This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2Atomicmutant
Quick note:
>That’s one demographic that Obama won’t be popular with.
>That’s one demographic that Obama won’t be popular with.
3theoria
2>
Reagan was a man of action, not just talk and pretty words (e.g., Obama). He sent a friend. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Reagan was a man of action, not just talk and pretty words (e.g., Obama). He sent a friend. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
4Carnophile
...the Obama Administration and many of his supporters are actively contemplating putting members or advisors of the previous American Administration on trial.
Are they still considering that? I thought they'd dropped it.
But yes, it certainly is/was Orwellian. We can't do much if we caught you planning to nuke Boston, but we can if you, as a lawyer, gave legal advice to a client. WTF?
Are they still considering that? I thought they'd dropped it.
But yes, it certainly is/was Orwellian. We can't do much if we caught you planning to nuke Boston, but we can if you, as a lawyer, gave legal advice to a client. WTF?
5geneg
If you were caught planning to nuke Boston we can do plenty. It's when you look like someone who might be planning to nuke Boston that it gets a bit dicier.
Torture is against the law (remember that argument - lying to a grand jury is against the law) and as such there are legal ramifications to engaging in it. I don't think anyone is planning to charge the legal staff with torture, maybe suborning torture, if that is illegal. I do think advising away a criminal act does call into question their legal judgment and as such can lead to disbarment. After all, we disbar lawyers engaged in advising clients how to break the law. Isn't that what Bybee, Woo, and that other fellow did?
Torture is against the law (remember that argument - lying to a grand jury is against the law) and as such there are legal ramifications to engaging in it. I don't think anyone is planning to charge the legal staff with torture, maybe suborning torture, if that is illegal. I do think advising away a criminal act does call into question their legal judgment and as such can lead to disbarment. After all, we disbar lawyers engaged in advising clients how to break the law. Isn't that what Bybee, Woo, and that other fellow did?
6StormRaven
5: Considering that Bybee gave his opinion on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques after their use had been discontinued, it is hard to see how this could be advising clients on how to break the law.
7krolik
I'm a bit out of touch with LT because of travel so just a couple of observations on the fly, which I hope are less about partisan issues than general principles:
>1 oakes: "The claim that if we close Gauntanamo, then Iran (or White Russia, or Burma, etc.) will be more likely to make progress on human rights or whatever, is something so obviously absurd" etc.
I agree, as such, with this formulation. I don't have illusions about these oppressive and murderous regimes. (And, alas, I think the power of an American president, of whatever political persuasion, is not as much as idealists would hope.) But there are other formulations, too. The reason I squawk about Guantánamo is in the hope of making progress for human rights not by these foreign governments, but by the United States. That's where we might have more of a lever for positive change. These other places are important, of course--but for practical reasons, the local comes first.
>3 theoria:
It's worth remembering this context. Absolutely. But, honestly, I am a little confused, regarding partisanship. I also remember William Safire's criticisms, a little later, about the Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq. I'm not a fan of Safire's politics but, to put it hastily, Iraq is not a Republican fuck-up. It's a bi-partisan fuck-up. The vexed question is how to move on.
>1 oakes: "The claim that if we close Gauntanamo, then Iran (or White Russia, or Burma, etc.) will be more likely to make progress on human rights or whatever, is something so obviously absurd" etc.
I agree, as such, with this formulation. I don't have illusions about these oppressive and murderous regimes. (And, alas, I think the power of an American president, of whatever political persuasion, is not as much as idealists would hope.) But there are other formulations, too. The reason I squawk about Guantánamo is in the hope of making progress for human rights not by these foreign governments, but by the United States. That's where we might have more of a lever for positive change. These other places are important, of course--but for practical reasons, the local comes first.
>3 theoria:
It's worth remembering this context. Absolutely. But, honestly, I am a little confused, regarding partisanship. I also remember William Safire's criticisms, a little later, about the Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq. I'm not a fan of Safire's politics but, to put it hastily, Iraq is not a Republican fuck-up. It's a bi-partisan fuck-up. The vexed question is how to move on.
10BGP
God Help the Man or Woman Who Happens to Embrace the Many Analyses of Oakes Without Fact-Checking Each and Every Post, Line by Line. For a choice example, consider this comment from post 8:
"I wouldn't be surprised if privately he believed that the Saudi leadership was made up generally of a bunch of spoiled savages." -oakes
It is a commonly known fact that Prince Bandar is considered an honorary member of the Bush family, and that he was a close personal relation of the President both before and during his terms in office. Woodward is the easiest source to cite (given that his works on Bush are present in virtually every major public library in America), but, Hell, even the BBC has made note of the fact that Bush's nickname for Bandar was "Bandar Bush." Bandar was and remains a trusted member of the current Saudi establishment, not an outsider. Knowing just how well-read you are, Oakes, I have no choice but to assume that you have filtered this out, consciously or subconsciously, as a result of the fact that it cannot support you in the defense of the graduated loyalties which you have developed because of your peculiar "neo-con-ertarian" world view. This would be a troubling conclusion, if we, as you yourself once noted, were not locked in a state of perpetual disagreement.
"I wouldn't be surprised if privately he believed that the Saudi leadership was made up generally of a bunch of spoiled savages." -oakes
It is a commonly known fact that Prince Bandar is considered an honorary member of the Bush family, and that he was a close personal relation of the President both before and during his terms in office. Woodward is the easiest source to cite (given that his works on Bush are present in virtually every major public library in America), but, Hell, even the BBC has made note of the fact that Bush's nickname for Bandar was "Bandar Bush." Bandar was and remains a trusted member of the current Saudi establishment, not an outsider. Knowing just how well-read you are, Oakes, I have no choice but to assume that you have filtered this out, consciously or subconsciously, as a result of the fact that it cannot support you in the defense of the graduated loyalties which you have developed because of your peculiar "neo-con-ertarian" world view. This would be a troubling conclusion, if we, as you yourself once noted, were not locked in a state of perpetual disagreement.
11yapete
#8 "But the implicit subtext of Obama’s probable speech is that Western and Islamic values are morally equivalent"
Nonsense.
The point he is making is that the United States has been and must continue to be a symbol for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Bush violated that. While we know that Guantanamo is not morally equivalent to what some of these regimes do on a daily basis, it HAS hurt the US moral standing in the world to lock up people without charges for years and torture them with water-boarding. As an undeniable American patriot, you should be able to recognize & understand that.
Obama is restoring the respect for the United States that Bush and Co. squandered.
Once this respect is restored, THEN you can put pressure on these countries. But without it, you have nothing.
The equation does not balance as simply as you would want it. Everybody knows that Saudi Arabia is a torturer state, so any improvement there is a great thing. But everybody also 'used to know' that the US is not doing any of these bad things, so violating this clean record is also a big deal. That is unfortunately how the equation balances and Obama understands that (Bush did not).
Nonsense.
The point he is making is that the United States has been and must continue to be a symbol for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Bush violated that. While we know that Guantanamo is not morally equivalent to what some of these regimes do on a daily basis, it HAS hurt the US moral standing in the world to lock up people without charges for years and torture them with water-boarding. As an undeniable American patriot, you should be able to recognize & understand that.
Obama is restoring the respect for the United States that Bush and Co. squandered.
Once this respect is restored, THEN you can put pressure on these countries. But without it, you have nothing.
The equation does not balance as simply as you would want it. Everybody knows that Saudi Arabia is a torturer state, so any improvement there is a great thing. But everybody also 'used to know' that the US is not doing any of these bad things, so violating this clean record is also a big deal. That is unfortunately how the equation balances and Obama understands that (Bush did not).
12yapete
As an analogy: If Michael Jordan in his hey-day would have screwed up a game there would have been an uproar. If I screw up a basketball game nobody will even blink. Once you are looked up to, you DO have a responsibility.
14Atomicmutant
This question isn't directed at Oakes, just to anyone who is reading
who feels they can articulate a few paragraphs.
I'm not asking to write a whole speech, but what, specifically,
would you (you meaning folks who disagree with the content of Obama's
speech) have said, as US President, speaking in Cairo today?
I would be interested in a few quotes from "a speech that would have
been", had some of our more Conservative brethren been given the
opportunity to give it. What would you have said?
Just an invitation, that's all, to help me and others understand what the
obverse of the coin might sound like.
who feels they can articulate a few paragraphs.
I'm not asking to write a whole speech, but what, specifically,
would you (you meaning folks who disagree with the content of Obama's
speech) have said, as US President, speaking in Cairo today?
I would be interested in a few quotes from "a speech that would have
been", had some of our more Conservative brethren been given the
opportunity to give it. What would you have said?
Just an invitation, that's all, to help me and others understand what the
obverse of the coin might sound like.
15yapete
"We want to bring you democracy, but if you don't behave we'll drop a few nukes on you".
Just kidding.
Just kidding.
16KromesTomes
IMHO, we're dealing with a "framing" problem here: People, including Obama, keep acting as if the problem were a conflict between values like freedom of speech and human rights on one side and Islamic extremists on the other.
But the real conflict is between values like that and certain kinds of interpretations of any religion. The vast majority of "original" religious documents (the koran, the old testament, the new one), if read literally, simply don't support a liberal approach to rights.
Just think of the tension between the third commandment and the first amendment.
Of course, even god wouldn't help Obama if he gave a speech like THAT.
But the real conflict is between values like that and certain kinds of interpretations of any religion. The vast majority of "original" religious documents (the koran, the old testament, the new one), if read literally, simply don't support a liberal approach to rights.
Just think of the tension between the third commandment and the first amendment.
Of course, even god wouldn't help Obama if he gave a speech like THAT.
17Essa
> 14 Atomicmutant, I'm not sure if this is quite what you are looking for, but two Arab journalists did exactly that -- they wrote what they hoped Obama would say. The writer in the first link is Jihad el-Khazen, a blogger in the UK, and his piece was published in Dar al-Hayat, a pan-Arab Arabic/English newspaper from Lebanon. The writer in the second link is Faisal al Yafai, whose piece appears in The National, an English-language paper out of United Arab Emirates.
It's interesting reading, in my opinion, whether one agrees with the writers or not.
He Will Most Likely Fail
America Changed ... And So Must the Muslim World
It's interesting reading, in my opinion, whether one agrees with the writers or not.
He Will Most Likely Fail
America Changed ... And So Must the Muslim World
18Atomicmutant
#17, Essa, thank you! This is good perspective.
I was hoping for a spoonful of good old American Conservative
rhetoric, though.
*goes off to keep reading*
I was hoping for a spoonful of good old American Conservative
rhetoric, though.
*goes off to keep reading*
19Madcow299
Well here is the transcript provided by CNN of the speech.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/04/obama.anewbeginning.pdf
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/04/obama.anewbeginning.pdf
23BGP
>21 oakes: You know, for a second there, I thought you were slipping.
In the end, things may be looking down for you and your fellow theo-con-ertarians (who would have thought that you and your own would have to live to see a day in which the President of the United States would choose to reach out to the silent, but anti-terrorist, Muslim majority--the very people who will have to stand up for what is right at home if there is going to be peace between the West and the Middle East--instead of, you know, just carpet-bombing the motherfuckers and getting it over with?), but, in such dark times, do remember that, while Rick and Ilsa will always have Paris, we'll always have our mutual antipathy.
In the end, things may be looking down for you and your fellow theo-con-ertarians (who would have thought that you and your own would have to live to see a day in which the President of the United States would choose to reach out to the silent, but anti-terrorist, Muslim majority--the very people who will have to stand up for what is right at home if there is going to be peace between the West and the Middle East--instead of, you know, just carpet-bombing the motherfuckers and getting it over with?), but, in such dark times, do remember that, while Rick and Ilsa will always have Paris, we'll always have our mutual antipathy.
25BGP
>24 oakes: Way to misread an unabashedly tongue-in-cheek version of, "well, if that's how it's going to be, fuck you."
27margd
> 26 How about the pair of you grow up and learn to conduct a civil conversation?
My two teenage boys compete ferociously, but love each other to death. My sister and I (50s) have once again just averted a meltdown of our relationship. Two uncles and an aunt (siblings, 80s) living a couple doors apart fought the same fights almost to the end, even though they were there for each other when it counted. I think it's the nature of the sibling relationship. It's so worth it though to bite one's tongue, accept, accept, accept, so as to preserve the relationship to its golden conclusion. Nobody has shared so much or knows you as well, not even a spouse or parent, I think!
My two teenage boys compete ferociously, but love each other to death. My sister and I (50s) have once again just averted a meltdown of our relationship. Two uncles and an aunt (siblings, 80s) living a couple doors apart fought the same fights almost to the end, even though they were there for each other when it counted. I think it's the nature of the sibling relationship. It's so worth it though to bite one's tongue, accept, accept, accept, so as to preserve the relationship to its golden conclusion. Nobody has shared so much or knows you as well, not even a spouse or parent, I think!
28BGP
>26 jennieg: Now, that is a novel suggestion. That said, it takes two to tango, and when the fists start flying on the dance floor, well...
>27 margd: Um... I'm not a Spalding, if that is what you're thinking, margd. Oakes and I may have our history, but it's strictly limited to 2d debates on LT.
>27 margd: Um... I'm not a Spalding, if that is what you're thinking, margd. Oakes and I may have our history, but it's strictly limited to 2d debates on LT.
31timspalding
Egyptian aid was a very explicit deal for Israeli peace. Sure we could drop it, but it would certainly undermine our ability to have countries believe we will do what we promise.
33timspalding
I blame Washington.
34Carnophile
>32 Lunar:, 33
lol.
lol.
35Lunar
Just to reinforce where I was coming from in #30, How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East.
