The Law of Unintended Consequences
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here:
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands. ...
Just for giggles, let's grant that Matthew Yglesias ... and (perhaps) John Carson ... are correct. NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic. Isn't is amazing how frequently "liberals" spill the beans?
-
John Carson wrote:
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here:
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands. ...
Just for giggles, let's grant that Matthew Yglesias ... and (perhaps) John Carson ... are correct. NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic. Isn't is amazing how frequently "liberals" spill the beans?
Ilíon wrote:
Just for giggles, let's grant that Matthew Yglesias ... and (perhaps) John Carson ... are correct. NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. I'm guessing you had the conclusion beforehand and the article has had no impact on you. One of the main points of Yglesias's remarks is that, if Pelosi and some other Democrats are in the firing line, then investigating torture cannot be seen as "victor's justice". Rather, it really is a matter of legitimate enquiry. Yglesias analyses the strategic aspects of it, as any commentator is entitled to. That in no way leads to the conclusion that there is no point of principle at stake.
John Carson
-
Ilíon wrote:
Just for giggles, let's grant that Matthew Yglesias ... and (perhaps) John Carson ... are correct. NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. I'm guessing you had the conclusion beforehand and the article has had no impact on you. One of the main points of Yglesias's remarks is that, if Pelosi and some other Democrats are in the firing line, then investigating torture cannot be seen as "victor's justice". Rather, it really is a matter of legitimate enquiry. Yglesias analyses the strategic aspects of it, as any commentator is entitled to. That in no way leads to the conclusion that there is no point of principle at stake.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. I'm guessing you had the conclusion beforehand and the article has had no impact on you.
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands. ...
and
Ilíon wrote:
NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic.
For the *really* slow amongst us, I didn't claim to be stating a conclusion, but rather noticing a confirmation of, or at minimum a correlation with, an already existing belief about "liberal" whinging about the "evil" Bush administration.
modified on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:00 AM
-
John Carson wrote:
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. I'm guessing you had the conclusion beforehand and the article has had no impact on you.
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands. ...
and
Ilíon wrote:
NOW: What does this tells us? Why, it reminds us, once again, that all that "liberal" shrieking about "torture" by the "evil" Bush administration has/had nothing to do with any principle, but is/was merely a strategy, or even just a tactic.
For the *really* slow amongst us, I didn't claim to be stating a conclusion, but rather noticing a confirmation of, or at minimum a correlation with, an already existing belief about "liberal" whinging about the "evil" Bush administration.
modified on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:00 AM
Ilíon wrote:
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands. ...
I addressed this in my earlier comment. "Yglesias analyses the strategic aspects of it, as any commentator is entitled to. That in no way leads to the conclusion that there is no point of principle at stake." Conflicts over principle, just like conflicts over most things, have their strategic aspects. This is true, and a third party can analyse it, even when neither side is trying to act strategically. Even when both sides are deliberately behaving strategically, that doesn't mean there is no issue of principle involved. Presumably you think that anti-abortionists are pursuing a principle. Do they ignore strategy? Do they consider where to target their lobbying efforts, which of several possible arguments to emphasise, how aggressive a tone they should adopt...?
John Carson
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
-
Rich Lowry: A martyr to self-righteousness[^]
You are completely missing the point which is that, even if Pelosi crashes and burns, the attack on her has made a thorough investigation of the torture issue more likely. By the way, not everyone shares Lowry's perspective. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/43_say_cia_may_have_misled_pelosi_41_disagree[^]
John Carson
-
You are completely missing the point which is that, even if Pelosi crashes and burns, the attack on her has made a thorough investigation of the torture issue more likely. By the way, not everyone shares Lowry's perspective. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/43_say_cia_may_have_misled_pelosi_41_disagree[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
the attack on her
the idiot shot herself in the mouth with her foot, does that happen to be the attack you reference?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
the attack on her
the idiot shot herself in the mouth with her foot, does that happen to be the attack you reference?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
the attack on her
the idiot shot herself in the mouth with her foot, does that happen to be the attack you reference?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the idiot shot herself in the mouth with her foot
Your usual unbiased interpretation. Opinion polling doesn't suggest that the American people have delivered such an unambiguous verdict, but I guess they are just a bunch of leftist extremists anyway.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does that happen to be the attack you reference?
Republicans have been talking about Democrats knowing about and going along with the Bush torture policies ("enhanced interrogation") for years. Regardless of the extent to which Democratic complicity is a fact, putting it on the table makes it possible to investigate the whole issue without it appearing to be as partisan an investigation as might otherwise be the case.
John Carson
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
John, it really doesn't matter what Yglesias says. The truth is we already know that the Bush, Cheny, etc. approved of waterboarding. As Joe Scarborough puts it - a large segment of the general populace believes that most Republicans have a home waterboarding kit in their garage. :) What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars. What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings. Meanwhile far more important issues will be ignored. The coverage of Pelosi for instance, far outweighs the coverage of the discovery of the rapid increase in the size of stockpile of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. net result: Reps: - 1; Dems: -5; America: - 10.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John, it really doesn't matter what Yglesias says. The truth is we already know that the Bush, Cheny, etc. approved of waterboarding. As Joe Scarborough puts it - a large segment of the general populace believes that most Republicans have a home waterboarding kit in their garage. :) What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars. What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings. Meanwhile far more important issues will be ignored. The coverage of Pelosi for instance, far outweighs the coverage of the discovery of the rapid increase in the size of stockpile of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. net result: Reps: - 1; Dems: -5; America: - 10.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars.
I think a lot of things might be revealed and I think that looking torture in the face is a bit different from discussing it in the abstract. I think that the authors of the torture policy may come out of it looking considerably worse than they do now. By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law. As such, it should be pretty marginal to any enquiry concerned with illegal torture.
Oakman wrote:
What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings.
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime. Thus this "just as likely" claim is complete BS. There are two reasons why prominent Republicans are unlikely to be charged: 1. It would be politically divisive, 2. It would be hard to get a conviction. The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the idiot shot herself in the mouth with her foot
Your usual unbiased interpretation. Opinion polling doesn't suggest that the American people have delivered such an unambiguous verdict, but I guess they are just a bunch of leftist extremists anyway.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
does that happen to be the attack you reference?
Republicans have been talking about Democrats knowing about and going along with the Bush torture policies ("enhanced interrogation") for years. Regardless of the extent to which Democratic complicity is a fact, putting it on the table makes it possible to investigate the whole issue without it appearing to be as partisan an investigation as might otherwise be the case.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Your usual unbiased unvarnished interpretation.
FIFY - You Betcha.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars.
I think a lot of things might be revealed and I think that looking torture in the face is a bit different from discussing it in the abstract. I think that the authors of the torture policy may come out of it looking considerably worse than they do now. By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law. As such, it should be pretty marginal to any enquiry concerned with illegal torture.
Oakman wrote:
What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings.
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime. Thus this "just as likely" claim is complete BS. There are two reasons why prominent Republicans are unlikely to be charged: 1. It would be politically divisive, 2. It would be hard to get a conviction. The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars.
I think a lot of things might be revealed and I think that looking torture in the face is a bit different from discussing it in the abstract. I think that the authors of the torture policy may come out of it looking considerably worse than they do now. By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law. As such, it should be pretty marginal to any enquiry concerned with illegal torture.
Oakman wrote:
What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings.
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime. Thus this "just as likely" claim is complete BS. There are two reasons why prominent Republicans are unlikely to be charged: 1. It would be politically divisive, 2. It would be hard to get a conviction. The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
gawd are you naive.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime
:omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: :omg: Now I remember why I typically avoid this place...
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Now I remember why I typically avoid this place...
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting? A little reality for you Mike, unpleasant though it may be. The Republican Administration instituted policy of torture, carried out by various government employees and contractors, and given a veneer of legitimacy by DOJ lawyers. Some Democrats may have been informed that it was going on in national security briefings that, by law, they were forbidden from publicising and did not publicise. So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Your usual unbiased unvarnished interpretation.
FIFY - You Betcha.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
FIFY - You Betcha.
I see that you have entered your second childhood.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars.
I think a lot of things might be revealed and I think that looking torture in the face is a bit different from discussing it in the abstract. I think that the authors of the torture policy may come out of it looking considerably worse than they do now. By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law. As such, it should be pretty marginal to any enquiry concerned with illegal torture.
Oakman wrote:
What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings.
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime. Thus this "just as likely" claim is complete BS. There are two reasons why prominent Republicans are unlikely to be charged: 1. It would be politically divisive, 2. It would be hard to get a conviction. The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime.
That even got me drawn in. All I can do is :laugh:
You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
FIFY - You Betcha.
I see that you have entered your second childhood.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Now I remember why I typically avoid this place...
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting? A little reality for you Mike, unpleasant though it may be. The Republican Administration instituted policy of torture, carried out by various government employees and contractors, and given a veneer of legitimacy by DOJ lawyers. Some Democrats may have been informed that it was going on in national security briefings that, by law, they were forbidden from publicising and did not publicise. So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting?
Huh? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this topic because I've not stated them.
John Carson wrote:
So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
In this particular instance... I have no idea if they have committed a crime. Your statement was not specific to this instance though. It was a blanket statement that implies you are the one with "reality" problems.