I'm glad to see that quick response to what I'd called "the most alarming thing in last night's GOP debate," in a post this morning. I said:
I have been seeing [these opinions from Trump before] all along, but the effect was heightened by the way Bret Baier framed it — in terms of the point of view of military personnel who are trained to resist illegal orders — and Trump's very severe tone when he said "They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me." That is, there may be law and there may be extensive training about law, but there's something special about Trump, or so he thinks. They’re not going to refuse me. In his mind, Trump trumps law.I was disturbed by how many commenters on that post blithely embraced the notion that President Trump should boldly operate outside of the law in the war on terror. I guess there are quite a few people who are ready to jump to support Trump whatever he says, but now that Trump has backed off — and so quickly — what will you say? He left you hung out to dry. But if he was your man before, I'm going to bet he still is. One of Trump's many extraordinary powers is the power to change his positions without looking (to his admirers) weak or flipfloppy.
Posts
234 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 234 of 234he is vulnerable to bad influence from corrupt financiers.
Well, Donnie is a corrupt financier! Isn't it strange that Mr. Vulnerability has not backed down?
Donnie got the rich guy (Bush) out of the race. It may be that some other rich guy (Romney, or Bloomberg) is the one who stood up to him. That's the way Donnie thinks. Rich people are powerful and dangerous. Poor people are weak and helpless. He feels superior to them.
Marco Rubio freaks him out because Rubio is so poor, and yet fearless.
What Donnie does not understand is that money does not build character. And if you are not a heroic person--and Donnie is not, he is a mean person--you're not real happy when you meet a heroic person. It intimidates you. And you run away from them.
Waterboarding is torture because Christopher Hitchens said so.
Q.E.D.
It just occurred to me: I ride my bike to work which is only a few miles away but the route has some serious up and down hills. Some might consider that torture if they were out of shape and forced to to do it.
Why is Rubio so heroic for you Saint Croix?
J. Farmer stated:
No, I am afraid you have misunderstood my point entirely. The problem is something much more fundamental than can be solved with bombing. The borders of states like Syria and Iraq do not enclose coherent nations. We cannot bomb Iraq or Syria into functioning states anymore than bombing Somalia would accomplish the same there.
-----------
\
This is, with all respect, bullshit. There is no one single, solitary solution to all the problems over there. That doesn't mean you do nothing or the equivalent.I hate your type of fucking obfuscatory and weak thinking. Not saying you are dumb. You just fall back to PC and CW thinking, IMO.
First you solve problem #1 - Them killing us. You may not get 100%, but you can sure reduce it by playing hardball. You know Alinsky Rule #whatever - Make the target live by their rules. (Funny how the left uses those rules against their own countrymen but not against external enemies.) They laugh at us as weak while our Feckless Fuehrer loses the Middle East as well as the NYT and WashPost. That was a step in the wrong direction....but it makes the Professor Althouses of the world feel good about themselves.
By staunching the flow of crude-grade export terrorism, the miscreant societies will be forced to face the facts of their failed states. They'll either destroy themselves in civil wars or adapt. As long as they do either of those, we as a a country are, apparently, cool with that. (See Clinton and Rwanda). Things were changing in Iraq until Feckless fecked them over. Not perfect, but better. Given enough time in the Petri dish I could see them forming a true nation-state. Not so now.
We aren't willing to do anything to actually fix the problem. People like so many of the posters here are hoping that peace will float into the ME on unicorn farts. It's delusional to think like that. We in the western nations have something that the peoples of the ME want - stability, opportunity, food... and we fritter away that bargaining chip from the get go.
Germany didn't exist until 1871. Lost its government in 1918. Went through a chaotic period of factional warfare for another decade plus and then fell prey to socialism and the subsequent calamity which befell the world a decade after that. So you could make the case that as a nation-state it was not well established. Somehow they turned it around.
And no, it wasn't done just by bombing. But that sure helped a lot.
@Saint Croix: I'm going to ask you a third time about Rubio in case you missed to the first two times: What is it about Rubio that excites you?
I'll gladly exchange you the same about Walker and my second choice, Trump.
Probably multiple people took Donnie to the woodshed!
Bloomberg called him up and yelled at him.
"It's okay, Bloomberg, we're both billionaires from New York, we're both liars, we know how the game is played. No worries!"
Romney called him up and yelled at him.
"It's okay, Romney, we're millionaires, we're both liars, we know how the game is played. No worries!"
And Marco stood up to him.
"It's okay, Marco, we're both...holy shit, why are you standing up to me? I could crush you like a bug! What the fuck, poor boy, get out of this race. I'll give you a billion dollars to quit!"
And it freaks him out when Marco Rubio says no.
Terry said:
Strangely enough, for a man more moral than God, Christopher Hitchens moral reasoning was often only comprehensible to Christopher Hitchens. Hitler bad! Trotsky good! Slavery bad! Thomas Jefferson good!
----------
Man, your world must be awful. Just black and white. No colors. No shades of gray.
I supported Rubio early because he is where I am politically, center-right. And I listened to him and I like him. And I like his story.
I suspect him of being a hero because I dislike Donnie. And I look at the guys standing up to him and I like them.
I like Cruz more now when he talked to Donnie as if he was a small boy who needs to count to ten. That was funny!
I like that Marco Rubio said, "I am not a savior, there is only one, Jesus Christ." He got mad at Time Magazine for calling him a "savior". Maybe it did not occur to him at first. But when he was criticized, he thought about it, and realized he needed to be more humble. I contrast what Marco Rubio says and how he acts with what Donald Trump says and how he acts.
We don't know what's in somebody's heart. But you can listen and judge what they say, as best you can. Do not be afraid! Do not vote out of fear or anger or any of the dark emotions. Not everybody is a crook.
@Saint Croix: I supported Walker early because he is where I am politically, center-right. And I listened to him and I like him. And I like his story. I'm biased because I was born and raised in Wisconsin, though I haven't lived there for over 30 years.
I like Trump because I dislike Obama. And I look at the guys standing up to Trump and I like him even more.
I like Cruz more than before because he won't cave to Rubio. I really do think that Jeb supporters jumped to Rubio and that Rubio represents them.
You said: We don't know what's in somebody's heart. But you can listen and judge what they say, as best you can. Do not be afraid! Do not vote out of fear or anger or any of the dark emotions. Not everybody is a crook.
I used to reflexively loathe people from Chicago (the second city) and by association, NYC. But, I learned to overcome this prejudice by a small modicum.
Saint Croix said...I supported Rubio early because he is where I am politically, center-right. And I listened to him and I like him. And I like his story.
Tell me honestly: Are you a college grad? Was you father a college grad? The latter matters especially.
Are you a college grad?
sure
Was you father a college grad?
yes
My dad was a Jeb supporter and he switched to Rubio.
So what?
I wish people would stop worrying about "hidden forces of evil corrupt billionaires" and listen to the evil corrupt billionaire who is saying all sorts of evil corrupt shit.
If terrorists want to spare their families and friends they should stay far away from them and die honorably. If they don't, eff them and if the bomb kills the relatives and friends in the vicinity of the bomb blast that's just too bad. I'm with Livermoron, stay out of wars that aren't in our national interest but when engaged in war, death to the enemy. If enemy lives mattered, they wouldn't be the enemy. In 1945 we were carpet bombing Berlin. In 1948 we were candy bombing Berlin during the Berlin Airlift. In 45 the Krauts were The Enemy. In 48 they were no longer the enemy, they were Heroic Germans Under Siege. See what carpet bombing can do to win hearts and minds? Can we bomb and kill these Islamic savages into sense and modernity? No. Can we kill enough of them that they leave us alone? Most definitely. Right now its an Arab and European problem, let them solve their problem. If they become a problem for us then we need to do what we need to do to solve the problem in our favor.
I was disturbed by how many commenters on that post blithely embraced the notion that President Trump should boldly operate outside of the law in the war on terror.
The law doesn't reach the commander in chief in time of war.
Congress can defund or impeach.
how magnanimous of Trump to say he would not be above the law. But which statement is the truth?
The most striking feature of the Trump supporter is not, as billed, the rage at the status quo, but rather the apparent inability to experience cognitive dissonance.
J. Farmer:
"The majority of the interventions the US has engaged in since the second half of the 20th century have been outside the auspices of UN Security Council authorization."
Indeed, our sovereign exercise of military authority in pursuit of national security, which include multilateral, interests is not limited to UN authorization or homeland defense.
Rather, the point is, again, "the people who are sure Bush and Cheney are war criminals at large" over the decision for OIF are wrong on the law and the facts.
As you point to, the legal character of OIF is extraordinary in the respect that the Iraq intervention was fashioned from the outset in 1990-1991 as the US-led enforcement, under US law, of Iraq's compliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions that set the terms for the Gulf War and then its ceasefire. Our national security interest in bringing Iraq into compliance with the substance of the terms of ceasefire, especially UNSCRs 687 and 688, was channeled into the US-enforced, UN-mandated structure.
Understanding the particular legal character of OIF overlaps the strategic assessment because the Presidents' decision-making with the Iraq intervention from 1990-1991 onward, including OIF, tracked the UN mandates for Iraq.
J. Farmer said...
Like Yugoslavia, the borders of the modern middle east were drawn by foreign victors over the carcasses of old dead empires. And like Yugoslavia, they are destined for authoritarianism or ethnic conflict. Inserting ourselves into these petty tribal conflicts, including the Israel-Palestine quagmire, is a ridiculous waste of resources that only serves to decrease our overall security.
It'ss nice to see you finally agree that Obamas brokered agreement with Iran has been a disaster.
Now Russia has the opportunity to become enmeshed in the middle east turmil. However I suspect that Putin is actually in it for the oil. It would be a good way to strong arm Europe.
I'm nearly certain they'll fuck it all up.
Blogger rhhardin said...
I was disturbed by how many commenters on that post blithely embraced the notion that President Trump should boldly operate outside of the law in the war on terror.
In spring 1940 the Brits fiercely debated bombing Germany munitions factories. They were actually private property, you know.
"On 12 May 1940, two days after Churchill became Prime Minister—and as German bombers struck at the Dutch port of Rotterdam—the War Cabinet discussed whether it was right "on moral grounds" to bomb targets in Germany."
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/31-finest-hour-137/2170-churchill-proceedings-churchill-and-bombing-policy
Less than five years later Britain took a lead role in the fire bombing of Dresden. Dresden was not an important military target. Over 100,000 civilians were killed.
The difference between Britain in 1940 and Britain in 1945 was the Blitz.
One should not assume that acting in a humane manner will always be a war time priority.
"See what carpet bombing can do to win hearts and minds?"
Yes, and it also takes care of the possibility that hearts and minds stay hostile.
What is interesting to me (among many other things) is the fact that Vietnam (formerly known as North Vietnam) which we carpet bombed 50 years ago, is now recognizing reality and wants to be friends.
Germany and Japan, which we carpet bombed 70 years ago, are friends.
Does anyone think Obama will make friends with Iran or ISIS ?
Dresden was actually a big transportation center.
"Like Yugoslavia, the borders of the modern middle east were drawn by foreign victors over the carcasses of old dead empires."
Like all of Europe and India. China is probably the only country in the world that still has its ancient borders and that only goes back to the Chin dynasty.
"I guess there are quite a few people who are ready to jump to support Trump whatever he says, but now that Trump has backed off —"
Not just No, but Oh hell no!
Rather, we're just sophisticated enough to understand that Trump is following in the same tradition as Al "go grab his ass" Gore.
I was disturbed by how many commenters on that post blithely embraced the notion that President Trump should boldly operate outside of the law in the war on terror.
Really?! You don't know your readers very well. Every time you discuss torture, your readers fall over themselves to defend torture and suggest even worse.
Musings:
The bargain offered by the GOP elite to Trump supporters or potential Trump supporters is this: If you continue to elevate Trump we may field a third party candidate and hand the election to Hillary and then you Trump supporters will be very sorry you ever opposed us.
This seems to me to be a poor strategy for a number of reasons. The ultimatum is transparently condescending and insulting. Insult is a poor method of persuasion. The most likely third party candidate is Bloomberg, a blue-state RINO gun control proponent likely to suck more votes from Hillary than from Trump. Finally, such arrogance may engender future third parties as of yet undreamed of. Be careful what you wish for.
Let me say from the outset that I’ve never considered properly conducted water-boarding to be torture. For me it comes very close but doesn’t quite make it. Interrogation that leaves the interrogated without a mark or indeed any physical debilitation is not torture. That said it is not a method I would endorse for any circumstance other than what it has actually been used for – the interrogation of terrorists of the most significant and dangerous type, a total of 3 individuals to date.
Trump has won again with this issue. First he takes a controversial stance which answers an entirely reasonable fear(of Islamic terrorism) pervading America which is not being adequately addressed by the establishment with any sense of urgency. Trump’s message is that Trump will always err on the side of the safety of Americans from terrorism, even to the extent of extreme measures. Trump again dominates the news cycle.
This attitude is the polar opposite of Obama’s perceived attitude. Trump quickly amends his stance, in this case the next day, to a conventionally legal construction. But the message has been sent and received, Trump will do anything he legally can to keep Americans from harm. And the turnout gets higher and the crossovers more numerous.
Interrogation that leaves the interrogated without a mark or indeed any physical debilitation is not torture.
Then you simply do not understand the definition of torture. Your definition of torture is not the same as the definitions of torture that count, like those in U.S. law or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Here is the definition of torture under U.S. law (18 USC 2340):
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
And the International Convention' definiton:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Notice that both definitions include the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering.
Don't feel so bad. You're not the only one who doesn't know how to look up U.S. laws and treaties. John Yoo apparently invented his definition of torture without referencing the applicable laws either.
@Livermoron:
"First you solve problem #1 - Them killing us. You may not get 100%, but you can sure reduce it by playing hardball."
Suggestions like "playing hardball" just goes to show what a naive, uninformed point of view you have on the situation. We don't even know who exactly the enemy is. How do you bomb that? How many more bombs do you think we will have to drop on Afghanistan before it has a functioning central state capable of excising political control over all of its territory? How many more bombs do you think it will take before Libya is in such a position?
The reason Syria is an anarchistic breeding ground for various violent factions is because it's state collapsed, helpfully pushed along by Gulf State and American support. We have seen this exact script before. in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In all three regime change resulted in chaos where warlordism has thrived. The notion that greater use of American air power will put these forces back into the pandora's box from which they escaped is lunacy.
Then you simply do not understand the definition of torture.
Definitions change over time, due to cultural and political factors. Waterboarding became a political weapon by the Left with which to attack Bush-era methods in the War on Terror. I suspect that if Obama had waterboarded anyone it would be viewed by his followers as justified. Even the “legal” definition cited by the commentor does not specify waterboarding.
And I’m not persuaded that waterboarding is bad, under my strict criteria, because of phrases like “mental pain” contained within the citation. In my view the 3 terrorists who were waterboarded should have been caused any “mental pain” necessary to get the intelligence. I could care less about their mental health.
The beauty of waterboarding is that although it inflicts no physical marks or debilitation it is nevertheless almost impossible to resist. But we are debating a physically harmless interrogation procedure used to elicit intelligence from folks who routinely perform real torture. At a certain urgent point the ruthless must be dealt with ruthlessly or the ruthless will win. Real terrorists, who are the real torturers, must be chuckling at such unrealistic qualms.
This is my opinion, condemn what you probably view as my immorality if you wish. However, if I were POTUS, I would follow the law instead of my opinion – just as Trump has said he would do.
@Michael K:
"Like all of Europe and India. China is probably the only country in the world that still has its ancient borders and that only goes back to the Chin dynasty."
I am not just talking about "ancient" borders. The borders of western Europe drawn over centuries of warfare and political evolution are not comparable to the creation of the pseudo-state of Yugoslavia from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918. There was no Yugoslav nation. The same could not be said for a German or French or Anglo nation. India is another instructive example. When the British Empire withdrew, the country collapsed into a civil war over sectarian differences between the Hindu and Muslim populations.
It is my position that we are watching a similar dynamic play out in Syria and Iraq where modern political borders currently enclose competing national identities. Authoritarian police state characters like Assad or Hussein or Tito in Yugoslavia can usually keep a lid on these tensions. But once you kick that leg out from the stool, ethnically-based collapse is not usually far behind.
"In my view the 3 terrorists who were waterboarded should have been caused any “mental pain” necessary to get the intelligence. I could care less about their mental health. "
The thing about the law is that it doesn't depend on what an individual's opinion may be; quite to the contrary, it is meant to prevent actions based on "personal opinion." Any infliction of pain, suffering, and humiliation on a bound and helpless captive is torture. That waterboarding and other of our torture techniques may not rise to the levels of grisliness of often alluded to but undefined "real torture"--by which I assume you, as many do, imagine the grotesque violations of the body common in the dark ages--do not cancel out the misery inflicted by less obviously bloody or deadly methods. This, in fact, is a signal feature of modern torture--victims survive and bear lasting wounds only to their psyches, and rarely to their bodies. The Nazis even coined our beloved phrase, "enhanced interrogation," to pretty up their own very similar torture techniques. It is appalling that we have reached a point where we even debate how punitive physical punishment of a bound captive must be before we consider it "real torture." It's nothing but "it's-not-as-bad-as" excuse making for depraved behavior. This shows how utterly debased we have become.
FYI:
http://ciasavedlives.com/authorized.html
The thing about the law is that it doesn't depend on what an individual's opinion may be; quite to the contrary, it is meant to prevent actions based on "personal opinion."
Trump and I have already agreed with this.
Any infliction of pain, suffering, and humiliation on a bound and helpless captive is torture.
Pain, yes. But a nebulous term like “suffering?” Doesn’t every captive “suffer” by the circumstance of captivity? So we should never incarcerate terrorists? Ditto “humiliation.” Personally, I would not give a damn if every Islamic terrorist in existence were to be “humiliated.” But then I am never solicitous of terrorists.
That waterboarding and other of our torture techniques may not rise to the levels of grisliness of often alluded to but undefined "real torture"--by which I assume you, as many do, imagine the grotesque violations of the body common in the dark ages …
The “dark ages?” Islamic terrorists right now in this modern age are commonly performing “grotesque violations of the body” on many innocent people. And I have more or less personally defined torture as inflicting pain.
--do not cancel out the misery inflicted by less obviously bloody or deadly methods.
Here again the commentor gets things wrong. I do not advocate “bloody or deadly methods,” whether obvious or ambiguous. I advocate one method only – the physically harmless interrogation technique of waterboarding. As for “misery,” which here the commentor evidently means ‘mental’ misery, not physical misery – I have no desire to ease any mental misery such monsters may undergo.
This, in fact, is a signal feature of modern torture--victims survive and bear lasting wounds only to their psyches, and rarely to their bodies.
These monsters should never be referred to as “victims,” even tangentially. And my personal viewpoint is that we should be striving with all our will to cause lasting “wounds” to the delicate ‘psyche’ of every captured terrorist who may have vital intelligence.
The Nazis even coined our beloved phrase, "enhanced interrogation," to pretty up their own very similar torture techniques.
Consider the historical fact of Auschwitz and the other death camps and then consider the country club we call Gitmo. I think most readers will see how inappropriate this comparison is. But of course I expected someone to show up and compare my opinion to the Nazis. It’s par for the course when opinions collide. For some unknown reason it’s usually the Left, not the Right, that most often chooses to hurl this particular evergreen insult.
It is appalling that we have reached a point where we even debate how punitive physical punishment of a bound captive must be before we consider it "real torture."
It's nothing but "it's-not-as-bad-as" excuse making for depraved behavior. This shows how utterly debased we have become.
Virtue-signaling. Ain’t it wonderful? We are “utterly debased” if we do not agree with the commentor’s opinion.
Grackle, you continue with "we aren't as bad as they" excuse-making because our methods (those that have been admitted to) aren't as gruesome as "theirs," but this misses--or hides from--the essential point: simply breaching the line and inflicting abuse, pain and suffering on captives helpless to resist makes us as bad as any others we may decry for barbarism.
A person willing to punch a helpless captive bound to a chair is no different in any essential way from a person willing to pull fingernails or saw off limbs or rape a captive. The significant point is that one party is free and willing to dominate and physically violate another who is restrained and helpless to run or resist. That party--and the society that produces and indulges him--is depraved.
You speak of those whom we have tortured as deserving of what they got, and of much worse. You consider them less than human and not worthy of humane treatment. This is universal. The contempt with which you regard the captives we have abused is no different than the contempt and hate felt by members of the KKK toward blacks, or by the Nazis toward Jews, or the Japanese toward the Chinese, or by any cohort of people who inflict barbarity on others. "Nigger," "vermin," "terrorist," "infidel," are all terms used to remake humans into other creatures, not human, "not like us," and therefore to be treated or disposed of as wished by their tormentors, while the tormentors somehow remain free of taint, are always the "pure," the "good," the "chosen" who act only with virtue and good cause, no matter how savage their actions.
Post a Comment