Well Titus, I found one out of four of your answers predictable to say the least. However on three points we agree. In open combat a sniper is justified because it ceases to be assassination as defined. No problem there. Openly declaring that a leader of a said state is in our cross hairs, then sending in the insertion team, again, not assassination as defined. On putting the ability to assassinate, read covertly kill, leaders of state - I truly at this point am unreconciled on that. As far as foreign nationals go - harness the pink mist by all means, if they are deemed a "clear and present danger", read TERRORIST. Less we forget Clinton went to great lengths to brag about how "I tried to kill him" (Bin Laden) when on FOX News with Chris Wallace directly after that ABC "The Path To 9/11" program aired which painted him (accurately so in my opinion) as soft, or at least incompetent (treating it like a police action) on terrorists.
The last one, diplomatic immunity - listen, I've read history books. I know how fundamentally taboo it has been for thousands of years to kill a "messenger" of an opposing nation (i.e. diplomat). And I wasn't even advocating it. I was simply asking the question using an extreme hypothetical example. What disappointed me about your answer was once again your posing the question - what would China do? "How would rouge nation A, B, or C be expected to succumb to such laws and tradition if we don't?" That's a very weak argument in my estimation and I think covertly ignored by almost all war time presidents. And I'm talking now of that line of reasoning itself, not the diplomatic immunity issue . And I say that because such a thought lends itself to arguing against water boarding terrorists, coercive interrogation, etc. Undoubtedly (I may be wrong on this) you feel those methods are torture and unnacceptable. I do not. And I sure as hell don't buy the idea that if we engage in such behavior and methods that it will "set a bad precedent" and the net result will be that more of our guys are tortured, not with the enemy we face now at least.
Look - this is not the American Revolution. We are not going to arrange officer exchanges and the like. These are not gentleman soldiers. This line of reasoning was repeated by some in Vietnam and still our guys were tortured. And the extremists we are fighting globally, especially in Iraq, won't recognize one one hundredth of the Geneva Protocols as the NVC did. So, if you want to argue that due to tradition, current law, and geopolitics that it behooves us to honor the long standing practice of "don't shoot the messenger", then fine, I'm 99% with you (I reserve the right to shoot Bin Laden on site even if he's the ambassador from the UK!), but don't give me this BS about what will "they" think? Because the "they" we face now doesn't think, they act - as the fascistic monsters they are and no amount of example setting will curry favor with those desert dwelling guillotine operators. Not waterboarding won't save the life of even one US Marine if captured; but it sure as hell may save him if we do.
Oh - almost forgot, the subject header - the GOP debate in New Hampshire was tonight, and it was quite fiery. I've said it before, all the interesting/grown up talk is going on within the GOP. Well, amidst this Giuliani says, "Consider this. The three top contenders on the Democrat side never ran a city, never ran a state, and never ran a business. This is not the time for executive on the job training." And he's right, neither Hillary, Obama, nor Edwards have ever been an executive. And history bodes well for the GOP here. The voting US population has only elected two non-executives to the presidency in the last 100 years. Lets see if you can name them (this should be child's play for the Bund).
And Thompson skipped the debate in order to announce his candidacy on Leno. I didn't care for that move. It's appealing to the lowest common denominator and it is associating the office of the presidency, in a very real way, with pop-culture - and I said that to Ang before Rush did by the way, but did he give me credit, NO, typical. Thompson said it was because he could reach more people through Leno than the debates. Sadly, he's probably right.
Last but not least. To do anything other than legally INSIST that immigrants learn English is doing them a disservice and is in my estimation, bigoted, and I'll tell you why. The thought that it's "too hard" for them, or placing an undue "burden" upon them is the same as saying, "they aren't smart enough", or they simply "can't" - that's racism if I ever saw it.
And to the disservice aspect, financially I think that point is clear and undeniable - learn English if you want a three car garage, it's as simple as that. But more than that it's dangerous for them not to learn. Road signs, police commands, emergency room encounters, avoiding scams (including taxes) etc - undoubtedly the vast majority of the people they will be dealing with in those sometimes life and death situations will be speaking English. "Pressing two for English" isn't an annoyance, it's enabling dangerous scenarios for the new immigrant. THAT is an undue burden, and far outwheighs the "uncomfortability" of not having a bilingual counter representative at the DMV for FU*** SAKE!.
Furthermore, not insisting new immigrants be able to speak the English language is tantamount to the 19 century practice of disallowing slaves the ability to become literate. It keeps them in the fields, cleaning toilets, and doing unskilled labor. It denies them the keys to success and safety in this nation. Making it the official language of America says to the immigrant, "we want you to be a part of America." It says we care, it says we desire their success. And I'll tell you this - insisting they learn English WILL DO MORE TO FURTHER THEIR LOT IN LIFE THAN ALL OF YOUR BS SOCIAL PROGRAMS ... COMBINED !!!!
Just my informed opinion. That's all.
-FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Warren Harding and John F. Kennedy. You're right. Child's play.
Gerald Ford was never elected, but had no executive experience either.
I hate to nit pick. I really do. But as a point of history this is bothering me.
Harding and Kennedy are the only two SENATORS to be elected President in the 20th century. BUT...
Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, and Nixon also lacked "executive" experience in the sense of running a city or a state. Granted, Hoover ran buinsess interests in China in the early days of the century, and chaired numerous committees before and after his tenure as President, but was not "executive" as Giuliani classified it. Teddy Roosevelt was governor of New York. Taft was appointed governor of the Phillipines. Wilson was governor of New Jersey. Coolidge was governor of Mass. FDR, New York. Carter, Georgia, Reagan, California, Bill, Arkansas and GW Texas.
According to Giuliani's formula, George Sr. should have lost to Dukakis, as George Sr. had no executive experience either. (That's a joke, by the way.) That also means that, technically, our next president should be Jeb. At least he's Catholic.
Jambo,
First off, I wasn't using Guliani's standard (city, state, or business)when I wrote that except for twice in the last 100 years we have always elected presidents with previous executive experience. That being said, let me now take apart what you wrote. Iknow you consider yourself THE historical voice of the Bund (well earned narccissism by the way), this may be painful to read.
You, as a point of history, are wrong on two counts. Truman DID have executive experience when he was "elected" president - he had been president for three years! Remember - the crtieria I spoke of was "elected" president - I thought you clearly got that point when mentioning Ford.
Secondly, I -and this is subjective but I think justified - am giving "executive experience" status to Eisenhower. I think his executive experience would be glaringly obvious, especially to you. I think being in charge of the combined Allied forces in Europe qualifies - not to mention managing the egos of Monty & Patton (ha!).
Also, I am assigning executive experience "status" to VP's, it IS afterall an executive office, just not the "cheif."
With Hoover, he once said "a man that isn't a millionaire by the time he's 40, isn't worth much." I assume he thought that was a clever pun - didn't serve him well during the Depression though. My point is that he had what was considered at the time, vast executive experience in the business world, and you mentioned his China affairs.
So although you ARE acurrate, they are the only two Senators elected to the office of the presidency in the last 100 years,thus far, I stand by my statement that except for twice in those same 100 years, the US has elected only men with previous executive experience, either in the public or private sector. If you can disprove that, I'll conceed. But were that to occur it still remains that the GOP, historically, is at least hsitorically favored in this election.
FR
No, I'll give you Eisenhower without any arguement, and Hoover's business experience fits the criteria. I was more nit picking MY comment, not your observation.
Okay, I just wrote a HUGE comment… and it disappeared from the web. So, I wrote another… and it, TOO, vanished.
I wasn’t suggesting that the “terrorists” would get pissed at our using torture techniques and up the number of attacks themselves. Rather, I was saying that it seems mighty difficult for the US to condemn Saddam for using torture at Abu Ghraib for nearly 25 years, when we are using the same actions against suspected terrorists ourselves. To me, the analogy would be to use a 10 megaton nuclear bomb on the Iranian research facility most likely to produce an Iranian nuclear bomb… simply so the chance of a bomb being used by Iran never happens. Where is the “moral high ground” then?
Not to mention the very simple but very important fact that most intelligence agencies (including ALL of our own) clearly state that information gained by torture is NEVER trustworthy. It seems even the CIA and the NSA have learned something from their professional ancestors in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch-hunters, doesn’t it?
Honestly, though… this is as asinine a discussion as we could manage, isn’t it? When is it okay for the US to publicly decry AND sacrifice thousands of American lives in the pursuit of a world without terror and torture, then to use the same devices and tactics to reach that goal.
To deny that the Abu Ghraib fiasco was a public relations disaster of the first magnitude for the Administration is absolutely simple… and what did it get us? Nothing. The ONLY saving grace to that nightmare was the it was clearly shown to NOT have been something the Administration was aware of prior to the story breaking.
Now, do I think that the prisoners at Gitmo are being treated the same way? No. It is my understanding (from the most objective sources I can find) that they are treated far better than common criminals in the US prison system today… which is good, as none of these men (that’s right, not ONE) have been charged with a single crime. However, they were captured in the act of firing on or supporting an attack on US personnel during the War on Terror, which I think does give the US at least some latitude in its interpretation of international incarceration practices.
None the less, some of these men have been in custody since Oct. of 2001... That’s really close to 6 years in a cell. If they haven’t spilled all they knew by now… maybe they aren’t going to. I mean for God’s sake, look at how the world has changed in 6 years… Saddam Hussein was not only alive, but still the undisputed ruler of Iraq; only 1700 bodies had been recovered from Ground Zero, John Kerry was still 100% behind the President and hadn’t thought of running for office yet, and Ronald Reagan was still very much alive. What can these guys know that would help us out even a little bit?
In conclusion, not only do I think torture is morally wrong, but it is completely counter productive to our efforts, at every level. What little we might gain from using it in the short term, only comes back to haunt us in the long run later.
T
I think we need to differentiate between torture, which happened at Abu Garib and was not sanctioned by the US Army, and interrogation, which is the water board FR elludes to. I'm sure no one asked those naked, hooded, posed prisoners any questions, they were just tortured and humiliated because they were there. That is the deffiniation of torture, after all. Pain for the sake of pain, punitive or otherwise. Interrogation gives a person information. So along those lines, I don't think anyone is advocating torture. But rigorous interrogation is more than acceptable, it is necessary.
I would agree with you here, Jambo… but as I stated in a response above, the use of sleep deprivation and water-boarding is patently illegal in the US. How then is it alright to employ it to non-Americans (or even Americans, as at least one of the men at Gitmo was an American citizen).
I know intelligence is vital to the effort, and extreme means are sometimes needed. None the less, information gained illegally in the US is regularly referred to as the “forbidden fruit”, and is unusable in criminal and civil proceedings. Is it ethically “okay” to employ these methods as a matter of policy while fighting the War on Terror?
Weren’t the actions of the FDR Administration in incarcerating and detaining thousands of Americans of German and Japanese decent deemed illegal? Does that make the war effort immoral or unethical? No, only those limited actions and policies. Because we are again at war, does that mean we should go back to conducting illegal detentions or interrogations?
I say no.
Post a Comment