Politics As Usual

[the Spartan]

Maybe I didn't read the story carefully enough. Are there claims that panties were put on the kids head.

If so, I am outraged.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At the most basic level, cities that can't afford to pay more for cops get the ones they deserve. If you're a good cop, do you stay in Oakland or take a job in (e.g.) Kensington? Let's not even get into the whole social-conditions-as-the-basis-for-unrest stuff that conservatives are deploying as an excuse for fuck-ups in Iraq.

So let me get this straight. Only the greedy cops are "good cops" or, altenatively, the cops that are less concerned with the amount of money they are making are more prone to be "bad cops"? Is that what you are saying? It seems to me that goes against liberal doctrine.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "social conditions as the basis for unrest"

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you saying that police in wealthy white suburbs never abuse African-American suspects? Please, Ty -- you won the argument with Penske (Wahhabi Repub sputtering when confronted with US torture of prisoners is entertaining, but not really in the way it is intended), but you're going off the deep end here.

aha indeed!.

BTW, I have coopted the Wahabbi Republican thing and it is now officially an endearingly complimentary term.

[sgtclub]

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407070856.asp

First article I've found which discusses Iraq/war on terror in an objective light.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
[size=1][ASIDE]Or maybe your idea of doing something about this "type of ritualized abuse of rights" that troubles you so is to post the latest pictures of Hillary and Kerry?

I forgot to respond to this one. Please note that I also sometimes post the latest pictures of Saddam. And Michael Moore. And my photoshoppe skillz r madd crazee.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by the Spartan
BTW, I have coopted the Wahabbi Republican thing and it is now officially an endearingly complimentary term.

Use it in a sentence praising Bush and Cheney and maybe I'll believe you. Until then, I invented it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
First article I've found which discusses Iraq/war on terror in an objective light.

The author uses the following strawman:

"If you think the West should have been willing to take a chance with Saddam — leaving him alone unless there was, say, a 95-percent certainty that he was on the verge of acquiring the bomb — then the attack was unnecessary."

Please. No credible person has ever suggested that "95% certainty" should have been the threshold. But something more than rhetoric about mushroom clouds and bunch of false information would have been nice.

Given that, calling this discussion "objective" is up there with talking about the $10 trillion budget in the annals of Club-dom.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The author uses the following strawman:

"If you think the West should have been willing to take a chance with Saddam — leaving him alone unless there was, say, a 95-percent certainty that he was on the verge of acquiring the bomb — then the attack was unnecessary."

Please. No credible person has ever suggested that "95% certainty" should have been the threshold. But something more than rhetoric about mushroom clouds and bunch of false information would have been nice.

Given that, calling this discussion "objective" is up there with talking about the $10 trillion budget in the annals of Club-dom.

Come on, Sidd, you know that the actual percentage is not crucial to the article. It was chosen for the sake of example.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Come on, Sidd, you know that the actual percentage is not crucial to the article. It was chosen for the sake of example.

Disagree. It's a silly, strawman argument. The author tries to suggest that either you agree that invading Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, or that you believe that 95% certainty was required.

The author also manipulates history by suggesting that the war was intended to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, as opposed to being about eliminating the WMDs that he already had. I don't recall anyone in the Admin saying "we realize Saddam has no WMDs, but he may be trying to get them, so... badda-bing, badda-boom."

Other comments are interesting, but generally I disagree with them. These are more subjective/judgment call questions. Have we really deterred Iran from harboring terrorists? Given how poorly the occupation has gone, I doubt it. I think we may have the contrary effect, by creating an "Iraq syndrome" similar to the lauded "Vietnam syndrome."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It has everything to do with the individual cops on the beat. There are a lot of great cops out there, but there are also some sickos that take it over the line without cause.

I think police abuse isn't a matter of good cops or bad cops. Even good cops will respond with excess if put in the wrong kind of situation. Enough time in the system convinces you that in at least some of your encounters with the criminal element, the punishment you inflict will be the only punishment they will ever receive. If you are a vessel of justice, you'll get in a couple of extra kicks and blows or the injustice will be too much for you to stand. Once you believe you are working for the good guys, you will soon be crossing those lines with the best of intentions --- it won't even change you into a bad cop, just a zealous one.

Almost all cops will lie on the stand once in their careers in order to win a close suppression motion --- the only difference between good cops and bad cops is how convinced they need to be of the perp's ultimate guilt before they feel okay doing it.

The only way to deal with the problem is to ensure there are efficient and effective means to oversee the institutions with a monopoly on legitimate violence --- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Disagree. It's a silly, strawman argument. The author tries to suggest that either you agree that invading Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, or that you believe that 95% certainty was required.

Then why insert the word "say" before 95%?

The author also manipulates history by suggesting that the war was intended to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, as opposed to being about eliminating the WMDs that he already had. I don't recall anyone in the Admin saying "we realize Saddam has no WMDs, but he may be trying to get them, so... badda-bing, badda-boom."

I think you are just plain wrong here, but I'm too lazy to google.

Other comments are interesting, but generally I disagree with them. These are more subjective/judgment call questions. Have we really deterred Iran from harboring terrorists? Given how poorly the occupation has gone, I doubt it. I think we may have the contrary effect, by creating an "Iraq syndrome" similar to the lauded "Vietnam syndrome."

That is one of the main points of the article, as I read it. These were judgement calls, and many may not agree with the judgements ultimately made.

[sgtclub]

Drudge is reporting that Ken Lay has been indicted.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Coast Guard?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Then why insert the word "say" before 95%?

Because that's the hypothetical he is posing, and it creates a strawman article.

If he had instead said "Say, for example, one thinks that we should have had credible evidence of WMDs that was not riddled with the contradictions and credibility issues that we have discovered in recent months," then the sentence would have ended a bit differently.

I think you are just plain wrong here, but I'm too lazy to google.

A search of Bush and badda-bing does not return any hits about the buildup to the Iraq war. It returns some other rather interesting links, but that's besides the point.

That is one of the main points of the article, as I read it. These were judgement calls, and many may not agree with the judgements ultimately made.

Right, and I'm questioning the judgment that the author makes. This is me trying to engage you in a discussion, in part to counter the image of me as 100% nasty. In that vein, I will avoid references to "the sound of one hand clapping."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think police abuse isn't a matter of good cops or bad cops. Even good cops will respond with excess if put in the wrong kind of situation. Enough time in the system convinces you that in at least some of your encounters with the criminal element, the punishment you inflict will be the only punishment they will ever receive. If you are a vessel of justice, you'll get in a couple of extra kicks and blows or the injustice will be too much for you to stand. Once you believe you are working for the good guys, you will soon be crossing those lines with the best of intentions --- it won't even change you into a bad cop, just a zealous one.

Almost all cops will lie on the stand once in their careers in order to win a close suppression motion --- the only difference between good cops and bad cops is how convinced they need to be of the perp's ultimate guilt before they feel okay doing it.

The only way to deal with the problem is to ensure there are efficient and effective means to oversee the institutions with a monopoly on legitimate violence --- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Either that, or break the monopoly. As we've learned in Iraq, the private sector does a wicked cool job meting out violence, especially when prisoners are involved.