View Single Post
Old 03-18-2019, 02:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Where does she explain this in the op/ed? (Or elsewhere.) The only logic I can make of the argument is that she thinks we hold Egypt to one standard and Iran to another... which can either mean:

1. We oppose torture of dissidents in Iran on principle, but we are in principle generally okay with torture of dissidents in Egypt.
2. Or, we oppose torture in both countries, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, we only punish Iran for doing it, and we don't punish Egypt for doing it.

I don't think scenario 1 makes a lick of sense. Scenario 2 is more or less what U.S. policy is, so I take it that she opposes that.

So let me understand you correctly: you think Rep. Omar thinks scenario 1 is actually happening?
I think you're missing the possibility of a lot of nuance and grey areas (i.e. different quantity/quality of torture, different reasons for it, different levels of punishment/sanctions/etc.). She doesn't get into this level of detail -- maybe she should (and it would be reasonable to ask her these questions), but she didn't.

I'll also ask you this -- do you believe we should do nothing about torture and other human rights violations of ostensible allies? No punishment/consequences at all for Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or others who have done terrible things but generally side with us? It seems pretty reasonable to me to suggest that those countries should face some consequences for these terrible things, and that's what I think Omar is suggesting, broadly speaking.