Psych 101A now?

Post #26,100 by Ashton 1/28/02 2:49:14 PM Reply	Psych 101A now? Maybe a refresher on the classes of spin is appropriate? [link\|http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html\|All Too-Common Logical Fallacies == US Polit-Speak Standards] When you project your collected illusions along the tawdry dichotomies of, Librul/Cunservative, Right/Left, Right/Wrong yada yada and imagine you Know what Brandioch (or me, for that matter) Rilly Believes\ufffd. (Nada, Zippo and ugh): You simply mimic the process by which all polit-speak in Murica is regularly doomed to doggerell and sloganeering. As here, sadly, too, mostly. Apparently it is this Murican habit which guarantees the status quo indefinitely (?) While it's fun to skewer one piece of doggerel with its equal & opposite piece of doggerel (though useless) - in present thread, the Question was more easily stated than in the usual exchange of vague generalities about the Meaning of Life as seen through My Glasses. It was about: WTF does the 'Geneva Convention' have to say about certain classes? categories? of captured combatants. Dubya, the Ayatollah, various Imams n' other cloaked wonders [oil] and guided or misguided [oil] adherents to their mindsets - has Zippo to do with THAT topic. (Issues of mindset are about merely trying to see ~how certain kinds of idiots contrast with other kinds of idiots - at home and abroad, seems to me.) A second rich vein of either brilliant analysis or maudlin demagoguery would be: The Kid from Marin (next door to my county). And it has its thread(s). But not This thread IIRC. If you think Brandioch's POV needs 'explaining' (??) then I'd have to go with Another Scott's nicely brief recapitulation of the thread and where it has gone --> typical. There Is No Such Thing as a 'Liberal' or a 'Conservative' in 2002 Murica - just as there is no such thing as The American Peepul. Meditate on that just after Aummmmmmmm, please. Gosh.. maybe a form of that assertion could introduce the Politics forum; save lots of inane rhetoric. Yours for more Interesting Catfights, Ashton Gandhi Cthulhu who will also have to try not to bite on the Next lazy buzz-word, in the Next textbook rant - for the sheer discipline.. :(
Post #26,194 by Ric Locke 1/28/02 9:04:05 PM 1/28/02 9:06:05 PM Reply	dis en zhin oo' os ness Yes, I can read the Geneva Conventions. I have. Given the content of the Conventions, which Brandioch represents very accurately and fairly [though I disagree with his interpretations], if the Conventions were applied correctly to the Afgani prisoners now in Cuba, they would be considered Prisoners of War. Given the content and meaning of innumerable U.N. resolutions, this would then have to refer back to the fact that our Afghan operation was not a "War" under the normal meaning of those documents. And, under that reasoning, "Prisoners of War" when no war exists are by definition unjustly held, and must be released forthwith. That is: if you wish to argue that the Geneva Conventions require that those people be declared prisoners of war, you are absolutely and without question arguing that they must be released immediately and repatriated. Given that these selfsame people are known to have publicly declared (a) their intention to kill Americans and (b) their belief that they get the same "Paradise Points" for a nursing infant as for an armored infantryman, I was simply attempting to postulate some rationale for Brandioch to argue that they have to be turned loose right away, and found at least a trifle of justification in the political theory. The bit about the Kalashnikov and the Semtex was perhaps not well founded. [the edit was a spelling misteak] Regards, Ric Edited by Ric Locke Jan. 28, 2002, 09:06:05 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,205 by Ashton 1/28/02 10:12:31 PM Reply	Ah well.. on That level - Sure - if some sophist wants to argue that the collected selected presumed-nasties at our Cuban HQ.. weren't collected in a 'Real War\ufffd' ergo - we should forthwith drop them in bizness class back home* (where they might find a likeable CIEIO who at least understands rapacious tendencies in the psyche).. * Saudi Arabia? Sudan? Afgh? other nearby country? If that's what's botherin you, bunky - why, not to worry. 'Least I don't think anyone here was arguin for (even tourist class - today that means: all ya get is peanuts and water. Now THERE's oppression.) Personally I'd love it if Dubya (for one) would Also reappreciate that perception is Everything - he sure knew that during the campaign.. Those guys will have to be detected, inspected, questioned - merely to confirm that each Does belong in DC-South, and then - for those who do belong there: will come the challenge about just how much that doesn't leave marks we shall do, under the rubric of fear of NYC buried nukes or acid-etched rotors at Hoover Dam. But if we imagine that we can get away - in 2002 - with inventing a New \ufffdntermensch - one with 0 rights as a human critter: then we may as well declare Amnesty International a terrorist group too. Enough fucking with language. If we're throwin a Big War on Evil, there can't be a free pass for some sort of Murican-Evil In The Name of Freedom So We Get To Do Real Nasty Stuff. Note that I didn't address.. how long we keep the Certifiably Not-Accidentally There: in DC-South. I suspect that we won't release any? many? of the ones for whom a forensic case can be made (against). For a lengthy period - compared with the half-life of Tritium, say. Let's see if Dubya can say disingenuous too, and define it (even if he was a pal of Mr. Lay). 'Member that other little homily? 'Truth is the first casualty of war' - heh, in a Corp consumer culture: who needs a war to start the lying? Ashton for Truth Decency and the American Way (pre 1980s) (yeah we never had it then either - but let's go back to it for nostalgia's sake. At least they didn't brag about the lies then)
Post #26,438 by Ric Locke 1/29/02 7:44:45 PM Reply	Oh, absolutely. What bothers me is -- under what legal theory are we holding those folks? Sorry, but POW just doesn't work. You really have to stretch to get the whole mess defined as a "war" in the first place, despite rhetoric. And if not... Yer honor, ladies an' gentlemen of the jury, My client is an instructor and teacher in religious matters. Having heard the Call of the Lord to put down his Earthly goods and go minister to the souls of the people of Afghanistan, he was about his usual haunts and affairs [i.e., advanced instruction in woman-beating] when to his dismay he heard that armed strangers were abroad in the countryside. Taking up arms in support of his friends, neighbors, and spiritual dependants, he went abroad to assist in defense against the invaders, who were going about, murdering and despoiling at their pleasure... All of which happens to be true, for large enough values of "true"; better, it's all based on legal defenses that worked in the past. The Geneva Convention is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not sure that any of the ordinary legal conventions of the West even have anything bad to say about those folks. But to the extent there is anything, either they're "unlawful combatants" rather than POWs, or they don't fit the Convention(s) at all, and can only be considered under color of local law. U.S. law? Hardehar. Afghani law? Is there any? The U.S. is forbidden by the Constitution to institute ex post facto laws; is it permitted to enforce such laws for the benefit of a third party? Saudi law? What gives them jurisdiction? The offenses (if any) did not occur within their borders. Egyptian law? Same question -- and on and on. And as you point out, it's most uncharacteristic of GWB to fail to be on top of the PR spin on something this large. Unlike some here, I take that to mean that the questions involved are hard, and the answers aren't all in yet, rather than automatically adopting the "dumber than dirt" hypothesis. But on point, if there is one: Either they're "unlawful combatants", in which case we're being nicer than we're required to be, or the Geneva Conventions don't apply at all -- and if the latter, they're being held in durance vile without legal justification and must be released. And if they must be released, the whole effort is brought into question; and if the whole effort is in question, we have no defense against the bastards, and might as well resign ourselves to daily or hourly reports of murderous attacks. Because if allowed to do so, they will attack with intent to do murder -- they say so themselves. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." The guy who said that had an agenda I don't much agree with, but the notion itself is true. To the extent the Geneva Conventions constitute a suicide pact, I don't mind their abrogation too much. Hm. It occurs to me to wonder: Does Britain hold IRA prisoners as POWs under the Geneva Conventions? If not, why not? As for getting away with it -- fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, we look to be able to get away with most anything we want to for the foreseeable future. The Verdict of History doesn't concern me overmuch. At the moment, I'll settle for having a history the future can pass judgement on, OK? Regards, Ric
Post #26,476 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:41:20 AM Reply	Yes, I think it is that arcane.. too. Almost a caricature\ufffd of, ..it depends on what the definition of is is :-\ufffd. But wisdom is where you find it. (And yes, I think Dubya has demonstrated an ability to handle er concepts - in same league with the other folks fatalistically attracted to the proposition that: herding cats is a doable proposition. Bad as his command of English was, he's made strides -- and it was always folly to imagine that mere awful speaking abilities == pure dumbth. He's just Gotta kick the nonsense slogans though; 'War on ___ (several things)' can be a useful slogan but NOT on &^#$# 'Evil' - y'know?) I'd say yours is as good a summary as any of - the 'best' we can hope for, all BS considered (and Gawd will we be knee-deep in That.. prolly all along): As for getting away with it -- fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, we look to be able to get away with most anything we want to for the foreseeable future. The Verdict of History doesn't concern me overmuch. At the moment, I'll settle for having a history the future can pass judgement on, OK? Cheers, Ashton WTF! are they doing to my Language NOW...?*

Welcome to IWETHEY!