Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ninth Circuit upholds Oregon's "death with dignity" act, tells Ashcroft & the DOJ to butt out:

Silly Ty. They planned to lose in the 9th Circuit, where the judges are "activist" even when upholding small-government values and strict construction like this.

Meanwhile, any intrusion upon individual liberty inconsistent with traditional Republican values can instantly be characterized by Slave as merely "red meat for the GOP base." Because the GOP base relied upon for Bush's reelection holds all of the values espoused by the GOP on this board in contempt, and vice versa.

The Cons here are embarassed by the voters who gave them three branches of government, the way I'm embarassed by the voters who turn out because they want a welfare check. Except they all stopped voting in 1992 when the Dems began thinking it was more dignified to poach votes from the middle.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The deciding vote was cast by a senior judge from the Eighth Circuit sitting by designation, so I think we need bilmore to give a ruling on how the scoring works.

Being familiar myself with Lay's ouevre, suffice it to say he would do the wacky ninth proud. This might be one of the rare instances in which he's sided with "states rights," even though that's not really what it is or what he did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Being familiar myself with Lay's ouevre, suffice it to say he would do the wacky ninth proud. This might be one of the rare instances in which he's sided with "states rights," even though that's not really what it is or what he did.

I'm not really familiar with the issues in the case, so if you or anyone else is and would offer an opinion on whether they got it right, I would appreciate it. (I posted mostly to try to change the subject....)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is a loss in the ninth circuit really a loss? I think Hank's usual scoring mechanism may come into play on this one.

From the summary, it seemed like a reasonable ruling. The federal government doesn't get involved in how medicine is practiced because historically, this has been a function of the states. Even the FDA doesn't regulate doctors, just the manufacturers of drugs/devices/biologics. The only possible kink in that reasoning is that a doctor must be registered with the DEA to prescribe controlled substances. But you could argue that the registration is not regulating how medicine is practiced.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Sidd, it is about getting a sense of perspective here. You call humiliation torture. That is ridiculous.

No, you stupid fucking twit. The United States calls humiliation -- the infliction of severe mental distress -- torture.

And you continue to ignore report after report, photo after photo, that prove beyond any question that "humiliation" was only the beginning. American soldiers beat wounded prisoners on their wounds. American soldiers tortured prisoner until they died. American soldiers beat prisoners unconscious. American soldiers tied prisoners in "stress positions" in order to cause pain (this, by the way, is the exact kind of torture that the North Vietnamese practiced on American POWs, that so -- correctly -- outraged Americans).

If you want to say that this was necessary to fight this war, fine. You are wrong, and your own Administration has disowned that argument -- they say that these were crimes, and they intend to prosecute the so-called rogues who committed those crimes (presumably until they find that the rogues are too high up in the military and civilian chain of command).

But your continued rejection of a fact that has is beyond dispute, and your continued insistence that the acts were limited to "humiliation" (which, again, is specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention that the US has admitted applies to these prisoners) reflects only your inability to confront the truth.

But go ahead -- keep denying reality. I'm sure that will make the evidence* vanish.


*That is, the evidence that the Repubs don't succeed in withholding from the public view. I agree, doing that will facilitate your denial.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why do I think the 9th would have gone the other way if, oh I dunno, say someone other than Ashcroft wasn't the AG of record?

Probably for the same reason you foam at the mouth when anyone says "Hillary."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And you continue to ignore report after report, photo after photo, that prove beyond any question that "humiliation" was only the beginning.

No I haven't. I have repeatedly stated that rape and beating someone to death (except in self defense or otherwise justified) are crimes if they occurred.

In the post that started all this, I was only addressing your claim that the lesser abuses were properly called torture.

What about Private England? What did she do that qualifies as torturing a detainee? She is being held out as the poster child for Abu Ghraib abuses.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why do I think the 9th would have gone the other way if, oh I dunno, say someone other than Ashcroft wasn't the AG of record?

FWIW - I have no problem with this at all.

I don't think the 9th would have been confronted with the issue if someone other than Ashcroft was the AG. And if someone other than Ashcroft were the AG, I think this panel would have come out the same way. And whether it's sustained en banc has entirely to do with who's drawn for the panel.

And, with a very quick look, it seems that the dissent has the better of the argument that the controlled substances act allows this interpretation of the law, and therefore it should be given deference under Chevron by the court. But it's a 58 page opinion and, unlike my posts here, I can't bill my time to read it fully right now.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
No I haven't. I have repeatedly stated that rape and beating someone to death (except in self defense or otherwise justified) are crimes if they occurred.

Yes, and your continued insistence that only these things constitute torture only shows your ignorance, idiocy, and self-denial.

So beating someone just halfway to death is okay? Punching someone unconscious is okay?

Are you disputing that these things happened?

Are you disputing that prisoners died in US custody in homicides?

In the post that started all this, I was only addressing your claim that the lesser abuses were properly called torture.

What about Private England? What did she do that qualifies as torturing a detainee? She is being held out as the poster child for Abu Ghraib abuses.

Certainly what she did is forbidden under the Geneva Convention, which, as I said, specifically forbids acts intended to degrade or humiliate prisoners. Do you dispute that, too?

As to whether it is "torture" -- well, were her acts designed to cause severe mental injury? To "soften up" prisoners for interrogation? If so, then yes, it was torture, as defined by treaties the US has signed. Perhaps you should read them -- especially since yesterday you opined that these acts are not violations of the GC.

Let's put it this way -- how would you respond if American prisoners were treated this way -- chained naked, pulled around on leashes, put in positions designed to cause pain, wired....? Would you consider that yet another example of Arab barbarity? Or do you see this all as good, clean fun, followed by a beer bash and a frat party?

Or let's put it another way. Under your view, the burning and mutilation of four American mercenaries in Fallujah should be seen as "no big deal." After all, they were already dead. It's not like they were getting raped or anything.

Or let's put it another way. If all this is "no big deal", or if all this is "necessary to fight terrorism," why is the Admin prosecuting England and her cohorts? Did Bush imprison a pregnant woman for political expedience?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't feel it is disrespectful, just like I don't think it is disrepectful to show pictures of Pearl Harbor being bombed. Just the opposite.

I am sure it is much more difficult for those of you who live in NYC. Just like if you post a picture of the Bay Bridge after the 1989 earthquake that would be much harder to view if your family member was killed in the earthquake. It would also unnerve me as I sit here between the San Andreas and the Hayward.

Maybe we should stop discussing 9/11 and earthquakes.

Who said anything about discussing it? Like Ty said -- that person was someone's father, brother, friend -- it's akin to officiously intruding on someone's grief, with a whiff of prurient leering thrown in. No one needs to see that. Did you want to see the beheading tape? I thought you expressed the view that no one in his right mind would want/need to see that -- how is this any different?

To see images of the planes crashing into the buildings, while horrendous and disturbing are less intimate and private than focusing on the pain and suffering of one individual as he falls to his death.

Why do I bother? If you can't see this distinction, there's really no point.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Actually, it somewhat cuts into Atticus' indignation, giving you an angle to run with. Me? off to Piston's game.

Which one?








(Which Piston, that is.)

[Not Me]

Ashcroft: 'Credible Evidence' Shows al-Qaida Planning Attack in US

• Top U.S. officials say the terrorist group al-Qaida is poised to hit the United States sometime during the next several months. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says authorities are seeking six men and one woman believed to be linked to preparations for a terrorist attack.
  
  Attorney General John Ashcroft said there is credible information that a terrorist attack in the United States may be imminent. "Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al-Qaida plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months. This disturbing intelligence indicates al-Qaida's specific intention to hit the United States hard," he said.
  
  Mr. Ashcroft said statements from al-Qaida after the terrorist bombing in Madrid in March say it is 90 percent ready to carry out an attack.
  
  But he says there is no information indicating where or when that could happen.

• The FBI has released the names of seven individuals accused of links to al-Qaida, including a U.S. convert to Islam, a Pakistani woman known as an al-Qaida operative who studied in the United States and two Africans indicted in the 1998 terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
  
  "They all are sought in connection with possible terrorist threats in the United States. They all pose a clear and present danger to America. They all should be considered armed and dangerous," said Mr. Ashcroft
  
  Mr. Ashcroft would not say if intelligence agencies know for certain whether any of the seven or other terrorist suspects are currently in the United States.
  
  At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said that possibility cannot be ruled out. "In terms of the possibility of terrorists being here in the United States, we have to work under the assumption there are terrorists here and the intelligence reporting we have seen from time to time there may well be people in place ready to carry out attacks," he said.
  
  U.S. officials point to several events they say could be attractive terrorist targets - including the Republican and Democratic political party conventions, a summit of the Group of Eight and the presidential elections in November. However, previous terrorist attacks against U.S. interests have not necessarily been linked to major events.
  
  But Department of Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge is playing down any need for public alarm. "We don't need to raise the threat level to increase our security," he said.
  
  Attorney General Ashcroft said a special task force has been set up to deal with the current threat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
*That is, the evidence that the Repubs don't succeed in withholding from the public view.

NPR ran a story* this morning about the deaths of prisoners in Uzbekistan, apparently as a result of torture in captivity. The mother of one of the dead is refusing to bury his body until foreign pathologists can do a post-mortem. The State Department has criticized the Uzbek government, and wants an independent investigation. Upon hearing this, my thought was, aren't the Uzbeks going to laugh at us and say, you first?

* Audio version available halfway down this page.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
Who said anything about discussing it? Like Ty said -- that person was someone's father, brother, friend -- it's akin to officiously intruding on someone's grief, with a whiff of prurient leering thrown in. No one needs to see that. Did you want to see the beheading tape? I thought you expressed the view that no one in his right mind would want/need to see that -- how is this any different?

To see images of the planes crashing into the buildings, while horrendous and disturbing are less intimate and private than focusing on the pain and suffering of one individual as he falls to his death.

Why do I bother? If you can't see this distinction, there's really no point.

If you could see the man's face and identify him, I wouldn't have posted it. Just curious about how you feel about the famous OK City picture of the firefighter with the baby:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-96/04-07-96/1aoak.htm

Is it nothing more than prurient leering to look at the photo?

To me, it really all depends on why someone is looking at the photo. With the beheading video, I really think many if not most people just wanted to see the gore. That is very different from why I posted the pic of the WTC or would post the pic of Baylee.

eta - it also depends on the picture itself. With the Berg case, it was a video of a murder complete with audio and the identity of the person was clear. That is very different from a still photo of someone who is falling and cannot be identified.

[LessinSF]

I just wanted to post this quote because it made me laugh and suggested FB rhetoric:

"Neoconservatives widely predicted an easy occupation followed by an immediate peace, followed by "a flourishing democracy which would cause a domino effect across the region creating democracies elsewhere," said Peter Singer, a national security fellow at the Brookings Institution. "And then the very first foreign policy position taken by this new democratic Iraq, run by their exile friends, would be to recognize Israel, and that would somehow end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and bunnies would dance in the streets, and we would find life on Mars."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGFR6RT7I1.DTL