Dumb as the Post

The Republicans effectively reaped political capital for over a hundred years by being the party that framed debates, taking care to cast the available choices in such a way that voters would inevitably view the GOP side of the argument as reasonable, courageous and patriotic, while seeing the Democratic alternative as extreme, cowardly and self-serving.

By refusing to correctly identify identical acts of brutality and violence as "torture", NPR is dutifully following that old politicized playbook, treating a complicated public controversy as if it were simply a proxy for a Conservative-Authoritarian/Liberal-Populist tiff over terminology, with the language and framing of the face-off skewed to the establishment side of the issue.

But lest we forget, NPR's word choice was decided upon quietly, behind the scenes. NPR wasn't even "laying out the debate" at first: they were simply refusing to call torture "torture". It was only when challenged that the matter became a "debate" in which two sides needed to be represented. Nor is there yet any sign of real "reporting" on the civil liberarian/constitutionalist/moral side of this "torture" discussion.

Of course, NPR could, if they wanted, actually host a debate between a proponent of Bush-era interrogation tactics and Glenn on the appropriate terminology to be used, and the constitutional, humanitarian, moral and pragmatic issues underlying the dueling nomenclature. (Not Shepard: who doubts she and Glenn don't exactly throw down in the same weight class?)

Setting up and broadcasting such an actual debate would be a journalistic venture I could heartily endorse.

It is fairly humorous how, barely days ago, she claimed the reason NPR didn't use the word "torture" was because it was important for real journalism to focus on the objective truth and stay above politics. Yet, now she's blatantly making political arguments for when torture isn't torture based on why it was supposedly implemented.

Anyone found out the background on this woman, or how she got this job in the first place?

Alicia Sheppard is

Dumb as the Post

Oh, Ha, Ha, Ha! Someone give the man a peanut.

Naw, I'm pretty damn sure I have a handle on Obama's motivations.

Congratulations. I'm sure it's great to be you.

I still don't care. At all.

For those in the DC Area - Ms. Shepard will be at the Newseum this Saturday at 2:30 PM.

Further info can be found here

http://www.newseum.org/events_edu/upcoming/about.aspx?item=SHEP090615&style=a

July 8, 2009 3:41:05 PM EDT

argument, walfisch:

@ Paul Daniel Ash

The point Iokannon was trying to make, I think was that it's impossible for anyone to know any other person's internal motivation... and that, moreover, it is irrelevant.

Naw, I'm pretty damn sure I have a handle on Obama's motivations. It's been over a year since he's surprised me in any significant way. I've known people like him. And I don't believe his motivations are irrelevant.

Why aren't his motives irrelevant to the likes of you and me? Isn't what really matters simply what he does? I suppose we could lose ourselves in discussions about imperial presidencies, executive power, and etc., but those would be quite broad and, because they're broad, hold minimal relevance for those of us on the ground.

Here's how I see it: I don't really care what Obama's motives/motivations are; I'm interested in what policies he proposes/produces; that we can comment on directly.

And when he behaves in a manner that's contrary to normative Western standards of justice (and, God, isn't that a Sociology 101 phrase?), then we call him on it.

Seems simple enough to me.

Nonsense. As shown by our last President, and others throughout history, attacks on our soil tend to boost support for the President rather than erode it.

Gimme a break. The one claim Republicans can make that resonates with the average voter is that they prevented a terrorist attack on American soil for seven years. If we get attacked in Obama's first term it would be a political disaster not only for Obama but for the whole Democratic party. Democrats always pay a steep price for looking soft on national security. An actual attack would be their worst nightmare.

/The decisions made by the Obama Administration are not made in a vacuum/

Thank you for that sunburst. NO decisions are made in a vacuum. They're made in a context, and it is precisely the context in which Obama's choices have been made (humans in cages, no charges, no chance to defend themselves, etc.) that render them indefensible.

They are 100% defensible if these people are actually dangerous to the country. You might not agree with this defense, but it is a defense.

Your magical "court of law" doesn't apply to every single innocent person ever blown up in a war. There is no court of law on the Pakistan border that brings "due process" to the charred bodies left behind when we bomb a suspected Al Qaeda stronghold.

Did we have enough evidence to convince a court of law to bomb that Al Qaeda stronghold? Obviously it doesn't f-ing matter.

We bomb because it's war. If we make a mistake, there are no consequences, even if numerous innocents DIE.

This is the distinction the Greenwaldian Fantasies don't allow in. This is not a court of law like in the United States. It's a murky quagmire between our system of justice and the messy, bloody disorganization of military war.

The problem is the Bushies were so grossly incompetent and such raging torture addicts that they blew whatever chance we'd have to maintain a higher standard in our treatment of our prisoners.

It is a mess. Only in Glenn's ninny-tastic hypothetical exercise does this become "Rule of Law Uber Alles."

This is not a text book. America has never functioned as purely as you hope for, and it never will. All we can do is try to get there by not electing criminals like George W. Bush.

But to whine that Obama isn't flipping the switch back to the 100% that Glenn seems to think exists somewhere is to be delusional. You can go off and talk about the shining and glorious "Constitution." The rest of us will figure out what are the best steps to do with the legal fiasco left behind.

/Barack Obama has inherited a legal fiasco of which a significant amount of terrorists.../

Um, excuse me, but you meant to say "terrorist suspects." Small point. Except that it's huge. Well -- everything, actually.

Wow. Deep.

You do realize there are tens of thousands of charred and burned corpses left over after every war who didn't receive their day in a "court of law," right?

We refer to these dead people as "collateral damage." It is the acceptable cost of war that is just as dismissive of "due process" as is Obama's decision in the wake of the Bush crimes.

I'm not claiming this is consistent legally. It clearly is not. I'm claiming these messy and porous legal borders exist all the time in war and in American history.

/... is to live in fantasy land. Yes it would be nice if the "rule of law" applied equally and always to every scenario... But this country has been applying the law unequally to women, black people, Native Americans, immigrants, poor people, etc. since its inception./

Interesting. I've heard people invoke the "two wrongs don't make a right" moral axiom before, but I've never met anyone this side of John Yoo who dared to take up the "multiple wrongs do make a right" argument -- and attempt to elevate it to a formal defense.

I argue that Obama's policy is necessary, and the factor of his inheritance from George W. Bush make it exist in the legal grey-zone called "extenuating circumstances" that every lawyer invokes to explain that the law does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the real world.

You know. The same point Sonia Sotomayor makes. That the reality of the situation always influences the interpretation of the law. Not some Greenwaldian hypothetical that sounds more like a Clarence Thomas brief on why he had to rule against an innocent person.

Oh my God !!! To advocate a principled system of justice that has never been fully realized -- what was Glenn THINKING? Or any of us, for that matter? That's an interesting premise you've got there, Winny: To strive -- in the real world -- for a previously unfulfilled ideal is to reside in a fantasy land of "whiners."

Your motives are pure. So is the five year old who asks, "Mommy? Why do people hurt each other?"

Back in the real world, George W. Bush left us with a series of people captured, many of whom likely are terrorists, who were violated against the Geneva Conventions to the point where trials may be impossible.

What the hell is Barack Obama supposed to do? There are the extenuating circumstances of his inheritance of this mess that deserve consideration.

Isn't that the point of the law? We do not enter data into a computer and produce "the law." We consider the real world entanglements.

The ultimate irony is that even if it were true, our living in fantasy land wouldn't have any consequences for you. Whereas the system of abuse that Obama is intitutionalizing has very real consequences for living, breathing human cagelings.

Obama has reversed the system of abuse, in case you hadn't noticed, by making it illegal. All Obama is arguing is that there is a no-win scenario that Bush has left him that may require specific exemptions to legal due process due to the thuggish nature of the Bush crimes.

This is a viable argument because it is specific, it refers only to a single period of lawlessness prior to Obama's election, and only applies to a specific group tarnished by the Bush crimes.

But to you? It's all or nothing. There is "law" or "no law."

Fortunately, our system of government provides three EQUAL branches. The judiciary is not superior, and Obama has the right to work with congress to forge a legal remedy to this mess that is exactly what the Constitution provides for.