Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Technical Difficulties

Tech problems led to the loss of the very end of this diavlog--we apologize.

Last edited by Aryeh; 05-24-2009 at 10:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-24-2009, 10:08 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Anne, I did not care for what you had to say.

Regards,

ISA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2009, 02:32 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm SO awesome! View Post
Anne, I did not care for what you had to say.

Regards,

ISA
Ann not Anne.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:28 AM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

no, she changed it cuz she's religious

Last edited by I'm SO awesome!; 05-25-2009 at 04:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-25-2009, 01:41 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-25-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

it true i red it on da internets
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-25-2009, 10:24 AM
TMink TMink is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

I enjoyed the part about American Idol, even though I have yet to watch the show. I must concur with Althouse giving special mention to the gay guys on her blog. They add an interesting and welcome perspective. These two bloggining Divas work well together.

Trey
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-25-2009, 11:08 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Ann,
You might want to read David Brooks on Obama's torture/detention policy. He seems much closer to the truth than you are.
He says there was a Cheney torture policy for 3 years, and then a gradual rolling back of the Cheney policy to a Rice/Hadley policy, and that Obama is continuing (with some tweaks) the latter policy, while Cheney explicitly attacks Obama and implicitly attacks the later Bush policy. This seems much closer to right than Ann's seemingly faith-based claims that Obama is going to be just like Bush (meaning Bush-Cheney, apparently).

Brooks objects to Obama's repudiation of Bush's policy, on the grounds that it's unfair and partisan, given that he is keeping the broad outline of the later Bush strategy.
I think this overlooks the fact that the Bush II policy, like the Bush-Cheney policy, was implemented quietly, without any repudiation of the insane Bush-Cheney policy. THAT original policy was one the Bush administration could not or would not denounce in the terms it needed to be denounced in. Obama can turn the page, which is important for national security, and total fairness to the later Bush regine should rightly take a back seat to that.

Second, one thing that both Brooks and Ann seem to miss totally is the difference on issues of process. The Bush administration sought to do everything in secret by executive order. They engaged Congress only when the Congress was already engaged or when they were told they had to by the Supreme Court. Obama is attempting to make the policy in a more democratic way.

Where does Ann get her certainty that Obama will play the same word-games as Bush (we do not torture by definition)? I have seen no evidence of that kind of blatant dishonesty so far, and Ann, of course, never presents any -- the very idea of presenting any seems not to occur to her.

I really wonder how she can be a law professor. She doesn't believe in providing evidence for her views. She can't understand Obama's careful nuance, his attempt to balance two sides of an argument, and she'll accept any horseshit from demagogues and serial liars like Dick Cheney so long as it's phrased in simple direct sentences that a five year old could formulate and understand. She seems to see opinion as a purely emotive affair with no connection to reason at all. Ann, are you a law professor or a Dachsund?

Note to Ann's interlocutors: When she says something ridiculous, don't get embarrassed and try to change the subject or just say "I guess we disagree", just politely ask her for her evidence and see what happens.

Last edited by Bloggin' Noggin; 05-25-2009 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-25-2009, 12:35 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Where does Ann get her certainty that Obama will play the same word-games as Bush (we do not torture by definition)? I have seen no evidence of that kind of blatant dishonesty so far, and Ann, of course, never presents any -- the very idea of presenting any seems not to occur to her.
Yeah, that was sort of the low-point of Althouse's argumentation. Confronted with evidence that she was wrong she replied (without a note of doubt or uncertainty) that she still believed Obama would act like Bush anyway. Not a very flattering reaction IMO.

Which gets me to the Obama = Bush thing. It was entertaining a couple months ago, when the alternative was fawning comparisons to Lincoln or FDR, but it's starting to get really played out and insipid. He's been in office long enough that you can find real stuff to criticize without having to make absurd stretches and dubious predictions. At least the people comparing him to Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini are putting some effort into it.

It's been a while since 2001 but IIRC Althouse is also wrong when she said that people were constantly finding fault with Bush. That's without even correcting for a much more divisive election or a period of relative calm.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:08 PM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
Yeah, that was sort of the low-point of Althouse's argumentation. Confronted with evidence that she was wrong she replied (without a note of doubt or uncertainty) that she still believed Obama would act like Bush anyway. Not a very flattering reaction IMO.
That really was an astonishing sequence at around minute 16 (sorry, life is too short to go back and dingalink it). Althouse makes a, shall we say, counterintuitive assertion, provides no evidence whatsoever nor evinces any awareness that the burden of proof is on her, is confronted with evidence to the contrary, and shrugs it off with a "oh, I don't believe that for a second." Too bad she didn't play the "well I'm just trying to stir things up" card to complete the Althouse drinking game hat trick.

I don't know why anyone agrees to appear on bh.tv with her.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-25-2009, 01:48 PM
Jyminee Jyminee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin View Post
Ann, are you a law professor or a Dachsund?
Great line! Though perhaps your division is overly binary
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Brooks objects to Obama's repudiation of Bush's policy, on the grounds that it's unfair and partisan, given that he is keeping the broad outline of the later Bush strategy.
I won't listen to Althouse. Ev-er. But I did read the Brooks piece. He makes a good argument that the Bushies, chastened by the Supreme Court and an absence of WMDs in Iraq, and better advised by elders from Bush-1-land, had already distanced themselves from hardcore Cheneyism, certainly by 2006.

I have a slightly different take on it: the whole fucking government flipped out after 9/11 and the far right neo-cons got everything they wanted. They were drunk on the barbarism of aggressive warfare, and most of them gradually sobered up.

It amounts to the same thing though. Cheney is now left with just a populist pro-torture base. The neo-con intellectuals who stirred the pot in the name of coercive democracy have retreated to rationalization, revisionism and the woodwork. It's basically Dick and Joe the Plumber.

So yes, it's preposterous to conclude that Obama will be "just like Bush." In fact, one of Obama's biggest advantages is that almost anyone would like like a genius and great statesperson following the incompetent and idiotic W. And Obama is NOT just anyone.

Quote:
Where does Ann get her certainty that Obama will play the same word-games as Bush (we do not torture by definition)? I have seen no evidence of that kind of blatant dishonesty so far, and Ann, of course, never presents any -- the very idea of presenting any seems not to occur to her.
Well, Ann aside, I think there is SOME evidence. Obama has not walked away from rendition, which IS a euphemism for "they'll do the torture for us, and we can maybe even be in the room." Also, the revival of military tribunals is a word game. And then there is the walkback from justice and due process on the issue of permanent preventative detention of suspects who have never been charged with or convicted of anything.

The conventional right-wing wisdom has it that Obama the reality-facing president is a different man than Obama the inexperienced candidate. Again, I view it a little differently: Obama is now surrounded by a group of people he had almost zero contact with throughout his life: high-level career militarists. They have their flattery, their shiny medals, their crisp uniforms, their swagger, their homoeroticism and their charm. They wouldn't fool Martin Luther King or Gandhi or even an older George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (both of whom, after all, had BEEN in the military). But Obama is no MLK and no Gandhi, and it remains to be seen if he's even Jimmy Carter.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-25-2009, 10:03 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Obama is now surrounded by a group of people he had almost zero contact with throughout his life: high-level career militarists. They have their flattery, their shiny medals, their crisp uniforms, their swagger, their homoeroticism and their charm. They wouldn't fool Martin Luther King or Gandhi or even an older George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (both of whom, after all, had BEEN in the military). But Obama is no MLK and no Gandhi, and it remains to be seen if he's even Jimmy Carter.
Perhaps Obama isn't a dupe at all, he may be a true believer. He never claimed innocence or pacifism. If so, what strategy do you employ to influence him otherwise? Do you have hope?

It seems that it doesn't matter whether you call it Bush or Obama... The President of these United States, when in need, must first and foremost protect with military might. Opinions of said need differ, but selective readings of the constitution may apply.
WWC(arter)D? If not Jesus, MLK or Gandhi.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-26-2009, 03:40 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Perhaps Obama isn't a dupe at all, he may be a true believer.
I'm curious to what extent he believes in the Bush doctrine of US exceptionalism. I would expect him to be a skeptic, but all the flag waving, rides on Air Force One and hails-to-the-chief must be very intoxicating.

I'd like to think Obama can remain truly thoughtful and even humble. (Was Lincoln?) But he lives in a bubble, surrounded by sycophants, careerists, connivers, warmongers, crooks and megalomaniacs. And those are just the Democrats!
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-25-2009, 10:05 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Shame... incapable of listening to Ann Althouse. She's not even a right-winger.

Your latter points are exactly what Ann Althouse is talking about when she means to say that President Obama will be a lot like President Bush. She's not arguing that he will be exactly like him in style or in every substantive matter, but in many substantive matters Obama will only be caring on with what Bush did.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-26-2009, 07:46 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
But Obama is no MLK and no Gandhi, and it remains to be seen if he's even Jimmy Carter.
Even Jimmy Carter? You just darkened my day Wonderment.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-26-2009, 03:46 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

I should add that I think Jimmy Carter was the best US president of the 20th century.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Seriously? Have you looked at where he's ranked on the list according to Presidential historians?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-26-2009, 06:42 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Seriously? Have you looked at where he's ranked on the list according to Presidential historians?
Yes, I have. I'm not impressed with the rankings. In the 2009 CSPAN poll, slaveholder GW is ranked #2; slaveholder Jefferson is ranked #7;Genocidal slaveTRADER and crook Andrew Jackson is ranked #13; the only man on Earth to order a nuclear bomb dropped on civilians is ranked #5. Need I go on?
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-26-2009, 08:21 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

ohhhh, i forgot to consult my "I'm insanely left wing" handbook before asking.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-26-2009, 08:23 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
ohhhh, i forgot to consult my "I'm insanely left wing" handbook before asking.
Oops, I forgot that opposing slavery and the mass murder of civilians were insane left wing views.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-26-2009, 08:27 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

let's see......dozens of experts vs. a guy who is really biased. hmmmm....that is a tough one. although, i did ask Denville steve what he thought and he said "G. W. Bush" and since he's the equivalent of you on the other side i'll compromise and rank them 1 and 2, respectively. how long do you think it'll take wikipedia to change it back after i "go on record"? 5 seconds?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-27-2009, 12:46 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

you've been resorting to some really weak Appeals to Authority lately in your mocking, dismissive responses - it is a poor fit with your attitude and style.

step up your game!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-27-2009, 01:01 PM
I'm SO awesome!
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

true...but some of these dorks need to be throttled just a wee bit harder than the rest
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Are you sure you're rating him as a President or as a post-President left-wing, champion of human rights celebrity?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-26-2009, 08:37 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Are you sure you're rating him as a President or as a post-President left-wing, champion of human rights celebrity?
You do have a point in that I am "rating" according to values I apply to the overall person.

The confusion we're having is because presidential historians' assessments are only valuable in the narrow context of the presidency itself and mostly from the narrow viewpoint of US national interests.

In other words, the historians will look at the context of Jefferson's election. Could someone with an abolitionist agenda get elected? Of course not, so Jefferson must be appraised given the political constraints of the time.

How did Truman do? Well, from the national interest point of view, he got the Japanese to surrender and saved American military lives.

But if you look at Jefferson from the slave's point of view or look at Truman from the Hiroshima victim's point of view, you will assess the humanity of these presidents differently.

So the historian may say Jefferson was one of our best presidents. But I -- who think the great moral issue of the first 90 years of the country was the abolition of slavery -- conclude that Jefferson flunked as a human being. (Actually, a better argument can be made for Truman, given that he inherited the WWII from Roosevelt and there was immense barbarism on all sides.)
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-26-2009, 08:59 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

I see where you're coming from, but I profoundly disagree with you. I abhor judging our ancestors by today's standards, i.e., slavery is bad and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad, so on and so forth. Jefferson was just a part of the southern economic system which made it difficult to not own slaves or free them. If he had been born and raised in Massachusetts, his actions would have been different probably. You make the perfect point against your own argument by both congratulating Truman on ending the war and saving peoples' lives, and then giving him them thumbs down with the way he did it, like he had another choice... because whatever choice he made meant slaughtering Japanese people one way or another (Americans too of course).

Last edited by Lyle; 05-26-2009 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-26-2009, 09:23 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
I see where you're coming from, but I profoundly disagree with you. I abhor judging our ancestors by today's standards, i.e., slavery is bad and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bad, so on and so forth.
Ok, we can agree to disagree on that. I think slavery was always bad -- then, now, whenever.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-26-2009, 09:39 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

I do too, Jefferson did as well, but if I had lived in the antebellum South, and owned enough property, I probably would have owned slaves too because that was how large property owners made their land profitable. Even free blacks owned slaves. The only people who didn't own slaves in the South were the white trash farmers who were too poor to own slaves.

Julius Caesar butchered peopled by the thousands and enslaved many of the ones he hadn't butchered. Is he not still estimable? Socrates was a free man who lived in a slave based economic system. He didn't try to end the slave economy of the Hellenistic world. Should we look down upon him because of this? James Madison, a slave owner, wrote the Constitution. The Constitution is the same document President Barack Obama upholds and defends this very hour, and the same document that allows for Barack Obama to be the President of the United States. James Madison is less of a human being because he lawfully owned slaves? Does his humanity not live on through the Constitution he wrote and the country he helped to found? The country that President Barack Obama leads today? Rhetorical questions.

Last edited by Lyle; 05-26-2009 at 09:44 PM.. Reason: atrocious grammar
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-27-2009, 01:54 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
if I had lived in the antebellum South, and owned enough property, I probably would have owned slaves too
That doesn't make it right.

Quote:
Even free blacks owned slaves.
That doesn't make it right.

Quote:
The only people who didn't own slaves in the South were the white trash farmers who were too poor to own slaves.
That doesn't make it right.

Ironically, the people of Jefferson's beloved Virginia disagree with your position:

Quote:
On February 25, 2007 the state of Virginia resolved to 'profoundly regret' and apologize for its role in the institution of slavery....The apology was unanimously passed in both Houses as Virginia approached the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, where the first slaves were imported into North America in 1619
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-27-2009, 02:13 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Of course it doesn't make it right... cause it is 2009 and we live now. Who knows how we would have lived our lives in the antebellum South.

Virginia's resolution is hollow cause nobody from that time period is alive today and had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington probably appreciate that the United States is a much better country (thanks to their Constitution, their ideas, and their actions), but they probably think it is stupid for people not ever involved with to apologize for it. An apology for segregation would have been/would be more appropriate (although I wasn't around for segregation either and I parents did their part in helping to end it).

If I was from Mississippi I would have voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the State flag, for example.

Last edited by Lyle; 05-27-2009 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:23 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
But if you look at Jefferson from the slave's point of view or look at Truman from the Hiroshima victim's point of view, you will assess the humanity of these presidents differently.
I don't think that's true. Jefferson's slaves lived in the same social context he did but with much less access to information about how things could be any other way. He wouldn't be compared to how rich white people would act in (what was then) a hypothetical world where black people were treated fairly, but in comparison to how other neighboring slaveholders acted. To judge Jefferson harshly requires actively abandoning the viewpoint of the slaves and instead judging him by the standard of someone who's known a much better, fairer world. That doesn't mean it's a mistake or anything, just that it's nothing like adopting the viewpoint of the victims.

edit: sorry if this is dogpiling. I just felt like this was a worthwhile nit to pick

Last edited by pampl; 05-27-2009 at 09:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-26-2009, 04:13 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post

Well, Ann aside, I think there is SOME evidence. Obama has not walked away from rendition, which IS a euphemism for "they'll do the torture for us, and we can maybe even be in the room." Also, the revival of military tribunals is a word game. And then there is the walkback from justice and due process on the issue of permanent preventative detention of suspects who have never been charged with or convicted of anything.
I certainly worry that your dark interpretation could be true. But I don't think it's clear that a rendition policy is necessarily a torture outsourcing policy. As I understand it, there are people who, if they were not dangerous, we would not return to Saudi Arabia or to Egypt -- we'd regard them as deserving asylum. But in the case of terrorists, although we don't like returning them to their country of origin, we prefer that to our other options (living with them or attempting to come up with a criminal case against them). Of course, a rendition program could be (and has been) employed as torture outsourcing, but I'm not sure it has to be exactly the same thing.

Prisoners of war don't have to be convicted of anything, of course. If we could have reason to believe that the "war on terror" would last just five years, say, and if we could be clear about the "battlefield", then there would be no need for a conviction -- so long as they were treated according to the Geneva conventions. The problem arises with the amorphous nature of the conflict. I find indefinite (not really "permanent") detention very troubling, but the domestic court system is not the only institution here. The institutions and rules governing prisoners of war seem at least in many cases to be the most relevant ones. But if they are to work, then they need some kind of revision. that's what Obama is promising to do, and he is willing to do it in the open and with the cooperation of Congress. Since the agreements are international, perhaps we need to convene another Geneva convention.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-26-2009, 05:13 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

You make some good points for a more sanguine reading of Obama policy as articulated so far. But rendition remains very murky, despite administation assertions to the contrary.

Quote:
But I don't think it's clear that a rendition policy is necessarily a torture outsourcing policy. As I understand it, there are people who, if they were not dangerous, we would not return to Saudi Arabia or to Egypt -- we'd regard them as deserving asylum. But in the case of terrorists, although we don't like returning them to their country of origin, we prefer that to our other options (living with them or attempting to come up with a criminal case against them).
How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror. For example, you could kidnap someone in a sovereign country -- say, a Pakistani in Bolivia, -- and ship her to Egypt, NOT the country of origin, for "interrogation" and detention, not a hearing or trial. If the intent o were simply to rid the US of the custody problem, there is no need to resort to channels other than an immigration judge with authority to deport undesirables. Rendition is predicated on the notion that the third party nation will do some kind of dirty work that we are unprepared to do.

Quote:
Prisoners of war don't have to be convicted of anything, of course. If we could have reason to believe that the "war on terror" would last just five years, say, and if we could be clear about the "battlefield", then there would be no need for a conviction...
That is, to quote the Yooists, a quaint notion. Bush conceived of the War on Terror as perpetual, and AFAIK there is no reason to believe Obama disagrees.

Quote:
Since the agreements are international, perhaps we need to convene another Geneva convention.
Only if we are violating them. Or want to enervate them. I agree that the problem is international. The US is not the only democracy to torture or detain people illegally. Israel also comes to mind, and there are others. Israel, for example, has several hundred Palestinians under "administrative detention" (and has a long history of torture and "enhanced interrogation.") Other countries have done much better with very serious terrorist problems. Spain, for example, has been combating Basque terrorists for decades, and more recently Al Qaeda as well: no torture, no detention without trials, no death penalty, no life without parole.

The US can go in the direction of Spain or the direction of Israel. Obama is getting through the easy part now: reversing the most egregious violations of the Bush human rights debacle. But many challenges remain.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:59 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror.
From what I've read, the Obama administration will make a similar argument to the Bush administration argument, i.e., that wherever the terrorist is found it is a kin to being on the "battlefield". That way they can be given POW status or some such new status that allows for them to be indefinitely detained.

Seems like like a completely logical and legal argument to me. If lawful combatants can be detained for the duration of a conflict, so can unlawful combatants.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:39 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
From what I've read, the Obama administration will make a similar argument to the Bush administration argument, i.e., that wherever the terrorist is found it is a kin to being on the "battlefield". That way they can be given POW status or some such new status that allows for them to be indefinitely detained.

Seems like like a completely logical and legal argument to me. If lawful combatants can be detained for the duration of a conflict, so can unlawful combatants.
You are missing the whole point of a legal system here.

How on Earth are you supposed to know who is a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant?" We just take Mr. Bush's or Mr. Nixon's or Mr. Obama's word for it?

Rounding up suspects and accusing them of crimes without due process is the road to a Gulag (like Guantánamo) or a concentration camp (like Buchenwald).

The pretext of a bogus, perpetual, undeclared "War on Terror" is an attempt to legitimize the kind of outrages that we protested so decidedly in the USSR and Nazi Germany.

The Law, as in the Bill of Rights, is supposed to protect you from governmental misconduct (abuse of rights), and I would think so-called conservatives would be the first to raise the cry of alarm.

Obama, it's true, inherited this mess from the criminal regime of GWB, and he's under considerable pressure to keep some of its illegal strictures in place. We'll have to wait and see how he does.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-29-2009, 12:51 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

[QUOTE=Wonderment;114569]

Quote:
How do we know they are terrorists and where did we pick them up? The Bush doctrine was that the entire planet was a battlefield in the War on Terror. For example, you could kidnap someone in a sovereign country -- say, a Pakistani in Bolivia, -- and ship her to Egypt, NOT the country of origin, for "interrogation" and detention, not a hearing or trial. If the intent o were simply to rid the US of the custody problem, there is no need to resort to channels other than an immigration judge with authority to deport undesirables. Rendition is predicated on the notion that the third party nation will do some kind of dirty work that we are unprepared to do.
I've heard that Clinton's use of rendition (which I thought dangerous and unlawful at the time (based on what I'd heard at the time)) was much more limited -- and more or less as I described it above. But even now, I confess I don't know if that's just Democratic/Clintonian spin. I'd like to know how they plan to limit rendition.

Quote:
That is, to quote the Yooists, a quaint notion. Bush conceived of the War on Terror as perpetual, and AFAIK there is no reason to believe Obama disagrees.
Of course, I don't think it will have such clear limits. My point is only that we do recognize reasons in war time to preventively detain soldiers. In the case of uniformed soldiers, we admit that they may well have done absolutely nothing wrong, so it's clearly preventive detention. We have institutions for detaining prisoners of war when the war is of limited duration. We also have criminal courts. It seems conceivable to me (even fairly likely) that without the Bush administration's clearly illegal actions, we might have been able to handle everything through the court system. Maybe we could now too, but I don't feel I can make any pronouncements.
We accept some degree of preventive detention both of prisoners of war and of dangerous insane people -- we can't say that the society doesn't ever accept it. Yet at the same time, it's hard to square permanent detention of sane people with our values -- especially if it's a case of "lock them up and throw away the key". It's reasonable to consider the case that we really do need to detain some as prisoners of war, and then to think whether there is any tweak that will keep the detention within our values (though not within the precise institutions we inherited). At the same time, we shouldn't take it as obvious that the court system can't handle everything. Nor should we give Obama a blank check. It's just that I have gradually been persuaded that there really may be a genuine dilemma here -- one that really might require some careful redesign of our existing institutions. I'd love to hear more on this subject on BloggingHeads.
Rosa Brooks brought up the possibility of preventive detention, as I recall in her diavlog with Bob. I wish we could have her back, but I guess her current position would make that impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:58 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
It's reasonable to consider the case that we really do need to detain some as prisoners of war, and then to think whether there is any tweak that will keep the detention within our values (though not within the precise institutions we inherited). At the same time, we shouldn't take it as obvious that the court system can't handle everything. Nor should we give Obama a blank check.
I generally agree with that, but it is important to parse the issues here: probable cause, detention, interrogation, etc.

If we take interrogation out of the equation, things are somewhat simpler: "name, rank serial number."

If there's no interrogation, you never have to worry about torture. But you still need to resolve the rules for searching and surveiling (The Patriot Act, the FISA Court, the Military Field Manual?), arresting and keeping a person (24-hours, a month, a year, perpetuity?).

Bush tried (clumsily) to get around all the legal safeguards. He claimed (although he didn't always exercise) the powers of tyrants. He also claimed an undeclared perpetual war, i.e., a fiction. The War on Terror would only end when he said so, and he would never say so.

I see no way to do get from A to B anywhere along the line without access to our normal system of justice: You need a warrant to search and surveil; you need a court to set standards of probable cause; you need a rationale for detention; you need periodic review; you need a time line for release.

Suspending habeas corpus is very serious indeed. Lincoln did it, but neither Bush nor Obama is Lincoln.

You can't let the CIA, the President and the military just do their thing. If there's no civilian review, there's simply much too much room for abuse. That's how we ended up with 15-year-old boys in Guantánamo.

Insane people (your example) do have access to the courts. They are given care and treatment. Their commitment can be reviewed, and if they are "cured" they can be released.

Quote:
It's just that I have gradually been persuaded that there really may be a genuine dilemma here -- one that really might require some careful redesign of our existing institutions.
I'm not convinced of that. I believe there are serious difficulties in arresting and prosecuting "terrorists," but there are also tremendous difficulties in arresting and prosecuting ordinary criminals. Ask any cop or prosecutor; they are required to let violent offenders go every day. That's the way it has to work in a democracy.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:04 PM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

I'm in general agreement with how you separate the issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post

I'm not convinced of that. I believe there are serious difficulties in arresting and prosecuting "terrorists," but there are also tremendous difficulties in arresting and prosecuting ordinary criminals. Ask any cop or prosecutor; they are required to let violent offenders go every day. That's the way it has to work in a democracy.
I am not convinced of it myself -- the "may" in my statement was not just a hedge or understatement. I've only gotten as far as being convinced that I don't know that there isn't a real problem here.

I'm aware of the procedural hurdles we place in the way of prosecutions -- and I'm certainly in favor of them. However, I don't think terrorists can be equated with ordinary criminals. First of all, a terrorist with a nuclear weapon or with the ability to make one would be vastly more dangerous than your average serial killer.
But even apart from that, spectacular terrorism, like that we saw on 9/11/01 can create a panic far in excess of the actual risk he poses. Just a few such attacks would likely be enough to completely shred the Bill of Rights. It might really be best, even from a liberal point of view, to be slightly less liberal now in order to preserve some amount of liberalism in the future.

Another difference is in the circumstances of apprehension. In a war, it's OK to kill enemy soldiers if they haven't surrendered -- there's no need to prove that this individual enemy soldier had any particular intent, nor do you need to prove that they've done something wrong or harmful. Being an enemy soldier captured on the battlefield is enough to justify detention. The standards of evidence are going to be quite low -- and it's a good thing too, because you can't marshal the kind of individualistic evidence against every captive soldier that you can marshal against a criminal
I definitely don't want the whole world to count as a battlefield, the president should not have unilateral right to declare anyone (even a US citizen) a prisoner of war. There should be access to some kind of tribunal (perhaps with some kind of ultimate access to the Supreme Court). The right to challenge at least the claims on which one's detention is based is essential. There should be no torture. I think "name rank and serial number" applies only to uniformed troops, doesn't it? But even if you grant that those who don't respect the laws of war might be subject to interrogation, one can certainly stop far short of accepting torture.

I wonder if there's any chance of getting Michael Walzer to come on BloggingHeads and discuss this question. That could be a really great discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2009, 12:44 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Crushing the Puppy Edition (Hanna Rosin & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
But even apart from that, spectacular terrorism, like that we saw on 9/11/01 can create a panic far in excess of the actual risk he poses. Just a few such attacks would likely be enough to completely shred the Bill of Rights. It might really be best, even from a liberal point of view, to be slightly less liberal now in order to preserve some amount of liberalism in the future.
The problem with that is, how much tearing can you do before it becomes shredding? Slippery slope, to mix a metaphor. Bush-Cheney could certainly argue that what you've outlined above is precisely what they did.

You've certainly raised the hard questions though.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.