drafting legislation to make sure that the points we agree on are secured?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Broad outline only, reserving the right to change my mind when I think more about it.
1. Forum: military entity of some kind.
2. Judge: JAG member, minimum rank of Lt. Col or Col.
3. Defense counsel: appointed military JAG, maybe allow independent but prescreened advocates.
4. Finder of fact: 3-5 officer commission. Not really a jury, but more than just a single judge deciding. No unanmity requirement, maybe more than majority.
5. Standard of proof: not sure. Probably less than reasonable doubt. Maybe preponderance, maybe clear and convincing.
6. Hearsay: likely allowed in certain forms. For example, capturing soldier fills out a report, that report should be admissible. I'm more torn on recounts of eyewitness testimony. For example, if the soldiers come into a situation and someone tells them so-and-so had a gun and shot at the troop transport 30 seconds ago, and the guy was found nearby with the gun, I might admit that. Must think more on this. (Note: I wouldn't allow most hearsay in war crimes trials.)
7. Exclusion: All involuntary statements using the "so as to overcome the will of the average person" standard. This bars far more than torture, but allows many interrogation techniques. But no Miranda or 4th amendment exclusion.
8. Speedy trial: don't know enough about the circumstances to judge, although the length of time for Gitmo is almost certainly too long. There would be two stages: Local review (where captured) by JAG official within a week or so, with a probable cause threshold. Preliminary hearing, some relatively short amount of time (a month or two), also with a probable cause threshold for detention until the full proceeding occurs, in order to allow consideration of knowledge gained after immediate combat operations settle down. Final review within some time, can't say what yet.
9. Double jeopardy: a hybrid. If new evidence comes out before we release someone found to be an enemy combatant, we can reopen the issue. But there must be a strict time limit on release so this isn't gamed.
10. Review: One level of review de novo (including new fact finding) within the military system. One level of appellate review within the military system. Not sure what kind of access to civillian courts should be allowed.
11. Collateral attack (habeas corpus): limited to procedural issues ("I'm detained and I didn't get my full review"). This would allow allegations that the fact-finding violated general due process requirements of fairness such as known false testimony.
12. Mandatory review of status based on categorization of allegienace. For example, the Taliban might be pacified before the Iraqi insurgency. People identified as Taliban should be let go if an accord with the Taliban is released.
I'm sure I left things out, not sure what.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That we have screwed up in the past should not be an arguement that it is okay to screw up now.
Yeah, you know, I freaking give up.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No unanmity requirement, maybe more than majority."
Maybe 4 out of 5?
"Standard of proof: not sure. Probably less than reasonable doubt. Maybe preponderance, maybe clear and convincing."
Agreed. Probably clear and convincing. This is more then a civil trial, but less then criminal.
"This bars far more than torture, but allows many interrogation techniques. But no Miranda or 4th amendment exclusion."
Agreed on miranda and 4th amendment (unless the person involved happens to be a US citizen or resident). We'd have to be careful with the interrogation techniques. Generally speaking, anything we'd dissalow in a police investigation is something we want to be very wary of.
"Not sure what kind of access to civillian courts should be allowed."
Possibly for the habeas corpus portion?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe 4 out of 5?
With seven, I'd allow 5 of 7, I think.
quote:Agreed on miranda and 4th amendment (unless the person involved happens to be a US citizen or resident). We'd have to be careful with the interrogation techniques. Generally speaking, anything we'd dissalow in a police investigation is something we want to be very wary of.
Agreed. There need to be two sets of deterrents: exclusion of evidence, and punishment of wrongdoing.
quote:Possibly for the habeas corpus portion?
Definitely for habeas. That's listed in number 11.
Number 10 is referring to direct appeal. Maybe DC circuit court appeals then cert.
Do you know the difference between direct appeals and habeas review?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Definitely for habeas. That's listed in number 11.
Number 10 is referring to direct appeal. Maybe DC circuit court appeals then cert."
Oh. Ok. I see.
"Do you know the difference between direct appeals and habeas review?"
I know that the habeas review is to challenge the reasons you are being held, and a direct appeal is to challenge whether a trial was properly conducted. Thats about the extent of it though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's correct as far as it goes. I'll post a fuller explanation later tonight. It's worth understanding the difference.
It might also shed some light on why I see habeas suspension as very serious, very solemn, and not to be done lightly, but not something mere discussion of which should be feared.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That we have screwed up in the past should not be an arguement that it is okay to screw up now.
Yeah, you know, I freaking give up.
I understand that this is frustrating for you. Me, too. I just don't get why, when I am arguing against things I think we shouldn't do - and I think you agree - you would argue against that by bringing up when we have done it before.
What point are you trying to make?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
When your argument is that those actions are moving us away from our values, what we've done in the past is relevant to whether we've moved away.
It can be evidence that those really aren't our values, or it can be evidence that the current actions aren't moving us further away because we've already taken that step away from those values.
I think the point Rakeesh is trying to make is that "this moves us away from our values" is a weak argument against the detainee plan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because they aren't our values?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Its not so much that it moves us away from our values... its simply another indicator that our declared values aren't the values we actually govern by.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because they aren't our values?
I don't know about Rakeesh, but this is what I find immensely frustrating.
That question is explicitly answered in the post immediately preceding yours. I gave two challenges that could be raised against the argument.
I'm not sure if you think you're engaging in Socratic dialog, if you just like rhetorical questions, or what. Whatever your intent, what is coming across to at least some of us is that you simply aren't trying to understand others' positions on this. What is giving that impression is the lack of any indication in your responses that you've digested what we're saying before responding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: It can be evidence that those really aren't our values, or it can be evidence that the current actions aren't moving us further away because we've already taken that step away from those values.
Which?! I am asking which! Is his argument evidence that those aren't our values? Or is the argument that we have moved away from those values in the past, too?
If the first, then we disagree about what our values are. If the second, I disagree that moving away from those values in the past validates us moving away from them now.
Both responses bug you. I am trying. What am I missing?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Its not so much that it moves us away from our values... its simply another indicator that our declared values aren't the values we actually govern by.
And I think that we should actually govern by our declared values.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the second, I disagree that moving away from those values in the past validates us moving away from them now.
No one has said that moving away from them in the past validates us moving away from them now.
Rather, if we moved away in the past and have not moved back, then this won't move us away from them. Because we're already away.
Neither that nor your potential disagreement about what our values are, however, is directly relevant to my answer to your question.*
You asked why he would bring up past actions. I told you. Now, you can discuss both potential attacks on your values proposition. They're certainly arguable propositions. But to keep asking why he's brought them up is what's frustrating. He's brought them up to have someone address those two attacks, and to point out that there are stronger ways to oppose these policies. (Again, that's my impression; I can't speak to Rakeesh's actual intent, but how I've interpreted it.)
*Note, they are both extremely relevant to the issue of our values as they relate to the detention of enemy combatants.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm going suggest that while things like suspension of habeus corpus, "rough" interrogation techniques, extradition of prisoners to countries that practice torture, and the like may have occurred in the past, there are two significant differences from most earlier cases of such:
One, a significant portion of the American public is aware of them, and
Two, they are being done in conjunction with the prosecution of a very public series of offensives allegedly being done on behalf of the American people.
Having been made aware of them, and being told that these actions are being taken on their behalf, it behooves the American people to actively state whether they're comfortable with such actions being made in their name.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)