It never gets old, does it? (Ascribing Motives by Political Association)

[RTFirefly]

@Airman Doors

Hyperbole? Are you kidding?

We just had a thread on why everybody should be outraged over Ann Coulter. Why would anybody be concerned about that shrill harpy? Because PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER.

It isn’t just that people listen to her. It’s that major Republican and conservative groups pay for her to speak, and the big-shot Republicans present when she says the things she says, think it’s great. She is condoned, nay endorsed, by the leadership of the GOP. And it’s that endorsement that should outrage us.

We had a thread over in GD a while back titled “Have conservatives given up on democracy?” No, they haven’t. But the fact that someone thought that they had, and started the thread with this statement:

@Evil Captor

A number of trends in conservative thought lately have led me to believe that many conservatives are rethinking democracy of late, and coming to the conclusion that they prefer something a bit more authoritarian, something more along the line of oligarchy or even outright despotism.

is indicative of what I’m talking about.

And there isn’t evidence to this effect?

Further, we have the constant use of the acronym “IOKIARDI”, which is ridiculous on its own, and even more so when you stop to think that the door swings both ways so in a few years there will be people saying the same things about the Democrats and it will be equally unwarranted then.

I will not live to see a Democratic Administration get away with anything like what this Administration has gotten away with, and I expect to live another half-century.

[John_Mace]

@Gladstone

In your quotation, however, you neglected to include the part where Gonzales refers to restrictions on interrogating enemy prisoners as “obsolete.” While of course providing television sets and a full gym to prisoners at Gitmo or elsewhere would be absurd, Gonzales paints with a far broader brush in arguing who should not be afforded POW status. For instance, the Justice Department lumped both Al Queda and Taliban prisoners together in determining that they are both not eligible for POW status.

No, but I explicitly discussed the reasoning. Here’s the GC restrictions on interrogation (my emphasis):

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

If an al Qaeda operative didn’t cooperate, we couldn’t even call him a bastard for not doing so. These restrictions are perfectly appropriate for a conventional war, but definitely not approprate when dealing with al Qaeda.

Despite the Taliban being the de facto ruling government of most of Afghanistan, Justice argued that Afghanistan was a “failed state.” Thus, members of the Taliban were no longer afforded the same Gevena Convention rights guaranteed to other signatory nation-state actors since Afghanistan effectively lost its status as a nation-state. While the Taliban government may not have been recognized internationally aside from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, never before has a country been deemed no longer a nation-state simply because it is chaotic and the ruling party does not have effective control over all of the country. This also raises all sorts of issues as to how and where the U.S. gets the power to decide what countries can still be considered nation-states and which can’t be.

Dealing with the Taliban is a bit more difficult, but I think it’s still pretty straightforward to make the case that the Taliban fighters do not qualify as POWs under the GC.

As for whether Al Queda prisoners can be deemed POWs or not, the GPW states:

But note that it says “Should any doubt arise…”. The administration will argue that no doubt has arisen. The GC lists no methodology of how to determine when doubt arises or whose judgement is used.

Only in 2004, after Hamdi v. Rumsfeld did the Administration convene any sort of tribunals at all to determine the status of prisoners. Even then, it is questionable whether they meet the standard of a competent tribunal given numerous procedural problems and limitations on prisoners to challenge any evidence against them or mount anything more than a perfunctory defense.

Personally, I would like to see tribunals. But you’re arguing a losing case if you claim that the GC requires them.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@RTFirefly

I will not live to see a Democratic Administration get away with anything like what this Administration has gotten away with, and I expect to live another half-century.

What, you mean like starting a war on shady pretenses? Or maybe like taking an active part in the suppression of civil rights? You were alive to see it. What LBJ giveth he taketh away. At the same time he was passing legislation like the Civil Rights Act he was a party to COINTELPRO, among others.

Again, unwarranted hyperbole on your part. You have to recognize that, so why do you continue down this road?

It isn’t just that people listen to her. It’s that major Republican and conservative groups pay for her to speak, and the big-shot Republicans present when she says the things she says, think it’s great. She is condoned, nay endorsed, by the leadership of the GOP. And it’s that endorsement that should outrage us.

And Michael Moore is seen in the same light by Democrats. Is it really necessary to say that they don’t speak for everybody?

Nobody has clean hands in politics. That said, supporting their particular viewpoint does not translate to being just like them. Not all Republicans are alike, and the same goes for Democrats. Can we not lump everybody together and make stupid generalizations? I already know the answer to this, but that’s not going to stop me from asking.

[RTFirefly]

Let me point out that you’re responding to a statement about the future by pointing out that, forty years ago, the Dems were a totally different party than they are now. Since then, the South has gone from a one-party region to being a one-party region; it’s just changed sides. And it did so because the Democratic Party, by and large, chose to side with the Southern blacks against their Jim Crow overlords, and has ever since refused to condone the other backward ideas which are most prevalent in that region, whether they’ve been anti-woman ideas, anti-gay ideas, pro-theocracy ideas, or whatever. And the GOP inherited that region because it, as an institution, was willing to condone the rearguard actions against black and female equality for as long as it could get away with them, because it still goes out of its way to bash gays, and because it’s willing to side with the latest disguised theocratic innovation, be it intelligent design or whatever.

There were effectively two Democratic Parties in the 1960s: one in the South, and one in the rest of the country. The one in the rest of the country is the lineal ancestor of today’s Democratic Party, for what good it does us. But the lineal descendant of the Dixiecrats is the core constituency of today’s GOP.

And if you’ve got to go back 40 years to show that the Dems did something half as bad as what’s going on now, that doesn’t show that IOKIYAR is false, because you don’t have one person judging the same offense two different ways, like you do between, say, 1998 and now.

And Michael Moore is seen in the same light by Democrats. Is it really necessary to say that they don’t speak for everybody?

So, who has Moore suggested we kill or enslave? Who has he accused of treason?

Show me something to support your implication that Moore and Coulter are in any way equivalent. Give it your best shot. Try Moveon.org too, while you’re at it. I’m tired of this particular bullshit.

Nobody has clean hands in politics.

No, but there are gradations of evil.

Can we not lump everybody together and make stupid generalizations?

Fine with me. Can’t see where I’ve made or defended any.

I already know the answer to this, but that’s not going to stop me from asking.

I’m confused. Did you think I was going to be pro- or anti-stupid generalizations?

[Martin_Hyde]

@RTFirefly

Let me point out that you’re responding to a statement about the future by pointing out that, forty years ago, the Dems were a totally different party than they are now. Since then, the South has gone from a one-party region to being a one-party region; it’s just changed sides. And it did so because the Democratic Party, by and large, chose to side with the Southern blacks against their Jim Crow overlords, and has ever since refused to condone the other backward ideas which are most prevalent in that region, whether they’ve been anti-woman ideas, anti-gay ideas, pro-theocracy ideas, or whatever. And the GOP inherited that region because it, as an institution, was willing to condone the rearguard actions against black and female equality for as long as it could get away with them, because it still goes out of its way to bash gays, and because it’s willing to side with the latest disguised theocratic innovation, be it intelligent design or whatever.

There were effectively two Democratic Parties in the 1960s: one in the South, and one in the rest of the country. The one in the rest of the country is the lineal ancestor of today’s Democratic Party, for what good it does us. But the lineal descendant of the Dixiecrats is the core constituency of today’s GOP.

And if you’ve got to go back 40 years to show that the Dems did something half as bad as what’s going on now, that doesn’t show that IOKIYAR is false, because you don’t have one person judging the same offense two different ways, like you do between, say, 1998 and now.

So, who has Moore suggested we kill or enslave? Who has he accused of treason?

Show me something to support your implication that Moore and Coulter are in any way equivalent. Give it your best shot. Try Moveon.org too, while you’re at it. I’m tired of this particular bullshit.

No, but there are gradations of evil.
Fine with me. Can’t see where I’ve made or defended any. I’m confused. Did you think I was going to be pro- or anti-stupid generalizations?

There’s nothing better than a pit thread in which someone like RT comes in and provides a perfect example of the kind of behavior the OP is pitting.

[Martin_Hyde]

@mhendo

This myth of inter-party inability to cooperate keeps cropping up again and again, with virtually no basis in fact, especially over the past few years.

Over that time, the Democrats have been extraordinarily accommodating of virtually everything the White House wants, from war to the Patriot Act to tax cuts. Sure, some Democrats have fought against such measures, but Washington has, by and large, been a place of far too much consensus over the past half-decade.

It’s only since the Administration has fucked up so badly that it can’t be ignored that Democrats have finally started to rediscover their testicles.

Hell, even before George Bush ascended to the Presidency, there was far too much consensus among the mainstream of the Democratic and Republican parties, in my opinion. Far too much for the good of the nation anyway, although probably just the right amount to ensure that those on top stayed there.

I agree there is a lot more accommodation in U.S. government than people realize. I certainly disagree that it is bad. In our system sure, the opposition needs to stand its ground sometimes, but because of the unique division and separation of powers it is generally necessary that if the politicians involved want to avoid the government grinding to a halt there needs to be compromise.

It’s a virtue to be able to modify your position somewhat to bring it closer to a “middle” in which both sides can agree.

In many parliamentary governments the opposition blindly opposes everything the party in power does, and it even becomes expected. What this creates is a situation in which, while one party is in power it rules with little respect or regard to the opinions or ideas of the other party. There’s little compromise or conciliation and it just gets reversed when the opposition gets in power.

[Captain_Amazing]

@RTFirefly

There were effectively two Democratic Parties in the 1960s: one in the South, and one in the rest of the country. The one in the rest of the country is the lineal ancestor of today’s Democratic Party, for what good it does us. But the lineal descendant of the Dixiecrats is the core constituency of today’s GOP.

Yeah, but LBJ, who Airman Doors is referencing, his home state aside, wasn’t a Dixiecrat, and in his ideoplogy, had more in common with the “one in the rest of the country”, as you put it. He supported integration, black civil rights, and a big social welfare state, and his Great Society and the Civil Rights Act, which he got pushed through as law, helped lead to the values of the Democratic party of today. Don’t just dismiss LBJ as a “Dixiecrat” because you don’t like to deal with the implications of what Airman Doors is saying.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Captain Amazing

Yeah, but LBJ, who Airman Doors is referencing, his home state aside, wasn’t a Dixiecrat, and in his ideoplogy, had more in common with the “one in the rest of the country”, as you put it. He supported integration, black civil rights, and a big social welfare state, and his Great Society and the Civil Rights Act, which he got pushed through as law, helped lead to the values of the Democratic party of today. Don’t just dismiss LBJ as a “Dixiecrat” because you don’t like to deal with the implications of what Airman Doors is saying.

Yep, LBJ would definitely be a member of the Democratic party if he was alive today.

He isn’t like southern Democrats in the vein of Strom Thurmond who were mainly in the party due to one issue, and on most other issues wasn’t really in line with the rest of the national party.

[World_Eater]

Good OP Airman, I totally agree. I thought 9/11 would be the event that united us, ironically, it made things worse.

[rjung]

@World Eater

Good OP Airman, I totally agree. I thought 9/11 would be the event that united us, ironically, it made things worse.

9/11 didn’t make things worse; the people exploiting 9/11 did.

[Gladstone]

@John Mace

Dealing with the Taliban is a bit more difficult, but I think it’s still pretty straightforward to make the case that the Taliban fighters do not qualify as POWs under the GC.

Then why would the Administration feel the need to backtrack and grant POW status to Taliban prisoners? The Taliban were essentially the de facto government of most of Afghanistan. A government, legitimate or illegimate, cannot disqualify a country from being considered a nation-state. Not to get too slippery-slope, but to hold otherwise would be opening a Pandora’s box that could destablize the entire international system (given that it is based on nation-states).

@John Mace

But note that it says “Should any doubt arise…”. The administration will argue that no doubt has arisen. The GC lists no methodology of how to determine when doubt arises or whose judgement is used.

If no doubt had ever arisen, why the need for the memos delineating Taliban and Al Queda members’ status in the first place? You’re right in that the GPW does not define “doubt,” but it’s a pretty cynical argument to say that there is no doubt given Gonzales and others’ arguments that the “War on Terror” is something new and largely unprecedented.

[RTFirefly]

@Martin Hyde

There’s nothing better than a pit thread in which someone like RT comes in and provides a perfect example of the kind of behavior the OP is pitting.

Could you be more specific as to how?

Sometimes A is worse than B. It happens, you know. And when it does, ‘evenhandedness’ doesn’t require that this be overlooked.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain Amazing

Yeah, but LBJ, who Airman Doors is referencing, his home state aside, wasn’t a Dixiecrat, and in his ideoplogy, had more in common with the “one in the rest of the country”, as you put it. He supported integration, black civil rights, and a big social welfare state, and his Great Society and the Civil Rights Act, which he got pushed through as law, helped lead to the values of the Democratic party of today. Don’t just dismiss LBJ as a “Dixiecrat” because you don’t like to deal with the implications of what Airman Doors is saying.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that what I said above about Dixiecrats didn’t apply to LBJ. He’d be a Dem today.

But to whatever extent he got us into war on false pretenses, he should’ve been impeached then, just the way Bush should be impeached now for doing the same thing now.

The main difference is that the opposition party then was even more eager to go to war, as anyone who followed the 1964 campaign would have observed. What opposition there was to the war was in fact from within the Democratic Party, and the issue of the war divided the Dems almost to the breaking point, as anyone who remembers 1968 can testify to. LBJ backed out of running for a second term of his own on account of Democratic opposition to the war, as reflected in Gene McCarthy’s strong showing in New Hampshire in 1968.

And when Nixon won the 1968 election, the GOP was foursquare behind him as he expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia.

LBJ lied, but that the Republicans were quite happy to be lied to, they really didn’t object when they found out, and didn’t change course on account of it.

[Evil_One]

@World Eater

Good OP Airman, I totally agree. I thought 9/11 would be the event that united us, ironically, it made things worse.

I think it will take a couple of generations, but I believe that political scientists in the 2040s or 2050s will look back at 9/11 as the event that began the decline of the Democratic Party in the 21st century.

Another attack will further hasten that decline.

The attack ended the fiction that we would not be attacked at home and made security a much bigger societal priority. And we all know which party the majority of people think handle national security better.

How is this relevant to the OP? Because, in my opinion, the 9/11 attacks were a death blow to traditional liberalism. As a result, the level of partisan bitterness has been increasing ever since and appears to be getting worse. It’s now to the point that many people think that those who are ideologically opposed to them are stupid, or evil, or both.

[Gladstone]

@Evil One

I think it will take a couple of generations, but I believe that political scientists in the 2040s or 2050s will look back at 9/11 as the event that began the decline of the Democratic Party in the 21st century.

The decline of the Democrats has been a decades long process that certainly began well before the 21st century. It probably started with LBJ, who lost the South to Republicans over civil rights, and divided the Democratic party between those who had relatively few qualms about using war as an extension of politics and those who were fundamentally anti-war. Since then, democratic presidents have seemed to come from either of those two camps, with Jimmy Carter coming from the anti-war camp and Bill Clinton coming from the other camp.

Also, since LBJ, the Democratic Congress was never able to effectively express an alternate vision to any presidential initiatives or policies and instead limited themselves to a very reactionary role. It was this failure to define exactly what the hell they were doing with the power they had that contributed to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994.

[Sevastopol]

@Evil One

…

Because, in my opinion, the 9/11 attacks were a death blow to traditional liberalism. As a result, the level of partisan bitterness has been increasing ever since and appears to be getting worse. It’s now to the point that many people think that those who are ideologically opposed to them are stupid, or evil, or both.

A great deal of peoples’ impulses have consequences that are stupid and evil when acted upon. Traditionally government has sought to overcome this with policies that are wise and considered.

The current administration has the insight to recognise the stupid and evil impulse as a constituency. Apart from that, it is no different to any other government; crafting policy to reflect its constituencies’ views.

[Shodan]

@Sevastopol

A great deal of peoples’ impulses have consequences that are stupid and evil when acted upon.

True.

So stop posting.

Regards,
Shodan

[lissener]

@Evil One

. . . in my opinion, the 9/11 attacks were a death blow to traditional liberalism. As a result, the level of partisan bitterness has been increasing ever since and appears to be getting worse. . . .

See, over here you got your cause, and then over here there’s your effect. And you got em switched around. The 9/11 attacks were not directly a death blow to traditional liberalism. Insofar as they served liberalism a deathblow, they did so as a weapon wielded by the neocons. Liberalism received the death blow, if you wanna call it that, because by and large they want to win by playing fair. The far right wing of the Republican party is burdened by no such scruples, and they used 9/11 in much the way a psycho with a gun might use a baby by strapping it to his chest and daring the cops to shoot him. 9/11 was a godsend to the rightwing opportunists, and through their refusal to play as dirty it’s become an Achilles heel to the liberals.

I’m not sure what the solution is. I’m not suggesting we shoot the baby, whatever that would entail. I just wish that the average American watching the teevee nooze between cheeto crunches would see that there’s a damn baby strapped to the chest of the psycho with the gun. The problem is the news establishment is sympathetic to the psycho, so it doesn’t really focus on the duct tape much. It shows a closeup of the psycho, and then it shows a closeup of the cop not shooting, and then it cuts to a pharmaceutical commercial. It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

[Evil_One]

@lissener

I’m not sure what the solution is. I’m not suggesting we shoot the baby, whatever that would entail. I just wish that the average American watching the teevee nooze between cheeto crunches would see that there’s a damn baby strapped to the chest of the psycho with the gun.

To continue your analogy, let’s call the psycho the terrorist threat. The Bush administration is the cop with the gun. Most people want the cop to keep the psycho at bay…but some of them personally dislike the cop. While he is holding the gun, they are complaining that his gun is too big, he should negotiate instead of shooting, he should be using beanbags, he paid too much for his uniform and he’s too mean to be the kind of cop they want on the beat.

All of this makes it more difficult to do his job…but the complainers are more concerned with feeling good about themselves than by helping contain the psycho.

[lissener]

@Evil One

To continue your analogy, let’s call the psycho the terrorist threat. The Bush administration is the cop with the gun. Most people want the cop to keep the psycho at bay…but some of them personally dislike the cop. While he is holding the gun, they are complaining that his gun is too big, he should negotiate instead of shooting, he should be using beanbags, he paid too much for his uniform and he’s too mean to be the kind of cop they want on the beat.

All of this makes it more difficult to do his job…but the complainers are more concerned with feeling good about themselves than by helping contain the psycho.

Um, no; the psycho with the gun is the Bush rightwing. The baby is the Untouchable Holiness of 9/11 as a Political Symbol. The cop is the liberal (i.e., rational) wing of the US government.