Comments on: Too Depressing

By: krkrjak

krkrjak — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:58:24 +0000

uncle k… I wouldn’t argue the numbers in your comment, however to keep a little perspective on the issue please keep in mind that at the time many of those were “detained” there was one hell of a lot of chaos engulfing the entire region.Today most if not all those wrongly detained have been released. It is obvious to me that much of the discussion on this topic is related to the patriot act. Well, will one of you out there please tell me when the last mass grave bearing the dead bodies of thousands of men, women, and children was found in this country, the USA? Hmmm, can’t tell me? Well I suppose that’s because some of you believe they just haven’t been located yet. And someone on this thread called me “hysterical”. Wow!

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:59:50 +0000

Then I said to George, well why are you worried the cops are coming to kick down your door and haul you away? The Red Cross estimated that 70 to 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib at the time of the “unpleasantness” there were totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

By: krkrjak

krkrjak — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:44:25 +0000

Robin Green: Let me see if I can address your question with this true story. I recently had a conversation with a neighbor down my street. Just a casual chat about nothing in particular until the election was brought up. He said he would vote for Bush were it not for the patriot act. I inquired what the patriot act had to do with his decision. His reply,”I don’t want the cops kicking down my door and dragging me off in the middle of the night”. Frankly I was surprised at his answer. I said to him, why george, are you conspiring to over throw the government? A. No. Well are you planning to blow up any buildings and kill a bunch of people? A. No. Well Are you building any bombs down there in your garage? A. No. Well are you a member of any terrorist group that want to blow things up and kill people? A. No. Well George, have you robbed any banks, molested any children, been beating your wife? A. Well hell no I haven’t done any of that. Then I said to George, well why are you worried the cops are coming to kick down your door and haul you away? George suddenly remembered he had something to do at home.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:24:38 +0000

krkrjak – Let’s try a different role play scenario. Suppose you’re the person who is suspected by the government of having information they want to know. Suppose you are in fact innocent, and don’t have that information. Would you mind being spirited away to an undisclosed location, without any legal protections whatsoever?

By: krkrjak

krkrjak — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:22:13 +0000

“I know more and have thought more carefully about this subject than you” Re: post by Katherine That comment would of course be your assessment predicated on your perceived superior intellegence. I am however in complete agreement with your six points. And what a wonderful world we would have if only a magic wand could be waived and have all you suggest come true over night.But right here, right now we all know that isn’t going to happen. And right here right now there are a very lot of very evil people plotting to kill you, and will do so at the first available opportunity. What neither you or I know is how many american lives may have already been saved by information obtained from those who “disappeared”. I will futher agree with you on the Abu Ghraib affair.That was most definitely letting the world see the USA at it’s ugliest, and harmed our image immeasurably. Please indulge me for a moment in a bit of role playing if you don’t mind. Imagine if you will that your husband or son has been captured by someone like the Baghdad butcher. I mean, really think,your husband or son. Now imagine that you were told by a high level government official that a member of the group holding your husband or son had been captured, knew where your loved one was being held but wouldn’t talk. But that they, the interrogators had ways to make him talk. Now Katherine, you don’t have to give me your answer but in your own mind how far would you want the interrogators to go if it meant saving your loved ones life? Please be totally honest with your answer.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:58:38 +0000

Oh Jet, is your life really that empty?

By: jet

jet — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:24:02 +0000

Dan Hardie, Always amusing, thanks for the laugh and making my day a little less boring. I knew I could prod someone out of the woodwork to play. Sucka

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:42:52 +0000

“I have nothing but pity for those among you who would go so willingly to the sacrificial alter without so much as a whimper. Your intellect is far beyond my comprehension, but you should be forgiven for your ignorance.” I didn’t know which side of the spectrum this comment was coming from, until I read your first comment. Look. Most of my family lives in New York. I will hopefully live there next year, and right now I live in another city that is a likely target. I’ve seen the maps of the blast zones if a nuclear weapon is exploded in Manhattan. It is almost impossible to find a location in Manhattan where a nuclear weapon could go off without killing a close friend or family member of mine, not to mention destroying a large part of the city where I was born. I would do almost anything to prevent that from happening. Really, do you think I’m stupid or crazy? It is very, very unlikely that disappearing and enabling the torture of suspects would do anything to prevent it. What could prevent is: 1) getting serious about securing Russia’s nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel, and highly enriched uranium used for fuel in other countries, 2) getting a real handle on just what the hell has been going on with Pakistan’s nuclear program, and making sure that their “nuclear Wal Mart” is really shut down and that Islamist soldiers and scientists cannot provide nuclear materials or weapons to Al Qaeda. 3) figuring out a policy that will get rid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons 4) prevent Iran from obtaining them. 5) installing radiation detectors to scan trucks at the border 6) inspecting shipping containers We haven’t done ANY of that—even the easy, obvious steps have been deemed too expensive. Meanwhile, it is now clear that we have tortured people or sent them to be tortured—and as I said: low level as well as high level Al Qaeda people; the innocent as well as the guilty. It is clear that prisoners have died of injuries they suffered during interrogation It is clear that this has hurt our standing in the Arab world a great deal. It is pretty clear that Abu Ghraib hurt our efforts in Iraq and won recruits for anti-American terrorists. It is not at all clear that dismantling the laws protecting suspects has done anything to prevent a terrorist attack. You call me ignorant. Well, I am very, very confident that I know more and have thought more carefully about this subject than you.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:39:16 +0000

A short summary of my discussion with Jet: Jet: ‘Has Turkey had to put down any rebellions recently?’ Me: yes. Jet: Christ, I’ve lost this argument, let’s rant for absolutely ages. And Jet, it’s odd that you’re tough enough to advocate torture and the ‘disappearance’ of opponents, but you’re deeply hurt when I call you a ‘howling cretin’. I’ll admit that I don’t know for sure that you howl.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:24:18 +0000

“Katherine, your conditions seem pretty reasonable to me. But they seem a ways away from requiring the government to convict Al Qaeda members in open trial, while the “no right to remain silent” provision I think contradicts the Geneva Convention. If the neutral factfinder can have its hearings in secret, and if the standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but rather by the “preponderance of the evidence,” then I don’t see any real objection. I also don’t think this standard would satisfy those here who somehow think America would be better off if William Kunstler’s ghost were representing Khalid Muhammad in open court.” Who cares if it would satisfy me, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, or anyone else on this board? We’re not exactly setting policy on these issues right now, in case you hadn’t noticed. We’re not even setting the Democratic party’s position; with a few exceptions they have been silent. If those are steps you would support, you should support them, and not give a knee jerk defense of the administration just because others give what you see as a knee jerk attack. Even if you don’t agree with the solution Human Rights Watch gives they identify a real problem. (Though I think you know less about their solution than you may think; not all “trials” are alike. A lot of people have talked about JAG-style military trials as a middle ground between a military tribunal that could too easily be a show trial, and the full protections of domestic courts. I do not have a well developed position on what the solution is, because there’s never been a real debate about it & right now I’m focused on convincing people that the status quo is not acceptable.)

By: krkrjak

krkrjak — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:08:20 +0000

I have nothing but pity for those among you who would go so willingly to the sacrificial alter without so much as a whimper. Your intellect is far beyond my comprehension, but you should be forgiven for your ignorance.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:23:16 +0000

I frankly don’t believe that the average American is at risk of arbitrary indefinite detention, or fears that he or she is. It’s rather dishonest rhetoric. Apparently you feel that those who were invoking Niemoller were somehow overstating the case. I would argue that in the process of responding to them, you gave us a first class example of just what Niemoller was talking about. More specifically, the notion that the “average” American has nothing to fear, and that it’s only those who are somehow “exceptional” or “out of the mainstream” who are at risk (and therefore, implicitly, that it’s really no big deal) is precisely the kind of thinking that Niemoller was addressing.

By: y81

y81 — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:13:15 +0000

Uncle Kvetch, I was responding to those who, invoking Niemoller, claimed to be personally scared that they themselves might be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government. Since they invoked their (alleged) personal fear of being at risk, I pointed out my own personal view. I frankly don’t believe that the average American is at risk of arbitrary indefinite detention, or fears that he or she is. It’s rather dishonest rhetoric. I agree that one’s personal status is not particularly relevant to the status of one’s political judgment. Most New Yorkers are going to vote for Kerry, but most soldiers in Iraq are going to vote for Bush, so go figure.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:49:55 +0000

The whole point of laws, treaties and conventions is that they hold even when it might be convenient to ignore them. The fact that it might be expedient to violate any number of treaties and agreements in order to pursue national security (or partisan political advantage) is neither here nor there. One of the things that distinguishes the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’ is precisely the fact that the ‘good guys’ are prepared to maintain the rule of law even in cases where it may to their advantage to violate those laws. That’s like, what laws are, dude… All the hysterical ranting by a minority of the commentators above about how this stuff is ‘necessary’ for national security is irrelevant. I happen to think it’s unlikely that these policies genuinely enhance national security but even if they did enhance security that wouldn’t make them legal or right. I know there are many (and some of the commentators above exemplify this) who’d like to think the US is some kind of sui generis state that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants in the pursuit of its own national interest and who think that crying ‘national security’ somehow excuses the breaking of international law. It is not and should not. The current US regime can either continue behaving as it does and increasingly be seen as a rogue state which does not act in good faith as a member of the international community or it can stick to its legal and moral obligations under international law.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:09:29 +0000

abb1, as I sit in my office on a high floor in a Manhattan office building, it isn’t John Ashcroft I worry about. Y81, not that it really matters, but I also happen to work on a high floor (the 42nd, to be exact) in an office building in Midtown Manhattan. And I do fear John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration, because (1) I believe that their policies have made us far more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and (2) their contempt for due process and the rule of law puts everyone at risk. My point is merely that being a New Yorker after 9/11 does not give you (or me) some kind of special insight into these matters. On a related note: krkrjak, the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you must have “forgotten” what happened on 9/11 is positively grotesque. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you find the debate here “idiotic,” no one is forcing you to read it.