Susan Sontag: On the Torture of Others

[Oid Sporschik]

And according some evidences, exposed by newspapers, it is
(denial of access to any rights, tortures) is just projection what is happening in US prisons since 09/11

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sporwik Zoid:
And according some evidences, exposed by newspapers, it is
(denial of access to any rights, tortures) is just projection what is happening in US prisons since 09/11

What evidence? What newspapers? The international Red Cross has been to Guantanamo on a regular basis and has found no evidence of abuse.

Sporwik, unless you have a driver's license that says that is your name, I am going to have to ask you to change it. Obviously fake names are not permitted.

[Tony Alicea]

Maybe it is a valid name somewhere in Europe, say (for the sake of argument), The Netherlands? Even if fake?

"Inquiring Minds Want To Know!"

And me too!

[Jeroen Wenting]

Certainly not a normal name here.
Maybe in some eastern European country, sounds vaguely Slavic to me.

[Jason Menard]

"Oid Sporschik", eh? Well, you can't say we didn't try to work with you.

[Max Habibi]

"Oid",

I'm afraid your account was locked out. Personally, I didn't see an issue, but the deed is done. I encourage you to find a more plausible name and rejoin our group.

M
[ May 31, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Michael Ernest]

I don't know if anyone else sees coming what I see coming, but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08ABUS.html?th

I'm inclined to guess that the story of an isolated, aberrant incident is going the way of a group of guys that probably just went a little too far, and even that's not clear.

[Andrew Soltis]

The Times story about the desire to skirt the Geneva Convention is depressing. I was thinking about WaterGate the other day. Should Bush pull off the election what are the odds that the next four years will be political gridlock?

[Michael Ernest]

If one party controls the House, the Senate and the White House, there's not much to do but wait until the other party gets it act together and mounts a comeback.

[Jason Menard]

"Boris Ivan"/"Shirley Sassparilla"

Please give it a rest with all the fake accounts that don't comply with the naming policy.

[Elliot Rhinehart]

I wish I could find the article I read the other day. Its thesis is that people pick their party in adolescense and seldom change it over the course of their lives. Of course this is the statistical mean voter.

Recent press has begun to indicate that the dems are becoming the fiscally conservative party. Will fiscal conservatives move with them?

The Bush administration appears in their zeal to fight terrorism, decided to abandon civil liberties. Guantanamo's purpose of being is to skirt the law. Jose Padillo is a US citizen arrested on US soil. Now they are torturing people and hiring lawyers to tell them it's legal. They arrested the Oregon atty on the buggled finger print. They wire tapped the democratic mayor of Philly.

It's easy for me to rationalize law enforcement types getting out of hand with prisonsoners.

IMO, the Bush Administration appears to, at the very upper levels, disregard the constitution and the bill of rights. This disregard is the predicted course of the US faced with a terrorism threat. I suppose it's cheaper and requires much less skill to throw Jose Padillo in a brig than the alternatives.

But the administration is asking us to trust them and they don't appear trustworthy.

Has a supreme court justice ever been assassinated?

If Bush wins the election, IIRC the incumbent has an advantage, the dems will find some issue on the Bush Admin and we will have years of hearings and Washington mired in gridlock. I suppose it's not much different than monica lewinsky but that was not a felony or a trampling of significant constitutional rights by the administration.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Boris Ivan:
The Times story about the desire to skirt the Geneva Convention is depressing. I was thinking about WaterGate the other day. Should Bush pull off the election what are the odds that the next four years will be political gridlock?

"Boris",

Since you've been singled out for a naming violation, please change your moniker to some accepted format: for example, B. Ivan.

thanks,
M

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Elliot Rhinehart:
I suppose it's not much different than monica lewinsky but that was not a felony or a trampling of significant constitutional rights by the administration.

Actually Elliot et al., lying under oath to Congress is a felony, which is what Clinton was impeached for.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:


Actually Elliot et al., lying under oath to Congress is a felony, which is what Clinton was impeached for.

This is not true.

President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative(but not the Senate) along fairly party line votes for two counts, neither of which was lying undr oath to Congress.

The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).

The truth is damaging enough, though interestingly, Clinton is still the third most popular American president(if you believe polls), ranking equal to President Bush(II) and surpassing President Reagan. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy got the top two spots.

M

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
The truth is damaging enough, though interestingly, Clinton is still the third most popular American president(if you believe polls), ranking equal to President Bush(II) and surpassing President Reagan. Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy got the top two spots.

I find it hard to believe that Clinton was more popular than Teddy Roosevelt. And Reagan won his second term with 49 states. Andrew Jackson was also an extremely popular president. Do you have a source for this poll? It would be interesting to see how they figured it.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I find it hard to believe that Clinton was more popular than Teddy Roosevelt. And Reagan won his second term with 49 states. Andrew Jackson was also an extremely popular president. Do you have a source for this poll? It would be interesting to see how they figured it.

I recall seeing the Gallup poll, but can't place it.

Here is an article that refers to it.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Max Habibi:
I recall seeing the Gallup poll, but can't place it.

according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

In other words, let's ask a bunch of Americans who probably would never have even heard of Andrew Jackson if he wasn't on the $20 bill. While looking for this poll, I saw a more reasonable poll by historians that placed Clinton 21st.

[Max Habibi]

Despite myself, I find that I tend to gravitate to numbers that support my preconceived opinions, and dismiss those that don't: they don't seem reasonable to me. I think I would probably be better off if I didn't do that.

M
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Michael Ernest]

All y'all are polluting my torture thread. Step off.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Actually Elliot et al., lying under oath to Congress is a felony, which is what Clinton was impeached for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

[Warren Dew]

Thomas Paul:

In other words, let's ask a bunch of Americans who probably would never have even heard of Andrew Jackson if he wasn't on the $20 bill. While looking for this poll, I saw a more reasonable poll by historians that placed Clinton 21st.

The fact that Clinton and Bush (son) were tied for third was the tipoff for me. Name recognition tends to fade with time.
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I find it hard to believe that Clinton was more popular than Teddy Roosevelt. And Reagan won his second term with 49 states. Andrew Jackson was also an extremely popular president. Do you have a source for this poll? It would be interesting to see how they figured it.

It seems to me you've ignored Max's original premise: Max never referred to the popular vite, as you suggest here, unless you're calling the popular vote a kind of poll. Max's point was simply that today, asking the average person on the stree (I'm guessing), Clinton shows up well. And by the way:


Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place.

Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, garnered 10% of the vote, followed by Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Bush's father, the 41st president, was chosen by just 2% of the respondents, tying with Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson.

If you want to dismiss the value of the poll, start there.
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

...Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, garnered 10% of the vote, ...
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

I bet if they conducted a similar poll now, Reagan will garner more than 10%. Last night I saw a piece in the news which showed that some college teachers discussed Reagan, his policies, the politcal times during his terms with the students who knew nothing about him other than how to spell his name. The result was that many of these students had a better opinion of Reagan afterwards such class discussions.

[Jason Menard]

I should have stated, "lying under oath to a grand jury". My error.

[Elliot Rhinehart]

If the supreme court is to be a check and balance on the executive branch, hope is small for the torturees...

The conservatives also take a skeptical view of affirmative action, are likely to reject most substantive due process, procedural due process, and establishment clause claims, and are generally reluctant to expand the fundamental rights strand of equal protection law

THE POLITICAL MAKE-UP OF THE CURRENT COURT
Seven members of the current Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Two justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) were nominated by a Democratic president.
THE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES: Scalia (appointed by Reagan) and Thomas (appointed by George Bush, Sr.)
VERY CONSERVATIVE: C. J. Rehnquist (appointed by Nixon)
CONSERVATIVE: O'Connor (appointed by Reagan) and Kennedy (appointed by Reagan)
MODERATES: Stevens (appointed by Ford), Souter (appointed by George Bush, Sr.), Ginsburg (appointed by Clinton) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton).
LIBERALS: There are no current members of the Court that are properly considered "liberal." Recent members of the Court who might be called liberals include Republican (Eisenhower) appointees Brennan and Warren, Republican appointee (Nixon) Blackmun, and Johnson appointees Marshall, Fortas, and Goldberg. The last "ultra-liberal" on the Court was William O. Douglas, a Roosevelt appointee.

source of quote

I can find no record of a supreme court justice assassination.
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Elliot Rhinehart ]

[Elliot Rhinehart]

PBS Newshour had excerpts from Ashcroft's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee today. This was about the torture memos. Ashcroft's answers to Patrick Leahy are incredible. Joseph Biden follows Leahy with a point blank statement that Ashcroft is quilty of being in contempt of Congress. One would be hard pressed not to pity that poor bastard, Ashcroft. Ashcroft's performance was rivetting.

NYT has a video of Ashcroft. I only have 56K modem so I can't be sure it's the same as the newshour.
[ June 08, 2004: Message edited by: Elliot Rhinehart ]

[Warren Dew]

O'Conner recently helped to throw out a Texas law targeted at homosexuals on equal protection grounds, signaling that she would also be willing to throw out laws banning homosexual marriage. That doesn't sound at all conservative to me. (The more liberal members of the court wimped out and threw out the law on due process grounds, probably specifically to avoid setting a precedent for the marriages.)

I think those classifications are about one notch off.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I should have stated, "lying under oath to a grand jury". My error.

Don't worry about it, it's not that big a deal. I just happened to know that your statement was inaccurate.

M

[Mapraputa Is]

I refuse to agree. It *is* a big deal. All our statements here, in Meaningless Drivel, used to be accurate so far.

[Max Habibi]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I refuse to agree.

:roll:

[Michael Ernest]

The news of the day on Ashcroft's testimony:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09TORT.html?th

What I find so striking is the almost seamless jump from the initial story -- isolated incident, bizarre, aberrant behavior among our upstanding, freedom-loving, people uniform -- to now: "we broke no laws."

But it all does seem to be playing out along the lines a frat house defends itself to college deans after a particularly wild night of excess. Maybe Rush Limbaugh has this right after all.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Maybe Rush Limbaugh has this right after all.

Is that supposed to be in a sarcastic tone? Or are you agreeing with Rush?

Here is something that illustrates what I feel..

[Michael Ernest]

Sarcasm, Paul.

[David Lack]

I didn't think conservative cartoonists existed.

[John Smith]

I am not even sure who this cartoon critisizes. Bush looks pretty ugly, as if painted by a liberal, yet the overall message of the cartoon seems to be conservative. Maybe the author is a centrist?

[Michael Ernest]

It seems to me an observation on some presumed double-standard. Our 'villains' are prosecuted while theirs are celebrated. The cartoonist suggests there's some irony in this. A few of our soldiers go off and have a little fun, and they're threatened with courts martial. Their fighters play dirty and become heroes for it.

Aw, man, that's just not fair!

I don't think it's unconscious work that the cartoonist takes the lightest possible implications of prisoner abuse by US soldiers and contrasts them to the most savage behavior of a more amorphous opposition. Who are they? Iraqis? Is that a convenient short word here? Why not 'terrorists' or 'Muslim extremists'?

This cartoon also contrasts our President -- one imagines him practically hog-tied by the straightjacket of the appearance of decency -- against some nameless mob of exulting brutes.

Which is to say, it's not much of a contrast at all, but it will appeal to the sentiment of Americans who think the US gets a raw deal in the court of public opinion.
[ June 09, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Yeah, it's not really a political cartoon, I don't think. Being rather charitable, it's just saying that it's terrible that Americans were murdered horrifically and their killers went free, while some Iraqis were "merely" tortured and their captors are being punished.

[Mapraputa Is]

By the way, do you know that joke explanations will soon required?

[Jeff Langr]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
By the way, do you know that joke explanations will soon required?

A great cartoon, and an excellent idea. It'll lead to total congressional gridlock, as congress will spiral into infinite recursion to explain any law (joke) that it tries to pass. (ref Q: how do you know when a congressperson is lying?)

-J-

[Jeroen Wenting]

he's a politician. I'd suspect him to be lying at all times, especially in the period leading up to the elections (which means at all times).