Posted by: schofiel
Worrying - 07/01/2005 07:16
Very worrying, actually.
Worrying
Posted by: Heather
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 15:35
And that's just the tip of the scary iceberg for what's going on in this country right now.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 17:38
"I am deeply committed to ensuring that the US government complies with all its legal obligations... [including] of course the Geneva Conventions whenever they apply."
God forbid we apply the notions of the Geneva Conventions to everyone regardless of legal standing. Being humane is obviously something that we only need to do when required by law.
God forbid we apply the notions of the Geneva Conventions to everyone regardless of legal standing. Being humane is obviously something that we only need to do when required by law.
Posted by: Heather
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:00
Quote:
God forbid we apply the notions of the Geneva Conventions to everyone regardless of legal standing. Being humane is obviously something that we only need to do when required by law.
And of course, they're taking several liberties in deciding just who the Geneva Convention applies to. Then again, the seem to feel that they should be exempt from the war crimes act themselves.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:16
My point is that we should be big enough to exceed human rights requirements, not just meet them, regardless of the absurd niggling they're pursuing over legal combatants and whatnot.
Just like Scalia should have recused himself from that case involving his buddy Dick Cheney because he claimed that his relationship with Cheney wouldn't affect his decision. It well may not have affected his decision, but no one can possibly know that besides him, and even he may not know. The right thing for him to have done is to have recused himself to make sure that there couldn't be any priority treatment.
In the same way, the US should just assume that everyone, regardless of legal status, gets the basic protections allowed under the Geneva Convention. Is it required that we treat everyone that way? No. But why not avoid the speculation, be the bigger man, and just do the right thing to begin with instead of trying to determine if specific individuals deserve the right thing? It's not as if the Geneva convention requires unfettered anonymous communication to prisoners or a box of chocolates every day.
Just like Scalia should have recused himself from that case involving his buddy Dick Cheney because he claimed that his relationship with Cheney wouldn't affect his decision. It well may not have affected his decision, but no one can possibly know that besides him, and even he may not know. The right thing for him to have done is to have recused himself to make sure that there couldn't be any priority treatment.
In the same way, the US should just assume that everyone, regardless of legal status, gets the basic protections allowed under the Geneva Convention. Is it required that we treat everyone that way? No. But why not avoid the speculation, be the bigger man, and just do the right thing to begin with instead of trying to determine if specific individuals deserve the right thing? It's not as if the Geneva convention requires unfettered anonymous communication to prisoners or a box of chocolates every day.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:24
Quote:Completely agree with everything you're saying. You do right because it's the human thing to do, not because it's the legal thing to do. Unfortunatly "I had the right to" is a common mantra in the U.S. and our treatment of prisoners is mearly a natural extension of way most people here do things. Very sad. When will people learn that having the right doesn't make it moral?
My point is that we should be big enough to exceed human rights requirements, not just meet them, regardless of the absurd niggling they're pursuing over legal combatants and whatnot.
Posted by: Heather
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:26
Quote:
But why not avoid the speculation, be the bigger man, and just do the right thing to begin with instead of trying to determine if specific individuals deserve the right thing?
Because the bottom feeding jingoistic sub-human filth that is our current administation thinks they are doing the right thing. And the fact that there are more like them making up a significant portion of the constituency of the US is what really scares the crap outta me.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:27
And you think my godlessness leads to a lack of morals.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:28
It frightens me to think that someone may think that treating someone else like dirt is ever the right thing to do.
And it scares me more that you're probably right.
And it scares me more that you're probably right.
Posted by: Heather
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:32
Quote:
And it scares me more that you're probably right.
Sadly, the opinion has been formed from my experiences in travelling through most of the US. Have I not told any of these stories in chat while you were there?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:42
Sadly, we all do things that we know are not right, just for expediency, or because we're mad, or we feel bad that day, or we're just assholes and don't care.
But to think that doing the wrong thing is actually the right thing is a symptom of sociopathy, and to consider that we have sociopaths running our country is a humbling thought.
But to think that doing the wrong thing is actually the right thing is a symptom of sociopathy, and to consider that we have sociopaths running our country is a humbling thought.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 18:55
Quote:Depends on how you define "right" and "wrong" though. When "wrong" is very clearly defined (don't kill an inoccent child for absolutly no reason), then doing it and considering it "right" would be sociopathic. However, in many situations, including torture and war, the lines get blurred and nuanced. Often in the middle of it "right" and "wrong" get hard to see. I agree with you that what we're doing with regards to prisoners is wrong, but I'm guessing there's been a lot of rationalization over what's best for the people, in our nation and the world. That doesn't keep it from being wrong, but I'd say it's not a case of a clear "wrong" being viewed as "right"
But to think that doing the wrong thing is actually the right thing is a symptom of sociopathy
The view of the Bush administration as clearly (at least to me) been that they are making some tough choices to do what is best in the long run. A lot of it (the war, the Patriot Act) is questionable and only history will tell the truth.
It's easy to say war is always "wrong" because it's evil, but somtimes war is the best option we have.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 19:13
But you can engage in "wrong" acts and acknowledge their wrongness and keep doing them. Sometimes the wrong thing is the only way, or it's because you're uninterested in who you're being wrong to or your see the benefits as too great to not do the wrong thing. And these are valid reasons. But that doesn't magically make your action right.
When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you.
When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into you.
Posted by: webroach
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 20:23
Quote:
The view of the Bush administration as clearly (at least to me) been that they are making some tough choices to do what is best in the long run
*shudder*
Best for who?
Posted by: kayakjazz
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 21:36
Quote:
The view of the Bush administration as clearly (at least to me) been that they are making some tough choices to do what is best in the long run. A lot of it (the war, the Patriot Act) is questionable and only history will tell the truth.
As we all learned in the schoolyard, two wrongs never make a right. Our deplorable treatment of the war prisoners has already resulted in public beheadings, something not seen before in modern times. The main reason for the Geneva Conventions is enlightened self-interest; if we abide by them, perhaps our enemies will too when dealing with American prisoners; if not, then it is they who are clearly in the wrong.
As it is, although the world generally deplores such things as the beheadings, there is a very real sense that we have brought it on ourselves, and are continuing to do so. At the rate we're going it, can only get worse; perhaps much worse...
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 21:38
Quote:
public beheadings, something not seen before in modern times
Well, that's not true. Saudi Arabia has regular public beheadings as civil executions.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Worrying - 07/01/2005 22:06
Quote:Well, no, but life is rarely as simple as the schoolyard (Actually, what I learned at the schoolyard was that kids with muscles beat up kids with brains, but that's a little off topic!). In life there are truly some situations in which there is no "right" choice. In those circumstances, the goal is not to make a right, but to prevent an even worse wrong. Some times a lesser "wrong" can dapen the effect of a greater one. War CAN BE one of those lesser wrongs, but it's a matter of debate whether the current one is.
As we all learned in the schoolyard, two wrongs never make a right.
Please note that I'm deliberately speaking in abstract tearms here and not really trying to defend the Patriot Act or the war.
Quote:I think this is HIGHLY unlikely. I'm betting there would be beheaddings with or without our mis-treatment of prisoners. Rather, I think the reason we should do the right thing is because it's "right", not out of self-interest. Those doing the beheaddings could also claim self-interest (actually they even claim it's "right", but I digress). That is the whole problem with terrorism, though. It doesn't adhere it any sense of what we consider to be "right" and uses that power against us. The moral values that make us strong are used against us to make us weak. But when we cave and behave immorally, then we've really begun the downard decent. I'd agree that our behavior toward the prisoners was a large step in that direction.
The main reason for the Geneva Conventions is enlightened self-interest; if we abide by them, perhaps our enemies will too when dealing with American prisoners; if not, then it is they who are clearly in the wrong.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Worrying - 08/01/2005 00:06
Quote:Quote:
The view of the Bush administration as clearly (at least to me) been that they are making some tough choices to do what is best in the long run
*shudder*
Best for who?
Halliburton.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Worrying - 08/01/2005 00:31
Quote:
And that's just the tip of the scary iceberg for what's going on in this country right now.
Indeed. See, for example, this (not very fresh) story. Somebody from Justice Deparment confirmed that 'evidence' extracted under torture (notice they admit using torture) can be used to keep 'prisoners' in Guantanamo indefinitely, without even bringing them before military kangaroo court (ah, 'commission' or 'panel'). They babbled about 'due process' and even sullied Constitution by mentioning it. Possibility of holding some of those people indefinitely bacause there is not a shred of evidence against them, even for 'military panels' was confirmed few days ago. Well, that makes Guantanamo inmates hostages. What do we call people who keep hostages?
And then our good man Jeff wonders (in another thread) why hardly anybody here has a good word for Bush administration.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Worrying - 08/01/2005 01:00
Quote:
Very worrying, actually.
There are only so many hours in a day, and since I have recently been Commissioned to work on a very high yield project, I have made something of a conscious decision to ignore U.S. political news. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. What I have done is to email Google to see if they can gin up an extension of Google News called "Surprise Me!".
If Google can pull this off, what it will mean is that when you click Surprise Me!, you'll only be shown stories that fall outside a very clever algorithm of Bayesian Bushism and other bad karma. So stories like "Condi and 12 other mindless sycophants nominated for high office!" and this Gonzalez story? They wouldn't even appear. What a time saver! You'd only get stories like "Dog survives bite from rabid human!" and only then if the dog's survival involved something remarkable like a brain transplant. Why bother reading "news" about events that are *completely* predictable?
I don't want to be flip. The Happy New Year has been pretty weird what with the misery and death of so many fellow metahumans in South Asia. Imagine going to bed one day with nothing and waking the next day (or maybe not waking) with seriously *less* than nothing ...and some significant proportion of close relations vanished or floating battered and lifeless in the harbor. All this would appear on Google Surprise Me!
I confess that the Tsunami compelled me to dig out a pair of rabbit ears and watch the only local TV station they can receive, a CBS affiliate. It is then with sadness then that I managed to catch the televison version of this story.
"If we'd waited any longer, I would be wearing a burka". Sigh. Poor Daniel. Where might he have gone in life if not raised by such a patently ignorant mother? Stupidity. Stupidity. But this -- Stupidity -- is what powers the misbegotten, mortal Iraq juggernaut of the Shrub jugheads. Would the story of Lynda Unger appear on Google News Surprise Me! ? I don't know. My algorithm needs work.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Worrying - 08/01/2005 02:26
Now, that is chilling. Terrible...
Posted by: Heather
Re: Worrying - 08/01/2005 02:43
Quote:
"I still don't know who's connected to who and all this stuff," says Unger. "I don't care. I really don't care.
"We were attacked, we need to defend. If going to Iraq is the way to do it, we got Saddam Hussein."
Unger's support for the war is bolstered by her strong fundamentalist Christian faith and an unshakeable trust in the Bible.
And we're expected to think of these people as anything better than imbeciles?
Posted by: hybrid8
Re: Worrying - 09/01/2005 05:09
Have you been living with your eyes closed for the past 4 years? And ears for that mattter.
Anyone who is a bush appologist just doesn't get it. Sorry. I generally respect everyone's "opinion" but attributing anything positive to GW is just plain garbage. Seriously, if you're prgressive enough to be an empeg fan, I'd assume you're far enough out of the woods to see the various GW agendas beyond the very thin guise of bettering the country. It's what's best for his own (and buddies) bottom line(s).
Sad someone doesn't shoot him. Twice.
Bruno
Anyone who is a bush appologist just doesn't get it. Sorry. I generally respect everyone's "opinion" but attributing anything positive to GW is just plain garbage. Seriously, if you're prgressive enough to be an empeg fan, I'd assume you're far enough out of the woods to see the various GW agendas beyond the very thin guise of bettering the country. It's what's best for his own (and buddies) bottom line(s).
Sad someone doesn't shoot him. Twice.
Bruno