Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the military people are not using the term "kidnap" in the sense of "Sorry we kidnapped you"; I think they meant it in the sense of "We took you into custody when some Northern Alliance fighters swore on a stack of Qur'ans that you were a resistance fighter --- keep in mind here that you were a little beat up and wearing a black hood at the time, honest mistake --- and we gave them a check in accordance with our standard reward policy, but it turns out you were merely bonking the wrong chieftan's sister or something and, oh well, long story short, we're out a bunch of reward money and here's your plane ticket; and --- funny story here --- some other time we'll tell you about the unfortunate resonance this has with the way the U.S. obtained large portions of its population of African descent; and we certainly hope there won't be any diplomatic incidents arising from this, which could be messy for everyone involved, right?"

But all I know is what I read in the weblogs.

This is truly nauseating and my deepest sympathies go out to those individuals affect. However, what was the fucking alternative?

[sgtclub]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[Bush to drop tarrifs on steel]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
....and we certainly hope there won't be any diplomatic incidents arising from this, which could be messy for everyone involved, right?"

I'm sure they're having these people sign a release. I hear Cuban law is not good for people signing adhesion contracts.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is truly nauseating and my deepest sympathies go out to those individuals affect. However, what was the fucking alternative?

Access to counsel. National security did not require us to hold these persons incommunicado and without recourse in the legal system, which, for all its faults, is better at separating wheat from chaff than the executive branch acting alone.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Access to counsel. National security did not require us to hold these persons incommunicado and without recourse in the legal system, which, for all its faults, is better at separating wheat from chaff than the executive branch acting alone.

Agreed, at the 20,000 foot level. But to be fair to the executive branch, there were some timing issues involved - meaning that it was reasonably prudent to hold them incommunicado right after the war, and less so 2 years later.

[Atticus Grinch]

--doorbell rings
Gilda: Who is it?
at door: Mrs. Robolohahe? (mumbled)
Gilda: Who is it?
at door: Plumber.
Gilda: Plumber? I didn't ask for a plumber. Who is it?
at door: Telegram.
Gilda: Oh, telegram. Just a moment.
--Gilda opens door and is eaten by Land Shark.

BA pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?"
Air Force One pilot: "Gulfstream 5."
BA pilot: "Oh." {Yahoo news.}

Lessons to be learned: (1) When secretly flying across the Atlantic into a warzone, repaint your aircraft so it no longer says "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in big letters. Paint out the "P" to throw them off the scent. You're just a humble citizen on a transoceanic flight. (2) If forced to lie to other aircraft about being a customized Boeing 747, do not say you are a Gulfstream 5. Come up with something plausible, like that you're a PSA flight that got lost in the Bermuda Triangle for 35 years. (3) Either BA is lying, or the White House is. Draw your own conclusions, but don't share them. Bilmore is angry enough as it is.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is truly nauseating and my deepest sympathies go out to those individuals affect. However, what was the fucking alternative?

This could have been handled better solely by the executive branch. And it should have once people in the executive were quoted (by name I think, but I'm not sure) in the media with the oops part. In short, a little common sense would have gone a long way for the most extreme examples like Mr. Lobotomy or whatever they nicknamed the guy.

Some of the intelligence types in the intake process in Afghanistan were quoted as saying stuff like "this guy ain't Al Queda" and "this guy ain't high-level International Taliban". And they said their views and the bases thereof were known before some of the people were put on a plane.

Then again, if the alternative to being a high-value target living on the beach in Cuba was being a regular-value target living in a Northern Alliance railcar for the last 2 years, some of these guys might later thank us for our hospitality. Though, if they are truly innocent of anything, they probably won't.

I'm still having trouble with the "kidnap" thing, and I will til something is detailed for one or more of these individuals. Specifically, I'd like to know that the prisoners were blameless entirely. But that would be shifting the non-existent burden of proof here. So failing the ability to satisfy my desire, I'd like to know that we knew, or should have known, that we had no reason to detain the detainee(s) in question.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there were cases where our people knew, or should have known etc.... But what I'd read earlier was just that they weren't guilty of Al Queda-type stuff... not that they weren't guilty of anything, e.g., Talibanship or shooting at U.S. soldiers.

Heck, in at least one case, one of the detainees to be released is said to have killed a U.S. soldier. I'm not sure what more I'd need to justify keeping him locked up for life.

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I was recently at a Jewish ceremony, and something I found very interesting in the service was that there were four or five places where a lack of knowledge on our party was acknowledged. Most such references have been edited out of the Masses where I attend.

It strikes me that the only way as a religion to denounce other religions is to claim infailiability, and even us Catholics only have a handful of infallable statements that we must believe.

I am a "recovering Catholic", so I have followed those issues to some extent. The doctrine of papal infallibiity, as well as the list of essential items that one _must_ believe to be a Catholic, are both very different than the question of whether the Catholic Church regards itself as the "one true Church", and all other religions as "false". Check out some of the recent pronouncements on that issue, even in the context of the Pope's ecumenical efforts, from Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I believe is the Prefect for the Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I saw reports on this in the mainstream media a while ago, but nothing recently. I'll see what I can find.

Actually, several of those bombers from the 1994 WTC plot are in U.S. prisons now -- including Mr. Ramzi Yousef -- the boss man who was snatched up years later from his tribal region in Pakistan by a combined U.S. /Pakistani operation under the Clinton administration. See generally:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in540376.shtml


They were closely connected to another group planning more bombings under the "spiritual guidance" of a blind Egyptian sheik Abdel Rahman. This story (above) also notes that Yousef was found in a safehouse financed by bin Laden -- and the belief that he was undergoing training there to engage in operations for al Qaeda after another operation of his in the Phillippines failed -- but mentions no proof/indication that he had been working for al Qaeda back in 1993.

S_A_M

Originally posted by sgtclub
The point being that apparently the left is only critical of military action when wielded by a member of the opposite party.

That statement is counter-factual. See Ty's earlier response.

Originally posted by sgtclub
And Clinton did not need to exagerate/make up evidence because he never sought congressional or UN approval (and the left was not too exercised over this either).

(a) I'm sure you didn't mean this the way it sounds, but you really shouldn't want to fall back on the "Oh Yeah? Well, Clinton would have done the same thing!" defense. Oh, how the bar has dropped for the GOP!

S_A_M

edited to fix tags and, because I was in the neighborhood, spelling -- T.S.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

They were closely connected to another group planning more bombings under the "spiritual guidance" of a blind Egyptian sheik Abdel Rahman. This story (above) also notes that Yousef was found in a safehouse financed by bin Laden -- and the belief that he was undergoing training there to engage in operations for al Qaeda after another operation of his in the Phillippines failed -- but mentions no proof/indication that he had been working for al Qaeda back in 1993.

S_A_M

Just to add a few details. Immediately before 9/11, and I mean IMMEDIATELY before 9/11 (like within 2 weeks preceding), the Taliban offered to release the American missionaries (remember them?) for the blind sheikh.

Additionally, media reports since 9/11 have the U.S. killing or capturing 1 or 2 of the blink Sheikh's sons in combat. Another, or perhaps one of the 2, who I believe is in custody, was named as a midlevel Al Queda leader... something like the 50 or 100 most-wanted before capture.

All from recollection, so I might be slightly off.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the military people are not using the term "kidnap" in the sense of "Sorry we kidnapped you"; I think they meant it in the sense of "We took you into custody when some Northern Alliance fighters swore on a stack of Qur'ans that you were a resistance fighter --- keep in mind here that you were a little beat up and wearing a black hood at the time, honest mistake --- and we gave them a check in accordance with our standard reward policy, but it turns out you were merely bonking the wrong chieftan's sister or something and, oh well, long story short, we're out a bunch of reward money and here's your plane ticket; and --- funny story here --- some other time we'll tell you about the unfortunate resonance this has with the way the U.S. obtained large portions of its population of African descent; and we certainly hope there won't be any diplomatic incidents arising from this, which could be messy for everyone involved, right?"

But all I know is what I read in the weblogs.

I can't find a link just yet, but i've heard some of the more extreme errors were the fault of the Islamic spys at gitmo we're just now catching. seems they bought into keeping these guys to embaress us, all for the greater good of Allah. is it a coincidence the spys getting caught is in the same month as these guys getting released?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Bilmore -- you obviously put time and effort into this response -- but I think that you did not squarely and fairly address Ty's rather simple question -- as evidenced by the considerable effort you spent explaining why the administration had good reason to believe that what it said was true and to act as it did. See below:

Originally posted by bilmore
I've said earlier that I think Bush & Co. sold their view - hard. I see nothing wrong with doing that. As to WMD's, I read everything as saying that SH had the capability, and was working to rebuild his industries of production. He had chem weaps, (and had used them), and everyone (and I mean everyone, from Clinton to the UN) thought he was further along in ownership that he (apparently) was.

Originally posted by bilmore
A lie? Not to me, especially when Bush & Co. made it clear that waiting for an imminent threat would be foolish.

That wasn't the question. Ty asked if you could concede that they said some things that have proven to be not true, and hw would concede lack of evidence of mens rea for lying.

Originally posted by bilmore
We haven't found the WMD's yet, and I don't think we will, but this doesn't make me think that anyone lied to me, or even said things that weren't true. {ed. Note -- There we are!} Closest I can come to that is Powell's UN show, and I doubt very much if anything was faked, or mis-explained, or was wrong - I think Powell would have had to have had a hand in that, and I can't see that happening.

Bilmore -- You're apparently forgetting some very clear staetments that the administration made while making their case on WMD that have been pretty well determined not to be true.

To wit:

G.W. Bush -- March 17, 2003 -- Address to the Nation:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Hmmm. Really??

With further research, I have realized that they were more careful and cautious than I had remembered, and it brings to mind my posts arguing about the "impression" Cheney, et al. sought to create without actually quite saying the words.

But -- if you're not willing to admit that the administration said pre-War turned out to be inaccurate or "not true" -- I think you've got some fairly good-sized blinders.

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree we have a mess, but disagree with the premise that it is an unexpected mess. I think it is exactly where I expected it to be way back when we first went in, and I think that our current status is entirely understandable. It's a tough thing to do, when such large hordes of thugs have a vested interest in either returning SH to power, or filling the vaccuum themselves.

Ok. I don't disagree that our current status is understandable. Geez, from the sound of it I wish you were the President's National Security Advisor (only half-kidding.)

I'd love for you to point to one shred of evidence that our government understood that this stuff might well happen, and planned for it -- and prepared our citizenry for such an eventuality before launching the war. You'll have to go beyond a few throw-away words about sacrifice. Rumsfeld, e.g., publicly disagreed completely with Gen. Shalikashvili's testimony that it would take troop levels in the six figures for several years to occupy and pacify Iraq. The White House flatly refused to discuss potential costs of the operation with Congress until well after the war began. There was, in my view, no honest, intelligent, and forthright debate over the cost, benefits, and dangers of the course of action on which the administration set our country.

As you posted this on December 1, 2003, I'll agree with your statement that "Bush made no secret of how hard it would be months ago" -- but did he make that clear back in mid-May, when he flew out to the aircraft carrier in his spiffy flight suit with his big "Mission Accomplished" Banner?? Did he ever make that clear before launching the war? Is there any sign that the administration expected to take more casualties after the end of "major combat operations" than during? Did they have the right troop mix in place to enforce order and police a populace? Or -- did they expect the Iraqi state apparatus to hold together (a HUGE miscalculation)?

Originally posted by bilmore
To talk about how this is unexpectedly hard is revisionist cra . . . (OK, less partisan . . .) stuff.

Not so. See above.

[Skeks in the city]

What do you all say to this argument by Professor Alan S. Blinder?

Many people are skeptical about this argument for the following reason. Suppose the average American worker earns ten dollars per hour, while the average Japanese worker earns just six dollars per hour. Won't free trade make it impossible to defend the higher American wage? Won't there instead be a leveling down until, say, both American and Japanese workers earn eight dollars per hour? The answer, once again, is no. And specialization is part of the reason.

If there were only one industry and occupation in which people could work, then free trade would indeed force American wages close to Japanese levels if Japanese workers were as good as Americans (and who doubts that?). But modern economies are composed of many industries and occupations. If America concentrates its employment where it does best, there is no reason why American wages cannot remain far above Japanese wages for a long time—even though the two nations trade freely. A country's wage level depends fundamentally on the productivity of its labor force, not on its trade policy. As long as American workers remain more skilled and better educated, work with more capital, and use superior technology, they will continue to earn higher wages than their Japanese counterparts. If and when these advantages end, the wage gap will disappear. Trade is a mere detail that helps ensure that American labor is employed where, in Adam Smith's phrase, it has some advantage.

Blinder link

I think Blinder's off base because he's focusing on aggregate productivity, which is basically irrelevant. People don't elect leaders to maximize the world's GDP; they elect their leaders to maximize their slice of the pie. Trade and immigration barriers protect relatively unskilled workers in the US and other developed countries from their competition abroad. Furthermore, the conservatives who favor removing immigration and trade barriers have no plan whatsoever to increase taxes on skilled workers to compensated the unskilled workers whose wages are being bid down by third world workers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
What do you all say to this argument by Professor Alan S. Blinder?



Blinder link

I think Blinder's off base because he's focusing on aggregate productivity, which is basically irrelevant. People don't elect leaders to maximize the world's GDP; they elect their leaders to maximize their slice of the pie. Trade and immigration barriers protect relatively unskilled workers in the US and other developed countries from their competition abroad. Furthermore, the conservatives who favor removing immigration and trade barriers have no plan whatsoever to increase taxes on skilled workers to compensated the unskilled workers whose wages are being bid down by third world workers.

You and Blinder are both right. The political impact of what you're saying, IMHO, is that some of the net social benefit created by free trade should be taxed (in the economic sense, but probably also in the usual sense) and used to improve the situation of those who are hurt by free trade. The sad fact, however, is that those who are the strongest advocates of free trade are generally the least interested in identifying ways to make the latter work, and those who have the constituencies who will be hurt by free trade put their energy into trying to block it rather than obtaining this relief.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'd love for you to point to one shred of evidence that our government understood that this stuff might well happen, and planned for it -- and prepared our citizenry for such an eventuality before launching the war.

When you read about the actual planning, it's just mind-boggling how bad it was. Old friend Douglas Feith emerges here, too.