Sometimes when you’re reading a speech, you miss something which strikes you only when you see it in isolation. And so it was when, in these posts, I caught this line from the President’s speech Wednesday to the United Nations:
For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.
Instead of referencing this nation’s achievements in the 232 1/2 years prior to his inauguration, Mr. Obama tells us what he has done since he took office.
He may talk about “responsibly ending a war” in Iraq, but he doesn’t mention the word, victory, nor the tyrant we overthrew, a tyrant who, by the way, had repeatedly snubbed his nose at the United Nations, you know, the institution he was addressing.
He does not mention how we helped liberate a continent from fascist tyranny. And the only time he mentions the President who led us to that great victory (a word absent from his discourse) was to reference his “vision for this institution” (i.e., the United Nations).
Nor did mention how Presidents of both parties stood strong against communism and for freedom, waging and subsequently winning the Cold War, bringing down the Iron Curtain and bringing freedom and economic growth to the long-suffering peoples of central and eastern Europe. Well, he did reference the Cold War, just once, reminding us that it was “long-gone.” Does he even appreciate how American policies made that so?
He does not mention the great promise of this nation, how our ideals have inspired people around the world and how millions flock to our shores eager to share in the promise of America. He does not once mention the word, “liberty” and mentions “freedom” only twice (and neither time in reference to the principles undergirding this republic).
But, he mentions his promise to close Guantanamo even as his administration admits it doesn’t have a plan to do so. Now, there is nothing wrong with him listing his team’s accomplishments and its plans. But, to do so as a means to rebut “those who question the character and cause of my nation” is the height of hubris, almost the definition of narcissism.
Perhaps, the President does have an appreciation for the greatness of this nation, but he sure doesn’t show it in his speeches, particularly those to foreign audiences.
SOMEWHAT RELATED: Laura at HotAir’s Green Room responded to this line by cataloguing Obama’s blunders of the past nine months,
He’s just stating the obvious. Under Bush we were a bitter angry hostile xenophobic crazyhouse. Now that has changed. What is the problem in stating the obvious?
Um, Caligula, presuming (just for the sake of argument that what you say is true) why then didn’t Obama couldn’t identify any Ameicans accomplishments that took place before W took office?
#1: The problem is that he stated it in order to win the adoration of a room full of homicidal despots whose regimes hang gays in the town square, throw their citizens in jail for speaking out against their governments, deny the holocaust, stone rape victims to death for having “sex outside of marriage”, kill activists in the street who protest corrupt elections, mandate forced abortions, and finance terrorist acts such as blowing commercial jetliners out of the sky. Yes, what a relief that Obama has restored our reputation in the “global community.”
I’m sure many presidents dream of being added to Mt. Rushmore. Obama is the first to want to re-shape every head to match his. Unfortunately, none of the heads are big enough.
I think it’s worth noting that, under Bush’s watch, the war was in Iraq. Now that we’re a righteous nation, Iraq has disappeared and we’re fighting the “good war” in Afghanistan.
Someone as narcissistic and foolish as Obama must surely crash. My worries about it are (1) how long will it take and (2) what will bet the collateral damage?
haven’t seen the movie but it is something I am waiting for
http://www.semperfithemovie.com/trailer.html
It’s something that President Bush continues to be the fall back position of all argument, debate and discussion. It is really quite a position to take. Bush=Bad, Obama=Good is not the makings of a political policy position, particularly when you take into consideration that the President is continuing many of the policy positions of the previous administration. The war on Terror hasn’t changed so much that the President will close Gitmo. Rendition is alive and well. There is a troop surge in Afghanistan. Predator drones continue to take out the enemy in Pakistan. There is still DADT and oh yes, the President still opposes gay marriage.
Where is the distinction between the two again? Certainly not in financial matters where the the argument is that the Bush bailouts were enough.
Ridiculous!
#1 Thanks for the comedy blog this morning. I have to concluded that you arent a history buff and that you find it easier to write “indignant sentences” to somehow comfort yourself. You seem to forget that your ancestors used biological warfare on a native population, practiced genocide, massacred innocent civilians, etc. But for you, Obama is the purist and now all it good. Open those eyes, Little Boots.
Torture one terrorist and 200 years of good works goes right out the window….
Ah Jody, silly littel troll…
I suppose you’d rather see us cleve to the Geneva conventions?
I don’t care if the world likes us or not.
Under George Bush, I was employed, felt safer and was freer-even without the right to same sex marriage.
Perhaps thats part of Obama’s plan, make us unemployed and unsafe so we must be wards of his state and ultimately unfree. And without same sex marriage
#13: TrulyScrumptious, what do you mean, “perhaps”?
Maybe, ut the observation holds.
We’ve done so much good, as a people, over 200 years, relative to any other large, influential empire in human history. We continue to do lots of good around the world, be it in keeping shipping lanes relatively free of piracy to providing Humanitarian aid to other countries.
But we tortured. We undercut all of our principals, all the reasons we do good things, in our rage and anger after 9/11. It’ll be decades before we get passed that. We aren’t good because we’re Americans. We’re good because we do good — and when we don’t, it undercuts everything we’ve ever done.
Jody, if you think that “torturing one prisoner” does all the things you say it does, you probably were predisposed to dislike America in the first place.
Second, this nation owes a duty first and foremost to itself and its people. The same is true of all nations. Compromising that duty- imperiling American citizens- in order to make others like us is fooloosh in the extreme and the sign of a childlike mentality.
And, to repeat Livewire: Would you like to see us cleave to the Hague Conventions?
Jeremy D. Boreing over at Big Government gets it right:
“It seems lost on the American President that he was not elected to create or perfect a world order, but to elevate the interests of the United States. He was not selected by a world assembly but by Americans, who extracted from him a sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic. That same Constitution calls the president the Chief Executive of the Untied States. Imagine if the chief executive of Wal-Mart attended an economic forum and suggested a willingness to make his company less successful in the interest of promoting the perceived success of his competitors. It is unlikely that he would remain CEO for long…”
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/26/obama-threatens-the-peace-of-the-world-how-i-learned-to-love-the-bomb/#more-9150
Shocker: Ghaddafi gives the released Lockerbie bomber a hero’s homecoming and Obama does nothing to stop Ghaddafi from entering the US and delivering his insane, bizarre rant to the UN. And to further demonstrate the Administration’s concern for the “raw sensitivities” of the family members of the Lockerbie victims, Obama decides to give Libya $2.5 million of taxpayers’ money, $400,000 of which will go to “charities” run by the Ghaddafi family. The obscene punchline is that the funds are intended to “promote democracy and human rights” in Libya (a country that backed a terrorist act that killed Americans by blowing a commercial jetliner out of the sky and where homosexuality is punishable by law with a five-year prison term in a Libyan prison).
This is complete outrage. Democrats AND Republicans have been engaged in spending our money on lavish aid to vile, corrupt foreign nations for decades while we’ve been asleep at the wheel. But there has never been a better illustration of why it needs to be cut off for good. I thought our economy is in the tank? $2.5 million of OUR MONEY going to that psychotic muppet Gaddafi? It’s inexcusable.
Finally, a CBS reporter careens off the reservation and asks Obama the $100,000 question: does he really believe that sanctions will have any effect on a would-be genocidal lunatic like Ahmadinejad? Obama’s answer? Exactly what you’d expect:
“I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in solving the problem.”
Translation: “Fire up those centrifuges, boys!!!!!”
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-at-g-20-on-iran-im-not-interested.html
I’m sure that in Obama’s eyes, America is an evil, racist, sexist, bigoted, genocidal, imperialistic power. But he wants everyone to know he’s working tirelessly these last eight months to change that. I can’t recall him ever referencing American exceptionalism or this country’s proud history or accomplishments. What sticks in my mind is the way he goes around the world apologizing for America.
I’m sure in Obama’s eyes, America is flawed. I’m sure in Dick Cheney’s eyes, America is flawed. The difference is what flaws they see. On the one side, that America has traces of racism, hatred of the poor, and a sometimes too slavish devotion to the interests and whims of the rich. On the other, an insufficient devotion to war, a tendency to question authority, and a troublesome expectation of civil rights.
I think I’ll stick with Obama’s “apologies” over Cheney’s blustering horse- (word you can’t say on oh so civil conservative blogs)
#21: You’re right Little Boots, who better to see those “traces of racism” than the black man who was elected to the highest office of the most powerful nation on Earth populated by a white majority. And who better to cure us of our “hatred of the poor” than a rich attorney whose brother lives in a hut in Africa and gets by on a dollar a month. And who better to break us of our “slavish devotion to the interests and whims of the rich” than the man who arranged for $2 billion in loan guarantees (back by US taxpayer dollars) for Brazil’s state-run oil company for an off-shore drilling project in which George Soros has an investment worth $811 million?
And one more thing–if it’s Republicans that are so intolerant of the people’s “tendency to question authority,” please explain how labeling every single person that disagrees with Obama’s policies a RACIST encourages it.
Say Jody, how does Chairman Obama telling Poland & the Czech Reublic, Europe and the eastern US to go fuck themselves supposed to make people like us? How about his “pantywaist” ducking of PM Brown? How about hobnobbing with fascist thugs like Hugo Chavez & Daniel Ortega?
You keep believing that, Dave.
This has nothing to do with making other people like us and everything to do with being the light of the world we’ve always been. Compromising our values for a false sense of “security” is tragic, misguided and ultimately ends badly.
The Geneva Conventions? Yes. If we don’t follow the Rule of Law and defend the ideals they represent, who will?
TGC, I can’t seem to find that quote from the president. When and where did Obama tell Poland et.al to “…go fuck themselves?” We must be reading different papers.
Jody said: “The Geneva Conventions? Yes. If we don’t follow the Rule of Law and defend the ideals they represent, who will?”
The last I checked, the Rule of Law in the United States refers to following the national Constitution, and appropriate state and municipal laws that we live under. Nowhere in any of these documents does it say that we will be governed by supranational bodies like the U.N. or the charters they try to impose on us all.
Jody, thanks for your support for the immediate execution of all Talib and insurrectionists taken prisoner by American forces.
Didn’t actually READ the Hague Conventions, did you?
By the Hague, all combatants captured under arms, with no uniform or chain of command, are to be given a drumhead court-martial ( to ascertain that they WERE in fact under arms and out of uniform) and then executed as partisans. Partisans have NO rights, other than to a humane execution.
Thanks for your support, Jody. Be less ignorant in the future.
And Jody… if I were inclined to instantly believe any negative news about someone, wether or not that news was accurate or even true, and wanted to judge their whole life by that news… I guess you could say that I was predisposed to dislike them.
You, on the other hand, LOVE America… just as long as it meets your preconceptions, your Walt Disney worldview. Any deviation- even an imaginary one- and it is blackened, flawed, hateful. America the nation of millions and of 230+ years of history, or Jonas Salk and John Adams, is only “good” as long as it meets Jody’s standards.
But don’t question your patriotism, right?
Umm, Brendan? Last time I checked, the Constitution had provisions for signing, ratifying and being bound by international treaties — which we did with the Geneva Conventions, save for the recent Protocols 1-3.
We used to enforce the Conventions, most notably with the Nazis after WWII, and abide by them, as during the Vietnam War, even when the North Vietnamese did not.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Dave: If we don’t follow the Rule of Law and defend the ideals they represent, who will?
#17 I think Sean A has got it right. Obama’s a bit confused. The people in Egypt,Palestine, Switzerland nor Russia are yet allowed to vote in American elections. No matter how he tries to siddle up to other UN nations, he must get a majority of American votes. His lack of attention to our econnomy is stunning even for a novice community organizer.
Now some of the latest horrific Obama economic news…..
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/the_dead_end_kids_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGONNX1K
Another post World War II record for the Obama administration.
Millions of wandering unemployed young people in America.
Wasn’t this suppose to be the base of the future Democrat juggernaut?
Looks like the Democrat minimum wage increase worked just as promised by the Republicans…..the youth of America shattered.
#21: “I think I’ll stick with Obama’s “apologies” over Cheney’s blustering horse- (word you can’t say on oh so civil conservative blogs)”
Of course you will, Little Boots, because you’ve completely swallowed the idiotic notion that by making America’s primary foreign policy objective “improving our standing in the international community” and trying to make evil, totalitarian, despotic regimes like us through national self-flagellation will improve our national security. You stupidly regard Hugo Chavez’s speech to the UN praising Obama as “an intelligent man” and comparing him to JFK as a foreign policy triumph, but while Obama has been basking in the glow of international praise from that psychotic dictator, Chavez has been colluding with Ahmadinejad to acquire uranium for pursuing Venezuela’s nuclear ambitions. Consequently, the world’s oppressive, totalitarian regimes are not giving up on their plans to acquire nukes and hold the world hostage because they love Obama. They love Obama because they know he’s a pathetic, naive coward that will do NOTHING to stop their plans to acquire nukes and hold the world hostage.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMt4kLz-pHgt5p-bk-ZORH-w68AAD9AUO20O0
Partisans would be covered under Geneva 3 and Geneva 4, and the later Protocol 1 . You do understand that the Geneva Conventions modified the Hague Protocols of 1899? (Here’s a hint: they came later.)
Dave, at least argue about the interpretation of Quirin, Hamdan v. Rumsfield, or Boumediene v. Bush. But invoking drumheads? Ignorant and stupid, dude. Ignorant and stupid.
I really don’t understand your point, Dave. Is it too much to ask that you be coherent when you rant?
The fact that we tortured isn’t really in doubt. We committed many of the same acts against Al-Qaida that that we prosecuted the Japanese and the Nazis for during WWII.
People are screaming that memos, precedents, and legal opinions are cover for those acts, but the knowledge that we did such reprehensible things does tarnish all of the good we’ve done — all of the good we continue to do — with a stain that will be a long time getting out.
Going before the UN and saying “…For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months” is a small way to start.
#32: “Going before the UN and saying “…For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months” is a small way to start.”
A small way to start what, Jody? If you’re referring to collusion between Chavez and Ahmadinejad for Venezuela to acquire uranium for pursuing Chavez’s nuclear ambitions, then I would certainly agree with you.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMt4kLz-pHgt5p-bk-ZORH-w68AAD9AUO20O0
But hey, at the UN, Chavez praised Obama as “an intelligent man” and compared him to JFK, and Gaddafi called Obama “our son” and expressed the hope that he could remain President of the US “forever.” And, in the end, isn’t that really all that matters? As long as oppressive, psychotic, terror-sponsoring dictators love Obama, then I’m sure there’s NOTHING to worry about.
Chavez loves Obama so does Alkmazenacrazy, Castro loves Obama, Quadafi does too, so does Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Van Jones,
Such friends our young President has.
Jody,
Article one says we are bound by the Geneva Conventions when the othr faction is. Al Quida waved that a dozen times over. So yes, we can do whatever the hell we want with them. The FACT that we don’t just put them up against a wall and shoot them is a sign of American mercy. Good thing we didn’t torture then.
I’ll take “What is a non-sequitur?” for $100, Alex…
I’ll take “What is a non-sequitur” for $200 Alex. Oh, look, the Daily Double. Lucky me.
And the good news just keep on coming:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090927/D9AVJ0UG0.html
What’s it been, like 24 hours since Obama released his statement wagging his finger at Iran for defying its UN Security Council, NPT, and IAEA obligations? Obviously, Ahmadinejad is terrified of those “sanctions” Obama keeps warning him about.
NOTHING will stop Ahmadinejad but military force. He knows Obama would never consider that option. Accordingly, the “talks” scheduled for next month are an absurd waste of time.
#36: Jody, what’s the point of going before the UN to beg for forgiveness from rogue, despotic regimes? What is the objective? Earning the respect of the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Gaddafi? It’s obviously had no effect whatsoever on curtailing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and Venezuela. So why do you support it? You indicated that Obama’s apologies are a “small way to start.” Start what?
The language of Common Article 2 binds signatories to the Conventions even when the opposing party hasn’t. Further, SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that we were explicitly bound by Common Article 3 in relation to Al-Qaida.
So, you’re wrong.
So all 195 members of the UN are “…rogue, despotic regimes?” I knew Tonga was up to no good! I knew it!
Torture, for a start. Or do you like the fact that, over the last few years, we were regularly doing the same things that we used to rail against Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Gaddafi for doing to their enemies and citizens?
I can’t help but think of ye old put-down “You and what army?” when I read that comment, Sean.
We pretty much exhausted our Army in the Totally-Optional-Battle-In-The-Really-Had-Nothing-To-Do-With-The-War-On-Terror(TM) campaign in Iraq. Now that we really need it, it isn’t there to help us. Them’s the breaks, though.
#41: Then why are we bothering to meet with Iran next month regarding their nuclear program, Jody?
Or do you like the fact that, over the last few years, we were regularly doing the same things that we used to rail against Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Gaddafi for doing to their enemies and citizens?
I do so love when moral relativists try to draw moral equivalences.
Furthermore, when said moral relativists have been screaming and whining that condemning those countries for doing those things was wrong, wrong, wrong.
What we did, Jody, was very simple. We imprisoned people who had every intention of killing us and had already demonstrated the fact. We used the means necessary to get information out of them to stop their compatriots from killing more of us. Furthermore, we punished those who went too far using our own criminal justice system.
The problem here is that you are a hypocrite, Jody. You hold the United States to a ridiculous standard that would mandate us jeopardizing the Constitution’s primary goal of protecting the general welfare, while you refuse to enforce ANY standard against those who attack us. You are a slanted, prejudiced referee, and that fact is patently obvious to those who observe you and your Obama Party.
You are the party who calls Americans “little Eichmanns”, Jody. Yours is the party that screams “God damn America”. Yours is the party that openly lies and smears US soldiers as “baby killers”. Yours is the party that brands our troops as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in their own country. Your behavior is such transparent bigotry and contempt for your own country that I can think of only one cure.
Exile yourself to Iran.
Perhaps if you actually saw the conditions in these countries that you claim are the same as the United States, you might learn something.
#41: “Now that we really need it, it isn’t there to help us. Them’s the breaks, though.”
One word: malaise.
And then we tortured a bunch of them. It was shameful, illegal, and un-American. We’re only now convening a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. And that is American.
There’s that straw-man again, ND30. Wack away, buddy, wack a way.
Nope. Stupidity. You don’t invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 when you haven’t finished fighting a country that did.
#46: Yeah, Jody, that’s why Obama would never take military action against Iran–troop depletion. And careful, the Left is already backing away from the talking point that Afghanistan is the “good war” that must be won. The McChrystal report had been officially placed on the back-burner so that the Obama Administration can come up with a politically viable excuse to pull out and give the Taliban a glorious victory over the American imperialist oppressors. So don’t worry, you’ll get the green light to start condemning the war in Afghanistan as an unwinnable quagmire any day now and you can stop pretending to support it.
[Citation Needed]
TGC, here are three.
Here’s a case for you, Jody. Demjanjuk v. Holder.
According to Congress and the UN’s CAT, torture is only a “specific intent” crime. In other words, the person doing the alleged “torture” can only be prosecuted if they have an evil motive to inflict pain and suffering.
Demjanjuk’s arguement was that his extradition would cause severe pain and suffering. The Holder Justice Department argued that he had to show proof of a motive to torture.
http://tinyurl.com/y8zehhl
Long story short, the liberals have two different standards. Bybee and Yoo should be prosecuted merely because they advised President Bush. They also maintain a standard that, under Bush, officials were guilty of torture no matter the intent. However, under Demjanjuk, liberals maintain that you have to prove intent of an evil motive.
Therefore, in the real world (which pisses in liberal Cheerios), you can’t just claim that we tortured unless you can prove intent.
Spin that one.
Great. The Left can back off from it being the good war all it wants. Afghanistan was and is a war that needed to be fought and won. We may have botched the job so badly — because we diverted forces to Iraq — that it’s going to be damn near impossible to win in Afghanistan — because of our economic situation at home — any time soon. But that’s a different issue.
***YAWN!!!*** So three = “a bunch of them”?
Here’s the intent I think you’ll be looking for:
And why did we have limited knowledge about al-Qaeda and its workings? Because lord BJ was too busy screwing interns to give a rotten damn.
Too damn bad your messiah doesn’t feel the same, eh?
Yeah I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to discuss what could have been done with the $787 BILLION porkulus instead if I were you.
There’s that straw-man again, ND30. Wack away, buddy, wack a way.
Which is, of course, why instead of demonstrating why you disagree with the individuals cited, you try to spin away from it.
We don’t expect honesty from liberal gays though, Jody; that’s beyond both your moral and intellectual capacity to do. After all, if you demonstrated independent thought instead of just doing what your Obama Party says, you might get the same kind of “Jewish Nazi” abuse that you heap on others.
Yeah I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to discuss what could have been done with the $787 BILLION porkulus instead if I were you.
Especially since that would be roughly five years worth of costs for BOTH the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There is no shortage of financial or military resources. But there is an acute shortage of honesty, courage, and the willingness to do what’s right on the Obama Party’s side, as Jody exemplifies.
TGC, claiming “specific intent” isn’t a defense against torture.
One, three, five, ten thousand. It doesn’t matter how many or few we tortured, only that we did.
Here’s an experiment for you, TGC. Go kill you neighbor. At trial, mount your defense of “It was only one person!” Let me know how that works out for ya.
can I get you a bigger stick, ND30? Is your arm tired? Do you need a break? I’ll wait. If you don’t need a respite, keep at it. I think the straw man can take a few more smacks before you’ll have to stuff more straw in it. Don’t mind me. I’ll be over here. I brought a book.
First, the article doesn’t say that we “tortured”.
B) YOU said And then we tortured a bunch of them.
Third, you could only find an article about EIT used on THREE.
No matter how you spin it or which hifalutin words you use, you’re full of shit and you desperately WANT to believe that America tortures prisoners. You don’t give a damn about evidence, all you care about is the claims made by murderous bastards who have been trained to accuse captors of torture.
You know it, I know it, everybody who’s read this thread knows it.
Here’s an experiment for you, dork. Why don’t you find evidence and intent that we did torture rather than popping your hole off smearing people?
TGC, waterboarding has been regarded as torture for at least 100 years. We’ve prosecuted people for using it, signed treaties that included it, and taken very public stances against it.
And we also admitted to waterboarding at least three people during 2002 and 2003. And we didn’t do it once. We did it multiple times — 183 times in Sheikh Mohammed’s case alone. Each and every one of those was an act of torture. You can’t spin that away with a speciously reasoned memo. The act stands.
You also can’t negate the fact that we tortured by sticking your fingers in your ears and trilling loudly “NO WE DIDN’T! NO WE DIDN’T” or complaining about “hifalutin” concepts like law, ethics, ideals and justice. The fact remains that we fucked up. If we don’t fix our fuck-up with this and the related issues, it makes it damn hard for us to hold others accountable for their fuck-ups, let alone those who willingly maim, murder and destroy out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority.
That beacon of Hope that lights the way of others to us? It also lights the way for us. Torture is one of those dark shadows its there to destroy.
Unfortunately, dork, it does. Maybe not to bleeding cunts who hate America, but under our law and the CAT, it does. If it’s not a “defense against torture”, why in the hell would Holder’s DOJ use it? Why is it ok for Holder but not for Yoo & Bybee? Because you can’t just run around prosecuting people and destroying lives for political gain like Holder & Obama want to do. You can’t apply the law in one case and throw it out in another.
Oh, and I’ll take the word of an attorney who’s actually prosecuted terrorists over that of a liberal ambulance chasing douchebag. You’ll pardon me that.
TGC, please watch your language, this is a family blog.
Second, I had to do some digging, but Jody will be shocked to know that, by her terms, We still can torture. Obama ordered, Holder approved.
And as to the Geneva Conventions, wrong again Article II
“Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
Any other faulty arguements you’d like to shoot down? or maybe condemn the current administration for ‘torturing’?
Ah, more lies from Jody trapped in the filter. 183 times? you mean we simulated drowning 183 times? Wrong.
This is torture. <a href=This is not.
TGC, it was Ashcroft and Gonzales DOJ that wrote those memos.
That would be “his.”
And it’s an utterly asinine decesion despite all of the safeguards the Administration swears are now in place.
TL, it’s Common Article 3 of Treaty III that binds.
… In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.…
Further, SCOTUS also cited Article 5 in Treaty 3 in Hamdan v. Rumsfield decision. So yes, we are still bound by the Conventions.
“But your honor, I didn’t shoot him 183 times. It was only four times, five tops…..”
Never a good idea to link to an article on waterboarding that lists as an example of waterboarding what you are trying to say wasn’t.
TL, your argument seems to come down to “Well, we didn’t torture them that much — and besides, I don’t think it’s torture anyways.” Lame.
Ah Jody josy josy, from your own link on Geneva let me quote the rest of it. “They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
Nice try of cutting and pasting.
Even better when you choose to ignore the difference between torture and waterboarding. Shame you can’t even argue honestly.
Shame that you can’t even argue, as summum jus summa injuria isn’t what Humanitarian agreements are about.From the commentary on the applicability of Geneva:
It then goes on to cite the conflict in the Suez in 1956, where the terms of Conventions were applied, even though the English weren’t yet official signatories.
Further, if you have any remaining doubt about the applicability of the Convention, if you are still trying to find a legal loophole commit a moral wrong, as I pointed out before, in Hamdan v. Rumsfield, SCOTUS already noted that the Conventions were in effect in the treatment of enemy combatants like Hamdan. So, still, you don’t know what you are talking about.
And just to reiterate, waterboarding is torture. There’s no “American exception” to it. As I pointed out, as the wiki article you also cited, it’s been defined and treated as such for 100 years. Legal experts have pointed this out, veterans who were waterboarded have pointed this out our closest ally regards it as such, and even the Bush administration regarded it as such, as long as it was another nation doing to the dunking.
When I worked at DCFS, I loved it when the parents who molested their own kids tried to spin it that they were somehow different, less culpable or guilty, than the stranger who molested a child. “I’m sure your child much preferred it was you raping them than some semi-anonymous joe down the block…”
Live, your justification is as equally vacuous as theirs.
And it’s an utterly asinine decesion despite all of the safeguards the Administration swears are now in place.
But of course, it’s not criminal, a war crime, or besmirching America’s principles now because Jody’s Barack Obama is in charge.
After all, we can’t have Jody holding his Barack Obama accountable. That would make Jody a racist. That’s why Jody spins and tries to blame Bush for the fact that his Barack Obama supports and endorses what Jody was previously screaming was “torture”.
And let’s demonstrate again the silliness of Jody:
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them
The point of the passage is that the Geneva Convention applies to its signatories in conflicts with each other even when one does not recognize a state of war. However, it says nothing about what happens when one does not recognize the Geneva Conventions.
Again, the problem here is that Jody is trying to rationalize his need to bash the Bush administration; hence, he must make such ludicrous claims. As we see with his endorsement and support of Barack Obama, he doesn’t believe such behavior is torture, a problem, or that it contradicts American principles; he simply needed a reason to bash Bush and, putting politics before principles as is typical for his Obama Party, he came up with this convoluted reasoning.
This sums up the whole problem with the desperate Jody’s attempt to Bush-bash right here.
If we don’t fix our fuck-up with this and the related issues, it makes it damn hard for us to hold others accountable for their fuck-ups, let alone those who willingly maim, murder and destroy out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority.
In other words, Jody sees no moral difference between those who willingly torture thousands out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority and those who waterboard three proven murderers to prevent them from murdering more.
Again, I challenge Jody to move to Afghanistan and live among al-Qaeda. After all, since he claims there is no moral difference between them and the United States, it shouldn’t be any problem for him.
What’s that? Doesn’t the moral relativist want to actually put his money where his mouth is? Doesn’t he want to support his screaming theories that there is no difference between the United States and Iran?
It’s illegal for it to be done, be the Administration doing it has a (D) or an (R) after their name. The Obama administration is in violation of the law, too. They don’t get off, either.
You’ve read neither the Conventions nor the back and forth of this discussion, ND. Typical.
You dropped some hay, ND 30. Please keep your staw-men tidy.
Let me fix that for you, ND:
In other words, Jody sees no moral difference between those who willingly torture thousands out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority and those who willingly
waterboardtortured threeprovenuntried murderersto prevent them from murdering morefor information that was of questionable value, accuracy, or benefit.#61: “If we don’t fix our fuck-up with this and the related issues, it makes it damn hard for us to hold others accountable for their fuck-ups, let alone those who willingly maim, murder and destroy out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority.”
This entire debate is an irrelevant smoke-screen. The revelation that the US waterboarded a few terrorist psychotics provided the Left with a convenient excuse for claiming that America had lost its moral authority to seek out and destroy evil in the world to protect its citizens and national security. But the Left has unequivocally opposed every action the US has taken to hold “those who willingly maim, murder and destroy” accountable from the beginning–long before any information about waterboarding became public. Additionally, this debate falsely implies that there is some act of contrition that the US could perform that in the Left’s judgment would sufficiently atone for America’s past sins and restore the nation’s moral authority. The Left’s ingrained moral relativism forecloses any scenario or circumstance in which the US is justified in defending its interests against our country’s sworn enemies.
Well there you go. DCFS nannies routinely lose children, destroy lives, destroy families, destroy reputations, destroy careers etc. etc. etc. All of this “for the children”. And how many cases have there been where the children wind up dead after DCFS came to visit and saw nothing wrong?
Yeah. Keep going down that little “morality” road where you believe America’s image has been tarnished.
Nope, America’s image is just fine. No problems. None at all.
Yeah, they used to excuse their behavior by saying all that too, especially when the photographs of the blood and bruises, or the infant tox screens, or the doctor’s findings of sexual abuse were put before them. Lame argument.
And Chairman Obama snubbing leaders, handing out lame gifts, embracing dictators and running around claiming America sucks ass does what? Nixing the missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic REALLY gave us a boost, didn’t it? Well in Russia anyway.
All it takes is a Mrs. Kravitz type to start a search and destroy mission. Just like all you need is the claim of murderous bastards taught to whine that they were tortured.
Well, except when it came to Pierreisna Archille. And nobody noticed Rilya Wilson was missing for two whole years. Yeah it is pretty lame until DCF is held accountable in court.
Ok, so Jody’s now refusing to admit facts.
Per Geneva we can just kill them on the battlefield. Instead we willingly violate Geneva by…
-Detaining them instead
-Giving them three hots and a cot,
-access to Korans
-deference to their religion
-pointing out where Mecca is
-subjecting them to SERE techniques that have undeniably saved lives
Instead, Jody wants to accept court cases that bolster his arguement, ignore ones that don’t and compare pouring water down someone’s throat until their stomach bloats and punching them, to approved interrigation techniques.
When confronted with the lie that KSM was waterboarded 183 times, he then moves the goal posts to “It was still wrong” Not, “I’m sorry, thank you for the correction, it’s still wrong” Jody specifically omits the part of Geneva that says all bets are off with AQ, then argues we’re violating the ‘spirit’ of Geneva.
Fine the spirit of Geneva is that you find an ununiformed combatant making war on civilians, hiding in civilians… YOU KILL THEM. Period, they’ve forfitted all rights to Geneva.
Oh, and BTW, we’ve never Ratified Protocol 4.
#75: “Nope. America’s image is just fine. No problems. None at all.”
Well, now isn’t that convenient everyone? Jody has provided a link to the Pew Research Center’s “Global Attitudes Project” where there are all of these handy-dandy charts, graphs, and statistics measuring global public opinion about America. Unfortunately, it would appear that if the election were held today, the US is NOT going to make it onto the homecoming court, darn it! But the good news is that all we have to do is spend a few years sucking up to the European elites and appeasing homicidal Muslim fanatics and our numbers will totally rebound. Here’s just a couple of excerpts that us American imperialist bullies should take to heart:
“Many Muslims have an aggrieved view of the West. Majorities in many Muslim nations – and in some Western European ones, for that matter – believe America’s war on terrorism is really an effort to control Mideast oil or to dominate the world. In the 2004 Pew Global Attitudes survey, more than half of Jordanians and Pakistanis, as well as 40% or more of French and Germans – said that the war on terrorism was a smokescreen for a campaign against unfriendly Muslim governments.”
Hmmmm. Very interesting. Majorities in Muslim nations and Western European nations believe the US is engaged in an effort to control Middle-Eastern oil or generally just trying to dominate the world. Of course, that would include the War in Afghanistan which Jody calls “a war that needed to be fought and won.” So, all we have to do is turn those Muslim and Euro-frowns upside-down and voila! Moral authority restored!
“Less expectedly, the 2006 survey found that a majority of Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks and Egyptians remained unconvinced that Arabs were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.”
Eh. No biggie. I’m sure they’ll come around eventually.
“The furor in Islamic countries over the publication in Denmark of cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad revealed a similar divergence in perspective. Respondents to the 2006 survey in four Muslim countries blamed Western disrespect for Islam.”
Yes, that was very insensitive of us and the West deserves the PR fallout that accompanied our impertinent refusal to ensure that our publication guidelines were more consistent with Muslim religious tenets than the First Amendment. Hopefully, now that the Yale Press has wisely decided to publish the definitive book about the controversy WITHOUT reprinting the cartoons themselves, those justifiably outraged Muslims will put down their machetes, stop hacking off people’s arms and legs, and start loving us again. I just hope it’s not too late.
Nope. Not even wrong. Not what I said, nor what the sources I cited said.
Again, not even wrong. I’ll refer you back to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
Nope, my point was that defending torture by appealing to accounting definitions, as the whole 183 times / 12 minutes / 40 seconds / two sessions argument becomes, doesn’t work. It’s that whole “no torture, ever” thing that’ll trip you up, just like “no murdering” and “no raping.” It’s pretty basic.
See the last 70 odd comments above.
You are thinking of Protocol 1, which we also didn’t ratify (nor two or three.) But my argument has been about G1-4, not the later Protocols. You really haven’t paid any attention here.
Whoops. No Protocol 4. I thought that sounded odd. Doesn’t exist.
Yes I did, in response to the statement “America’s image hasn’t been tarnished.” You can opine over there fairness of the reasons for it or if we should even care, but the fact remains it has, and that a portion of that fall came about due to our conduct against our enemies over the last 8 years.
I posted in the wrong thread, but yes, we did ratify Ariticle 4 with reservations. I was mistaken.
And, Article IV deals with civilians (which AQ aren’t) and says:
“Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention… ” [Emphasis in original]
So they still aren’t covered.
Live, again, SCOTUS settled the question in Hamdan v. Rumsfed by noting that Geneva 3 (and the UCMJ) binds in this fight.
#83: “Yes I did, in response to the statement “America’s image hasn’t been tarnished.” You can opine over there fairness of the reasons for it or if we should even care, but the fact remains it has, and that a portion of that fall came about due to our conduct against our enemies over the last 8 years.”
Jody, in this thread you have: (1) indicated that you support Obama going before the UN General Assembly and essentially apologizing for America torturing detainees with the use of waterboarding (“…we fucked up. If we don’t fix our fuck-up with this and the related issues, it makes it damn hard for us to hold others accountable for their fuck-ups, let alone those who willingly maim, murder and destroy out of a sense of superstitious inspired superiority.”); and (2) cited the Pew Research Center’s “Global Attitudes Project” as a barometer that substantiates the deterioration of America’s image “due to our conduct against our enemies over the last 8 years.”
I reviewed the summary at the link you provided and I can’t seem to find any reference in it to “torture” or “waterboarding” or violations of the Geneva Conventions being the cause of the recent wave of anti-American sentiment. In fact, the report lists various causes for America’s declining global reputation, including: a perception of the US playing the role of bully in the school yard, throwing its weight around with little regard for others’ interests; the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003; US operations in Afghanistan; a majority of Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks and Egyptians remaining unconvinced that Arabs were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; Western disrespect for Islam with the publication of cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad; majorities in many Muslim nations – and in some Western European ones – believing that America’s war on terrorism is really an effort to control Mideast oil or to dominate the world; more than half of Jordanians and Pakistanis, as well as 40% or more of French and Germans believing that the US war on terrorism is a smokescreen for a campaign against unfriendly Muslim governments; a perception in Muslim nations that the US is “violent” and “selfish”; and a belief that US policy favors Israel too much.
So, Jody, if improving America’s reputation in the international community is a legitimate objective of Obama’s foreign policy (and clearly, you believe it is), and a reliable measure of America’s global reputation is the Pew Research Center’s “Global Attitudes Project” (clearly, you believe it is), then doesn’t that mean that we have to apologize for pretty much everything from the war in Afghanistan to western publications printing cartoons of Muhammad if we want our scores to ever improve? You’ve indicated that the war in Afghanistan “was and is a war that needed to be fought and won,” but apparently it’s one of the many things that’s ruining our reputation abroad and has caused the depletion of our moral authority as a nation. Don’t you think it’s time we apologized for that? Majorities in several Muslim countries don’t even believe that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Arabs, so how can we possibly justify invading Afghanistan and expect these people to like us? Better that we apologize for everything we have done since 9/11 and promise to never do any of it again. That’s the only way we can get back the moral authority to hunt down and kill terrorists–by apologizing for doing so in the past and pledging never to do so again. Our scores on the “Global Attitudes Project” are sure to go through the roof!
Jody, you’ve just shown you believe that we should follow laws when it’s convienent and not when it is uncomfortable. So when someone says “We need to follow my version of Geneva! But child rape is ok!” they lose all credibility.