Lefty blogger Roy Edroso, seeing that "the Washington Post has formed some kind of alliance with The Volokh Conspiracy," picks through his archives to find the most terrible (to his lefty readers) things various VC bloggers have written over the years.
Roy has made it his thing to monitor "right-wing" bloggers for the amusement and horror of lefty readers, so you'd think he'd be able to cherry-pick more horrifying material, and he lacks the grace to say you know, these guys pretty much are libertarians.
That makes you the hack, Roy.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
Yeah, nothing horrifying about Volokh's lust for the torture and brutalization of wrongdoers, right?
Let she who cherrypicks cast the first stone, no?
Yeah, nothing horrifying about Volokh's lust for the torture and brutalization of wrongdoers, right?
Does it really horrify you that someone would want the brutalization of a criminal who molested and killed approximately 20 children?
There's plenty of room to disagree that this would be the proper course, all things considered, but to dismiss the desire to do so as flat out horrifying is, well, pretty horrifying.
I think the cherry picking was pretty good. He avoided quoting anything that talked about the fact that the flogging / killing was about someone who killed many children. He also avoided addressing any of the updates and updates to the updates.
I'm willing to be called a barbarian/sinner/horrible person by saying that I agree with the sentiments in that post.
It's not quite as amusing as one of David Thompson's "Agonies of the Left" posts, but I'm willing to assume there's plenty of equally stupid material on alicublog based on a sample of one.
Many years ago Volokh wrote a post defending the first amendment rights of pornographers or something like that. One of the first comments was "there goes your Supreme Court nomination."
Not sure if this is offtopic but I am pleased to see Volokh in the WaPo.
I don't read him that much, perhaps a couple times a month. I do read him enough to know that he and the Conspiracy in general are liberal (A/K/A classical liberal, libertarian, minarchist).
I think that this is a radical shift for the WaPo and am happy to see Bezos perhaps taking the paper in a different direction that the traditional DC centric, progressive, paper they have been in the past.
Is this a harbinger of things to come? Next Instapundit?
I "blame" Obama for this liberal (libertarian) resurgence in the US in recent years. Call it Tea Party if you like but we see all sorts of liberal shoots starting to bloom.
John Henry
John Henry
MattL wrote "I think the cherry picking was pretty good"
Roy is also pretty good with the thesaurus. Substitute a word like "sniffed" for the more rudimentary "wrote" and you don't even have to write anything substantive at all.
What would we find if we monitored democratic underground website and cherry picked the most offensive bits?
Does it really horrify you that someone would want the brutalization of a criminal who molested and killed approximately 20 children?
Yes.
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers.
SteveM wrote:
"Yeah, nothing horrifying about Volokh's lust for the torture and brutalization of wrongdoers, right?"
I don't know what he actually wrote, but lets put it in context.
I think you'd agree that killing someone is wrong. And you'd agree that imprisoning someone for 20+ years in a cage and sometimes in solitary confinement is wrong. And perhaps even torturous.
Yet if someone were found guilty of heinous crimes you'd have no problem with either putting them to death or imprisoning them for life.
That would be justice, no?
So let's recognize the evil that we do in the furtherance of justice. Or war.
Even the things we sanction would be illegal if done out of the context of the things where they are illegal.
What if instead Volokh said he wants to make sure that wrongdoers die imprisoned. Would that be better for you? So then, you're ok with holding people against their will in a cage for the rest of their life. I'm sure someone could look at your demand for life imprisonment without parole and call it barbaric as well.
Steve M wrote:
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers.
is the death penalty cruel and unusual? Or just?
Is waterboarding during SERE training cruel and unusual punishment! or just training?
"Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers."
The Framers had vastly different ideas of what is cruel and unusual than we do. They considered it humanitarian to punish Forgery by cutting off the criminal's left arm, where previously the punishment was execution.
Cruel and unusual means the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. What could be disproportionate to molesting and then murdering children?
Personally I'm always sympathetic someone walking back an extreme claim -- whether through apology or clarification.
It is very easy to write expressively to a statement that is more aggressive or extreme that how one actually feels or intends to defend. Rhetoric has its own strong pull on the mind of the author.
You say "hack" like it's a bad thing.
The Framers had vastly different ideas of what is cruel and unusual than we do. They considered it humanitarian to punish Forgery by cutting off the criminal's left arm, where previously the punishment was execution.
Cruel and unusual punishment back in the 18th century was based on things like drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel, burning people alive, and boiling someone in oil. The Constitution does specifically address capital punishment as being permissible if due process of law has been followed.
Not one of his elite commenters noticed that the post he linked to as Eugene Volokh "promoting the death penalty" was nothing of the sort.
Although I don't check in on it as often as I used to--in fact, I check in infrequently these days--Alicublog is one of the sharpest and funniest blogs out there, and his commenters are the best on the web--contra those here who, against all evidence, flatter themselves that this blog's cohort hold that status.
Full disclosure: though we're not friends, as such, I am personally acquainted with Roy Edroso, he having been in a band with a close friend of mine many years back.
I don't know what he actually wrote
This post links to Roy Edroso's blog. Edroso links to Volokh's original post. You don't know what Volokh actually wrote? Seriously? It's two clicks away.
Ann "onion ring" Althouse accusing someone of creative misrepresentation. Ha!
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers.
This is a discussion about what is or is not horrifying in the context of the criminal's (horrifying) actions. It is not a discussion of what is and is not legal, a fact that Professor Volokh readily acknowledged. Please try to keep up.
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers.
This is a discussion about what is or is not horrifying in the context of the criminal's (horrifying) actions. It is not a discussion of what is and is not legal, a fact that Professor Volokh readily acknowledged.
And, of course, the event that was discussed took place in Iran. My impression is that their framers were very much in favor of cruel and unusual punishment. What's with all the anti-multi-culti bigotry around here?
Does it really horrify you that someone would want the brutalization of a criminal who molested and killed approximately 20 children?
Yes it does. That you think this is somehow justified displays your inhumanity.
he lacks the grace to say you know, these guys pretty much are libertarians.
I don't understand what your beef is. So what if they are libertarians? They (like your buddy Instapundit) are still apologists for torture and the surveillance state. Their libertarianism is nothing more than banks, corporations, and rich people should be able to do what ever they damn well please.
Is waterboarding during SERE training cruel and unusual punishment! or just training?
It is training, idiot. How could it be punishment.
Under this standard anyone who plays football or boxes would be guilty of assault and battery
Robert Cook,
You are right about the commenters; masterful use of irony there.
"Yeesh.
Wasn't for adverbs & adjectives, you'd be sitting in front of that keyboard, fingers twitching, mind racing, mutely panick-stricken..."
In that case, Freder, we were training the handfull of jihadis that were waterboarded. Too bad they washed out.
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers
The Framer's idea of cruel and unusual was much different from the modern idea of cruel and unusual.
For instance they would have found the idea that the death penalty was cruel and unusual was absurd.
Sorry cruel and unusual punishment isn't legal? Complain to the Framers
The Framer's idea of cruel and unusual was much different from the modern idea of cruel and unusual.
For instance they would have found the idea that the death penalty was cruel and unusual was absurd.
"In that case, Freder, we were training the handfull of jihadis that were waterboarded."
There are a few unproven assumptions in your comment. For one, we don't know if all, some, or none of those we have waterboarded were jihadis. (Given that the majority of those imprisoned at Gitmo over the years were innocent of being involved in any terrorism, we cannot assume that, by virtue of being tortured, the victims were jihadis.) Second, we don't know that "only a handfull" (sic) were waterboarded. It may have been dozens, even hundreds. Third, waterboarding is not the only torture technique we have used, and while it may have been literally or relatively scarcely used, other techniques (stress positions, imprisonment in extremes of cold and heat, isolation, impeding their sleep so they could not, as well as outright physical assaults, some with murderous results, were (and possibly still are) being used as SOP. There's also the unspoken assertion that waterboarding is not torture--it is--and/or that it is permitted to be used on "jihadis," (or the boogeymen of the day, who will surely change over time, until it applies to every one of us)--it is not. It is illegal. Full stop.
Freder wrote:
It is training, idiot. How could it be punishment.
Under this standard anyone who plays football or boxes would be guilty of assault and battery
IT is the same whether we use it for training or for interrogation. The point about waterboarding was that it was torture no matter what. Well, then if it's used for training then is it not torture simply because we changed the name? What if we called interrogation, training? Would you be ok with it?
Similarly, a bunch of reporters underwent waterboarding and many then declared it torture. Only, if they were waterboarded in the context of informational purposes how could it then be torture?
Did they know they were going to live? Yes. Was it in a controlled environment that would spare them the worst of waterboarding? Yes. Then, how was it torture?
What we should have done is also sent these same reporters off to SERE training, not tell them it was training and then ask which was the torture and which was the training? Kind of like taking the Pepsi challenge only with Waterboarding.
If they said it was torture could we say "no, dummy. It was training"?
Robert Cook wrote:
. There's also the unspoken assertion that waterboarding is not torture--it is--and/or that it is permitted to be used on "jihadis," (or the boogeymen of the day, who will surely change over time, until it applies to every one of us)--it is not. It is illegal. Full stop
Was it torture when we did it to our troops during SERE training. You keep saying it IS torture. I'm saying it was done to our SERE cadets by Us, and called training. Do those who were trained have grounds to sue the govt for torture?
Freder Frederson wrote:
It is training, idiot. How could it be punishment.
The act is the act is the act. Are you losing sleep over the fact that thousands of Soldiers had to undergo waterboarding just to get a diploma?
And would the govt subject these same cadets to training if it involved pulling out their fingernails? Could we pull their finger nails out and say we're training them? I think most would say, "You can't pull out peoples fingernails, that's torture". And even if the govt said it was itraining they would say "no, it's torture".
Robert Cook wrote:
"For one, we don't know if all, some, or none of those we have waterboarded were jihadis. (Given that the majority of those imprisoned at Gitmo over the years were innocent of being involved in any terrorism, we cannot assume that, by virtue of being tortured, the victims were jihadis.)"
Not all of those in Gitmo were waterboarded. How about if we just waterboard a handful of people we know are terrorists? Like Khalleid Sheik Mohammad. Is there any doubt as to who he was in Al Qaeda prior to his capture?
:Second, we don't know that "only a handfull" (sic) were waterboarded. It may have been dozens, even hundreds."
Or, it may have been three. If we were waterboarding everyone we caught on the battlefield I would certainly agree with you since i woudl argue that enhanced interrogations should only occur in extreme circumstances. But there is no basis for the argument that we did waterboard thousands.
"Third, waterboarding is not the only torture technique we have used, and while it may have been literally or relatively scarcely used, other techniques (stress positions, imprisonment in extremes of cold and heat, isolation, impeding their sleep so they could not, as well as outright physical assaults, some with murderous results, were (and possibly still are) being used as SOP"
If they ended with murderous results then obviously the interrogators went too far, and should be held accountable. But a lot of those things you mention are routine interrogation techniques even in police interrogation rooms. If we outsourced the interrogation to other countries, they'd get far worse. And again, many of those same techniques are used to train our troops, sometimes with disastrous results.
You think someone training to be a navy seal or going through SERE training wasn't put in a stress position or didn't have to deal with extremes of hot and cold, isolation, etc.
Also, in the context of war, a lot of things are allowed that wouldn't be allowed in the context of peace. We can target a family with a drone and we can send in a strike team and assasinate people. Both far more extreme that waterboarding someone for 30 seconds at a time. KSM is now sitting in a prison. Someone who was in the compound when OBL was killed most likely has his brains on the wall.
They (like your buddy Instapundit) are still apologists for torture and the surveillance state.
Outside of him mocking conservatives for turning into civil libertarians, he hasn't said a word about the surveillance state since 2009.
So, apparently, he is far more of an apologist.
Although I don't check in on it as often as I used to--in fact, I check in infrequently these days--Alicublog is one of the sharpest and funniest blogs out there, and his commenters are the best on the web--contra those here who, against all evidence, flatter themselves that this blog's cohort hold that status.
Must've been years earlier because it is a tedious slog for the last 2 years or so.
And his commenters are idiots, hate to break it to you.
It is training, idiot. How could it be punishment.
What other "human rights violations" are legal for training, out of curiosity?
"Was it torture when we did it to our troops during SERE training. You keep saying it IS torture. I'm saying it was done to our SERE cadets by Us, and called training. Do those who were trained have grounds to sue the govt for torture?"
Yes, it was torture when performed on our troops; the express purpose was to train them, insofar as possible, to resist torture they might endure if capture by an enemy.
I don't know if our soldiers have grounds to sue for being tortured. They might. Then again, they were volunteer soldiers, so that may count as assent to any treatment they had to undergo. There is also the material difference that the soldiers knew what they were about to undergo, accepted that they would undergo torture as part of their training, and knew that it would not continue over and over or that they might be subject to it on repeated occasions. When inflicted on unwilling, bound and helpless captives there is no legal rationale that excuses it.
"i woudl argue that enhanced interrogations should only occur in extreme circumstances."
"Enhanced interrogations," as the Nazis also called their torture techniques, should never occur; it is illegal around the globe. (I recognize we are not the only country that scoffs at the law.)
"...a lot of those things you mention are routine interrogation techniques even in police interrogation rooms."
I don't know if they're routine, but I don't doubt they are used, and when it occurs, it's torture in the police interrogation rooms. What...you don't think our police torture suspects?
"If we outsourced the interrogation to other countries, they'd get far worse."
Perhaps, perhaps not...but claiming one's own crimes are less egregious than the crimes of other thugs does not suffice as a legal (or ethical) defense of the crimes.
Or, as John McCain, a torture victim himself, said, "It's not about who they are, it's about who we are."
"Also, in the context of war, a lot of things are allowed that wouldn't be allowed in the context of peace. We can target a family with a drone and we can send in a strike team and assasinate people."
They're not "allowed," but they occur. This is why war is always just one long appalling crime. This is why war should always be the absolute last recourse, and only as an unavoidable defense against imminent annihilation by an aggressor. We have not fought a war since WWII that comes even close to fitting that standard, (and few or none before that). (This is not to say WWII was not also an unceasing succession of ghastly crimes, but only that--perhaps--given the possible outcome of a victory by Hitler and the Axis powers, it was unavoidable. There are those that would argue that even our involvement in WWII was not justified.) When we target a family with a drone or sent in strike teams to assassinate people, we are committing murder.
German "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques, briefly
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा