LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

Tyrone Slothrop 10-24-2007 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We do not know -- the circumstantial evidence we have is that we have no information that Egyptian security actually did anything to his family.
You could just as easily say that there is no evidence that the FBI wouldn't have done exactly what it said it would do had the man not given a false confession.

Quote:

In the "right" case, I wouldnt be surprised if we did such a thing.
Indeed.

taxwonk 10-24-2007 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's always wrong when it's happening to your guys. Different story when you're the torturer.
There is no easier way of knowing you are wrong than when you hear yourself saying this.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-24-2007 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
There is no easier way of knowing you are wrong than when you hear yourself saying this.
You do realize I'm offering this as an indictment of the way most people view this issue when their country is criticized for torturing enemies of the state, don't you?

I assume you know sarcasm, or satire, or cynical humor (or whatever you'd call my parahprasing of our nation's self-righteousness) when you see it.

Hank Chinaski 10-24-2007 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You do realize I'm offering this as an indictment of the way most people view this issue when their country is criticized for torturing enemies of the state, don't you?

I assume you know sarcasm, or satire, or cynical humor (or whatever you'd call my parahprasing of our nation's self-righteousness) when you see it.
is ty being sarcastic with this "guilty until proven innocent" rap on the threats?

Tyrone Slothrop 10-24-2007 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
is ty being sarcastic with this "guilty until proven innocent" rap on the threats?
Your phrasing suggests that you might actually think there's something wrong with siccing the Egyptian secret police on a guy's family to get him to talk. How about that.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-24-2007 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't really see a principled reason to think that government agents should have the unbridled discretion to torture people but can't be trusted to decide whether to prosecute others for torture.

As much as anything else, this whole debate is about the Bush Administration's desire to do away with checks and balances so that the executive branch can do whatever the hell it pleases. All government agencies would love to be free of oversight. It doesn't mean they make better decisions -- quite the opposite.
The first is kind of a tautology, isn't it? If torture's illegal, then everybody is prosecuted for it, so giving the agents the right to engage it is a crime in itself, isn't it?

I agree on the second point. The real issue here has never been torture. And this Admin should be reined in, dramatically. And you and I, we agree on the need to lessen the scope of the Exec's power. So why then does you side of the political spectrum ask to make the govt so much bigger in other areas? You want more social services, more programs and more oversight. You say govt is a friend and big business is a danger to us when we're talking about entitlements and taxes, but when it comes to branches of the govt using their power as Bush is doing, suddenly you're a Libertarian.

Why don't people like you and I get together around a compromise of shrinking all areas of the govt and reining in its power across the board? I want Bush downsized and caged. He's an idiot who's ruinging our foreign policy and taking us into an endless war. I also want our domestic govt and every program in it sliced to the bare bones. Cut it all. Lets be fair. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a big govt for those who suckle from it and at the same time a small govt when it comes to matters of Exec power. Either the govt is big and broadly powerful or it is small.

Pick.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-24-2007 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The first is kind of a tautology, isn't it? If torture's illegal, then everybody is prosecuted for it, so giving the agents the right to engage it is a crime in itself, isn't it?
Not sure I follow. If torture is illegal, that doesn't mean it always must be prosecuted. If you really feel driven to torture someone to discover a hidden nuclear bomb, you're not going to stop just because a law says you can't do it, and I can't believe anyone would ever prosecute you for it anyway.

Quote:

I agree on the second point. The real issue here has never been torture. And this Admin should be reined in, dramatically. And you and I, we agree on the need to lessen the scope of the Exec's power.
Kumbayah, dude.

Quote:

So why then does you side of the political spectrum ask to make the govt so much bigger in other areas? You want more social services, more programs and more oversight. You say govt is a friend and big business is a danger to us when we're talking about entitlements and taxes, but when it comes to branches of the govt using their power as Bush is doing, suddenly you're a Libertarian.
Well, the most obvious answer is that the long arm of the government acts much less brutally when it takes tax dollars from the rich to pay for services than when it sics Egyptian security forces on the family of a man to get him to talk. All else equal, a larger government means less freedom, but all else is never equal.

I tend to be much more of a pragmatist than would be apparent on this board about which government interventions in markets are worthwhile.

Quote:

Why don't people like you and I get together around a compromise of shrinking all areas of the govt and reining in its power across the board? I want Bush downsized and caged. He's an idiot who's ruinging our foreign policy and taking us into an endless war. I also want our domestic govt and every program in it sliced to the bare bones. Cut it all. Lets be fair. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a big govt for those who suckle from it and at the same time a small govt when it comes to matters of Exec power. Either the govt is big and broadly powerful or it is small.

Pick.
There is no consituency -- none -- for downsizing government in the way you describe. We've just had a Republican-run government for most of six years, and it did the opposite. The reason for this, of course, is that government spending is popular, even when it is wrong-headed, and Republicans in Congress and at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. did not want to risk the political heat that would come with cuts. It's not a conservative or liberal issues. Both parties want to spend $$$, but they want to spend $$$ on different constiuencies. That's politics.

You're linking issues that are fundamentally unrelated. One is a question of the size of the federal government. The other has to do with the balance of power between the different branches of the federal government.

Hank Chinaski 10-24-2007 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you really feel driven to torture someone to discover a hidden nuclear bomb, you're not going to stop just because a law says you can't do it, and I can't believe anyone would ever prosecute you for it anyway.
since torture doesn't work wouldn't it be criminally negligent to waste time torturing the guy?

Tyrone Slothrop 10-24-2007 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
since torture doesn't work wouldn't it be criminally negligent to waste time torturing the guy?
I think the hypothetical is set up so as to preclude the sort of interrogation that would get you cooperation. Not to worry -- it works in the movies, which is the only time this sort of thing happens.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-24-2007 06:46 PM

Where Blackwater came from.
 
Apropos of our earlier discussion, I just noticed this on Krugman's blog:

Quote:

Why State hired Blackwater: Rumsfeld wouldn’t provide troops:
  • A new executive order, signed in January 2004, gave State authority over all but military operations. Rumsfeld’s revenge, at least in the view of many State officials, was to withdraw all but minimal assistance for diplomatic security.

But they sat down to work it out, right?
  • Meetings to negotiate an official memorandum of understanding between State and Defense during the spring of 2004 broke up in shouting matches over issues such as their respective levels of patriotism and whether the military would provide mortuary services for slain diplomats.

Remember, however, the important point: if you noticed back then that these were crazy, dangerous people, you were shrill. To be respectable, you have to have waited until 2006 or so to turn on the Bushies.
He's quoting from this Washington Post article.

Hank Chinaski 10-24-2007 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the hypothetical is set up so as to preclude the sort of interrogation that would get you cooperation. Not to worry -- it works in the movies, which is the only time this sort of thing happens.
how do you know so much?

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how do you know so much?
I watched a lot of PBS as a kid.

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/t...1021014804.jpg

ltl/fb 10-25-2007 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I watched a lot of PBS as a kid.

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/t...1021014804.jpg
Is that mustard under the egg on the rye (?) bread? Weird. I like the walking, talking oatmeal. Or cream of wheat.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is that mustard under the egg on the rye (?) bread?
Maybe egg yolk?

Quote:

Weird.
Fortunately this never happened to me.

ltl/fb 10-25-2007 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe egg yolk?



Fortunately this never happened to me.
The yolks look intact to me.

This is sooooo way a better conversation than anything political.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The yolks look intact to me.

This is sooooo way a better conversation than anything political.
How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.

ltl/fb 10-25-2007 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.
shut it.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-25-2007 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How about baseball? I stand ready to discuss this evening's game at the slightest provocation.
So, Beckett's post-season ERA went up this game, but he still did OK.

Gattigap 10-25-2007 12:20 PM

Go, Stephen, Go!
 
Colbert hits double digits in recent Rasmussen poll.
  • A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.

    The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.

    ****

    Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.

You know, I don't care if his candidacy is violating federal election laws. This is awesome.

Gattigap

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-25-2007 12:29 PM

Go, Stephen, Go!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Colbert hits double digits in recent Rasmussen poll.
  • A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that Colbert is preferred by 13% of voters as an independent candidate challenging Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani. The survey was conducted shortly after Colbert’s surprise announcement that he is lusting for the Oval Office.

    The result is similar when Fred Thompson is the Republican in the three-way race. With Thompson as the GOP candidate, Colbert earns 12% of the vote.

    ****

    Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate.

You know, I don't care if his candidacy is violating federal election laws. This is awesome.

Gattigap
The legal issues are easily solved. Colbert doesn't control the content of either his show or his campaign, Viacom does. And all Viacom has to do is give Romney and Clinton their own comedy show - I suspect they'd get good ratings. Mayor Red Sox and Obama, less so.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 02:31 PM

BlackH2O
 
Vote for the new Blackwater logo here:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/1...ater-logo.html

My fave:

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncateg...lackwater3.jpg

Gattigap 10-25-2007 03:00 PM

BlackH2O
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Vote for the new Blackwater logo here:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/1...ater-logo.html

http://z.about.com/d/top40/1/0/2/A/mmcdonald.jpg

Replaced_Texan 10-25-2007 05:22 PM

Interesting definition:
Quote:

Libertarianism is by no means a unified movement. As many of its advocates proudly stress, it comprises a taxonomy of bickering branches—minarchists, objectivists, paleo- and neolibertarians, agorists, et various al.—just like a real social theory. Claiming a lineage with post-Enlightenment classical liberalism, as well as in some cases with the resoundingly portentous blatherings of Ayn Rand, all of its variants are characterized, to differing degrees, by fervent, even cultish, faith in what is quaintly termed the “free” market, and extreme antipathy to that vaguely conceived bogeyman, “the state,” with its regulatory and fiscal powers.

Above all, they recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom. Not content with existing offshore tax shelters, multimillionaires and property developers have aspired to build their own. For each such rare project that sees (usually brief) life, there are many unfettered by actual existence, such as Laissez-Faire City, a proposed offshore tax haven inspired by a particularly crass and gung-ho libertarianism, that generated press interest in the mid-’90s only to collapse in infighting and bad blood; or New Utopia, an intended sea-based libertarian micro-nation in the Caribbean that degenerated with breathtaking predictability into nonexistence and scandal.
The rest of the article is pretty cool.

Disclaimer: I like China Mieville's books quite a bit. And he's written quite a bit about "libertarian" floating shelters.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 05:25 PM

  • People under the age of 35, maybe even 40, probably don't remember the Aldo Moro crisis. Aldo Moro was a several-times prime minister of Italy who was kidnapped and held hostage by terrorists in 1978. After about 50 days, in which the terrorists alternately interrogated Moro and let him write letters to the outside world begging for his life, he was murdered. Maybe "several-times prime minister" doesn't do his stature justice -- imagine, G-d forbid, that something similar happened to, oh, Bob Dole or Dick Gephardt. An important politician widely recognized as a national leader, taken by terrorists making outrageous demands who could kill him at any moment. Short of an actual nuclear bomb, that's one of the worst things imaginable in a democracy.

    At one point in the crisis, General Dalla Chiesa, the head of the team trying to unravel the kidnapping, was asked permission to torture a Red Brigades sympathizer who was in jail, for information that might free Moro. His response? "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."

link

Gattigap 10-25-2007 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  • People under the age of 35, maybe even 40, probably don't remember the Aldo Moro crisis. Aldo Moro was a several-times prime minister of Italy who was kidnapped and held hostage by terrorists in 1978. After about 50 days, in which the terrorists alternately interrogated Moro and let him write letters to the outside world begging for his life, he was murdered. Maybe "several-times prime minister" doesn't do his stature justice -- imagine, G-d forbid, that something similar happened to, oh, Bob Dole or Dick Gephardt. An important politician widely recognized as a national leader, taken by terrorists making outrageous demands who could kill him at any moment. Short of an actual nuclear bomb, that's one of the worst things imaginable in a democracy.

    At one point in the crisis, General Dalla Chiesa, the head of the team trying to unravel the kidnapping, was asked permission to torture a Red Brigades sympathizer who was in jail, for information that might free Moro. His response? "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."

link
Given the relative stability of Italian politics, that's a really good quote that's crushed by its context.

Hank Chinaski 10-25-2007 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Given the relative stability of Italian politics, that's a really good quote that's crushed by its context.
Ty's lack of perspective or actual knowledge is not a fair grounds of response here.

I would just say that the General's response was most likely intended to cover up the fact that the government torture department was on strike.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 05:57 PM

Ladies and gentlemen: The worst mayor in America. It would be funny if it weren't true.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 05:59 PM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/16...07aeb6.jpg?v=0

Hank Chinaski 10-25-2007 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ladies and gentlemen: The worst mayor in America. It would be funny if it weren't true.
Please. Read about Kwame Kilpatrick. Is Marion Barry still mayor.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Please.
Did you read it?

Quote:

Read about Kwame Kilpatrick.
Link, please, and I will.

Quote:

Is Marion Barry still mayor.
No. And this guy sounds worse.

Hank Chinaski 10-25-2007 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you read it?
asked and answered.



Quote:

Link, please, and I will.



No. And this guy sounds worse.
kwame would be on the other side of most of those doors.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-25-2007 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
asked and answered.
Implicitly, at best, and only with this post.

Replaced_Texan 10-25-2007 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ladies and gentlemen: The worst mayor in America. It would be funny if it weren't true.
I'd nominate the missing mayor of Atlantic City, but they apparently found him and he resigned shortly thereafter.

Atticus Grinch 10-26-2007 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ladies and gentlemen: The worst mayor in America. It would be funny if it weren't true.
No, it's equally funny when it's true. Perhaps more so. Trust me when I pronounce the Atticus Grinch Laws of Representative Politicodynamics:*

Rule 1: Government officials you get = government officials you deserve.

Rule 2: There is no Rule 2.


*On the national scale, these are also known as Grinch's Laws of Conservation of Jomentum.

Hank Chinaski 10-26-2007 10:29 AM

I just learned of some terrible news from Africa. how come no one is talking about this?
  • HUMBLY SEEKING FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE PLEASE
    ATTN: Friend,
    My name is as above stated, the wife of Mr. Daniel Khumalo from the
    republic of Zimbabwe. It might be a surprise to you where i got your
    contact address. I got your contact from the South Africa Chamber of
    Commerce in Johannesburg. During the current war against the farmers in
    Zimbabwe from the supporters of our President Robert Mugabe, in his
    effort to chase all the white farmers out of the country, he ordered all the
    white
    farmers to surrender their farms to his party members and his followers.My
    husband, was one of the best and successful farmers in our country and
    formerly the Finance Minister of Robert Mugabe administration, but he
    did not support the idea of dispossessing the white farmers of their land.
    Because of this, his farm was invaded and burnt by government
    supporters.In the course of this shock, my husband died, and the invaders made
    away with a lot of items from my husband’s farm.And our family house was
    utterly destroyed. My husband died out of heart attack. He drew my
    attention to the sum of US$15.5 MILLION, Which he deposited with a security
    company in South Africa during his tenure as the Finance Minister of Zimbabwe.
    My son and I decided to move out of Zimbabwe for our own security,
    because our lives were in danger. We decided to move to the Republic of South
    Africa where my husband deposited this money. Till date, the security
    company is not aware of the content of the consignment because my
    husband used his diplomatic immunity as at that time to deposit the consignment
    as important personal valuables.
    I decided to have contact with overseas person/firm who will assist me
    to move the money out of South Africa. This becomes necessary because as
    political asylum seekers, we are not allowed to own or operate a bank
    account. I want you to immediately confirm your interest in the project
    through my son JAMES KHUMALO on +27-73 99 76551 or email-
    mrskhumalo1@myway.com
    As soon as I get your response, I will give you more details on how we
    can proceed. Thanks and God bless you for your anticipated cooperation. Urgent
    response waited.
    Best regards,

    Mrs.Khumalo

futbol fan 10-26-2007 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, it's equally funny when it's true. Perhaps more so. Trust me when I pronounce the Atticus Grinch Laws of Representative Politicodynamics:*

Rule 1: Government officials you get = government officials you deserve.

Rule 2: There is no Rule 2.


*On the national scale, these are also known as Grinch's Laws of Conservation of Jomentum.
I have no illusions about my many flaws, moral and intellectual, but I deserve better than what I got. Have, I mean.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2007 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
I have no illusions about my many flaws, moral and intellectual, but I deserve better than what I got. Have, I mean.
You deserve to move to Redwood City ("Climate best by government test").

Not Bob 10-26-2007 01:01 PM

I got a rock.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
I have no illusions about my many flaws, moral and intellectual, but I deserve better than what I got. Have, I mean.
Indeed. Story of my life.

http://www.petcaretips.net/IGotARock.jpg

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2007 01:40 PM

Go, Stephen, Go!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Colbert hits double digits in recent Rasmussen poll.

You know, I don't care if his candidacy is violating federal election laws. This is awesome.
  • Scene 12:

    Camera pans across hearing room, as Stephen Colbert takes his seat at a witness table, reporters scurry as we hear a gavel.

    LENHARD: Please, please everybody come to order. Mr. Colbert, you understand the allegations made about the funding of your candidacy. We here at the FEC want to know why we should turn a blind eye to the immense aggregations of wealth of Comedy Central . . . indeed of Viacom. In truthi . . .

    COLBERT (shouting): Truthiness? You can't HANDLE the truthiness!

link

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2007 01:55 PM

More Aldo Moro context, from a commenter on my blog:
  • Moro was prime minister when I left Rome for stateside, and he was by all accounts one of the more competent italian elected officials (admittedly not a high bar).

    It's difficult to convey how terrorized Roman citizens felt as a result of the Brigati Rossi's 1970's terrorist campaigns. I was there at the time -- each day my parents would read the paper to see whether they knew the latest kidnap victim, and where the latest body of a former kidnap victim had been found, if the family had been too slow in paying the ransom.

    The ex-pat community was fairly small in Rome in those days, so we knew the Getty family, even though we didn't socialize with them. When John Paul Getty III was kidnapped at the age of 16, my friends and I were all terrified we'd be next. When his ear arrived in the mail, we all assumed we'd be eventually cut up and returned piecemeal to our parents.

    That the Italian government was unwilling, even in those circumstances, to stoop to torture is a testament to their principles. Whether this administration would take the moral high road in similar circumstances would now seem to have been answered unequivocally in the negative.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com