Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He's been my call for a couple years now. I think Kerry/Dems are crazy (funny that) not to pick him.

I was just telling my sister that I'd rather Kerry pick Richardson than any of the people (Gephardt,* Edwards, Vilsack) rumored to be under serious consideration.


* Especially Gephardt.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I was just telling my sister that I'd rather Kerry pick Richardson than any of the people (Gephardt,* Edwards, Vilsack) rumored to be under serious consideration.


* Especially Gephardt.

I still think Edwards makes Kerry the man to beat. No so, with the others.

Of course, this completely ignores the bumps that W gets when (1) Rummy walks in July after the handoff and (2) we somehow find [wink, wink] Bin Laden.

[sgtclub]

The WSJ editorial page made an interesting point this morning in connection with torturegate, which essentially is: Haven't we just severely hampered our interrogation efforts, given that the world now knows what we are and are not willing to do?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The WSJ editorial page made an interesting point this morning in connection with torturegate, which essentially is: Haven't we just severely hampered our interrogation efforts, given that the world now knows what we are and are not willing to do?

Miranda hasn't exactly stopped confessions.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was just telling my sister that I'd rather Kerry pick Richardson than any of the people (Gephardt,* Edwards, Vilsack) rumored to be under serious consideration.


* Especially Gephardt.

I think Gephardt is the only prominent politician who makes me less interested than Kerry.

I think Richardson and Edwards are both good choices. I wonder if Richardson's impact in the West outweighs Edwards impact in the South.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Miranda hasn't exactly stopped confessions.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying this doesn't change the incentives to cooperate?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I still think Edwards makes Kerry the man to beat. No so, with the others.

Of course, this completely ignores the bumps that W gets when (1) Rummy walks in July after the handoff and (2) we somehow find [wink, wink] Bin Laden.

I agree, and that's the way the Dems have handled this whole race and how we got stuck with the "electable" Kerry.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying this doesn't change the incentives to cooperate?

I'm saying that the fact some well-educated people are aware of the limits of prosecutorial conduct does not mean that every person being interrogated knows the precise limits of what may be done.

Besides, didn't the Geneva Convention already create these supposed limits?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I agree, and that's the way the Dems have handled this whole race and how we got stuck with the "electable" Kerry.

In thinking this over, does it really matter who the VP is? It seems to me that a VP choice can only hurt, not help (see Quail).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm saying that the fact some well-educated people are aware of the limits of prosecutorial conduct does not mean that every person being interrogated knows the precise limits of what may be done.

Besides, didn't the Geneva Convention already create these supposed limits?

Maybe I give AQ too much credit, but it seems to me they are very educated as as to our processes and political constraints, and have crafted their terror manuals accordingly. As this has now been broadcasted around the world, I can see the next manual instructing operative not to talk if captured, because the Americans will not really harm you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In thinking this over, does it really matter who the VP is? It seems to me that a VP choice can only hurt, not help (see Quail).

So, it doesn't matter, because a VP choice can only hurt? In a way, that makes it even more important.

You don't think that the adult, responsible, experienced Cheney helped Bush?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Maybe I give AQ too much credit, but it seems to me they are very educated as as to our processes and political constraints, and have crafted their terror manuals accordingly. As this has now been broadcasted around the world, I can see the next manual instructing operative not to talk if captured, because the Americans will not really harm you.

I bet the heads of drug organizations in the US are educated as to constraints, but that doesn't stop the little guys from getting scared and spilling their guts. I bet the top guys are aware and will remember, even under stress, but the little guys don't.

Unless you are basically saying that anyone who works for AQ is better educated and more sophisticated than the many stupid-ass people in this country who spill their guts all over the place, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can see the next manual instructing operative not to talk if captured, because the Americans will not really harm you.

Do you think the current manual says spill the beans?

It's a lot bigger picture than just al qaeda and comes down to a debate on whether tortute is morally justified in order to extract what is believed to be important information. I now know you're a utilitarian, so I certainly understand where you're coming from. But international rules against torture don't benefit only our enemies.

(also, is "al qaeda" a GC signatory? If not, can't we wack off heads just like they do?)

ETA: and, yeah, what fringey said. People sing for reasons unrelated to torture. For example, "if bin Ladin promised you 20 virgins in heaven, we'll promise you 20 virgins in heaven-on-earth, known as the USA. Your other choice is this dingy dirt hole. Care to cooperate?"

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Miranda hasn't exactly stopped confessions.

Really? Don't you think that most people "lawyer up" knowing - as your hourly Dick Wolf production will tell you - that calling for a lawyer immediately ties the hands of Briscoe and Green?

[sgtclub]

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program." He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2921-3401r.htm