I have to say that I find all general dialogue about who did and did not serve in the military to be annoying. It's the kind of thing that is fun for a while, but then you are left going "dude, wtf?" when it's applied to your own party. I for one, don't want our country to be such that every president from now until eternity has to have served in the military to get any cred. And frankly, I don't give a shit whether supreme court justices served or not. Yeah, Thomas sucks, but it's for many, many other reasons than his lack of military service.
Plus, as we can see from the '04 election, even when you do serve, it apparently doesn't mean shit.
And frankly, I don't give a shit whether supreme court justices served or not. Yeah, Thomas sucks, but it's for many, many other reasons than his lack of military service.
Okay, the point isn't to make fun of him for not serving, the point is to make fun of him for not serving and then badmouthing a combat veteran for not understanding the realities of war. Certainly there's no reason to care if Thomas was in the military.
Nah. If Thomas wants to say Stevens is wrong, more power to him. If the lifelong civilian wants to say that the combat veteran is "unfamiliar with the realities of warfare", he's a ass.
I am compelled to argue about this more, but I am taking a half-day now (why this military talk gets my goat so much, I do not know). Happy 4th of July weekend, all!
But to add to it, Thomas was pulling a common rhetorical maneuver: Republicans are, by virtue of their policy preference for military solutions, a priori more militarily knowledgeable and experienced than Democrats, regardless of the actual knowledge or experience of the specific people involved. That's just dumb and should be mocked.
To add to all the echoing, Thomas brought it up, not Stevens.
If Stevens were to claim that Thomas didn't know anything about what it's like to grow up as a member of a racial minority, would your response be that you don't think Stevens should be called on that because you don't care what race any of the Supreme Court justices is?
Stevens was a cryptographer in the Navy. I doubt he ever held a weapon. Bush is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. It's clear to me, from my desk, never having served in the military, that Bush knows nothing about warfare. One doesn't have to serve to know or understand something about warfare.
No one is saying you have to serve to know something about warfare. The argument is that if you didn't serve, you're not in a position to say that someone who did doesn't know anything about warfare.
Cryptography is not warfare. There are many positions in the armed services that do not expose people to warfare either in a specific or general sense.
Cryptography is not warfare. There are many positions in the armed services that do not expose people to warfare either in a specific or general sense.
obvs. Yamamoto doesn't understand the realities of warfare.
M/tch M/lls doesn't understand the realities of sex with willing, of-age, human females.
It's perfectly legitimate for someone who hasn't served to accuse someone who has that they know nothing about warfare. If they know of the service (I doubt Thomas is that aware), it's a way of saying that nothing was learned.
Just as it's legitimate for layment to accuse professionals they don't know their stuff.
Cryptography is, in fact, an important part of warfare.
So is steel manufacturing and road-building. I, for one, would not attribute any knowledge of warfare to the workers in those industries during wartime.
Some of my previous comments (not in regards to M!tch) were over-hasty. Thomas probably was referring to combat. But it's inconceivable that a guy who lived and served through WWII, even in a non-combat capacity, would be unfamiliar with the realities of warfare. I mean, how the hell could anyone who served in a big war live in such an insular bubble as to be kept from the realities of warfare?
The point isn't whether or not Stevens knows jack shit about war. The point is that Thomas is a fucking dumbshit who is using a stupid (and, by the way, baseless) ad hominem in a fucking legal opinion.
I should say that I screwed up in 6, saying 'combat' when I meant 'wartime'. Doesn't make Yamamoto's point valid -- military service during war, combat or not, should be expected to acquaint one with the realities of warfare, and Thomas is a nitwit for suggesting otherwise. Nothing wrong with his saying that Stevens was wrong, but saying that Stevens didn't understand the issues was goofy.
Unimpressed. I have to give Drum credit, though, that when people jump his shit, he stays calm and rethinks.
If the underlying question, as I suspect, is how do I feel about Ogged, then obviously the answer is I love him more than PK and the boyfriend and Mr. B. all rolled up into one.
44 - Were your affections not so fleeting, that might mean something. But I know you, M/tch. You'll be whispering sweet nothings to apostropher any time now.
One problem with this thread is that no one seems to have read Justice Thomas's dissent or understand the point he was making. I have, and I think he is absolutely right.
First, what he actually wrote was:
As an initial matter, the plurality relies upon the date of the AUMF’s enactment to determine the beginning point for the “period of the war,” Winthrop 836, thereby suggesting that petitioner’s commission does not have jurisdiction to try him for offenses committed prior to the AUMF’s enactment. Ante, at 34-36, 48. But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents.
Thus, he is not accusing Justice Stevens of being generally ignorant of warfare, but rather is complaining (with great justification) that the justices agreeing to the plurality opinion had ignored both the general nature of how wars happen and the Court's precedents regarding the particular, narrow issue he was addressing.
The rest of the dissent on this topic is about a page, so I won't paste it all in this comment. But Justice Thomas seems exactly right in his criticism, both as a matter of common sense and as a matter of law. Here are a few bits.
The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities. See Prize Cases, supra, at 668 (recognizing that war may be initiated by “invasion of a foreign nation,” and that such initiation, and the President’s response, usually precedes congressional action). Thus, Congress’ enactment of the AUMF did not mark the beginning of this Nation’s conflict with al Qaeda, but instead authorized the President to use force in the midst of an ongoing conflict.
. . .
[T]he traditional rule is that “[o]ffenses committed before a formal declaration of war or before the declaration of martial law may be tried by military commission.” Green, The Military Commission, 42 Am. J. Int’l L. 832, 848 (1948) (hereinafter Green); see also C. Howland, Digest of Opinions of the Judge-Advocates General of the Army 1067 (1912) (hereinafter Howland) (“A military commission … exercising … jurisdiction … under the laws of war … may take cognizance of offenses committed, during the war, before the initiation of the military government or martial law” (emphasis in original));FN4 cf. Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 13 (“The extent to which the power to prosecute violations of the law of war shall be exercised before peace is declared rests, not with the courts, but with the political branch of the Government”).
According to the State Department, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. . . . In February 1998, al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate-and, even under the laws of war as applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal-killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. . . . This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. See id., at 1. In response to these incidents, the United States “attack[ed] facilities belonging to Usama bin Ladin’s network” as early as 1998. Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998).
I was just looking at that. I'm no law practicing person, but in context "But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents" seems like a harsh throwaway line whose only substance is that Thomas is disagreeing about when a war starts and what the precedents are. Every other sentence in that part of the dissent - admittedly, the only part I read after searching the pdf for "unrealities" - has more substance than that one. Making this about who's served when and in what capacity seems completely beside the point, which is probably why it's a parenthetical in one of the linked posts.
I think I need to follow FL and stop reading political blogs and posts for weeks.
Nothing wrong with his saying that Stevens was wrong, but saying that Stevens didn't understand the issues was goofy.
There's an insignificant distinction between these two. The far bigger issue is the awful dissent he wrote. Thomas is just worst judge on the bench. Just my opinion, I haven't served on the bench.
IdeaList, do you have any problems with the US trying people for offenses against the laws of war committed in wars to which the United States was not a party, at the time of the offense?
Hypothetical: a guy fighting in Kashmir (as part of a Pakistani organization that has operational ties to AQ) kills an Indian civilian in a disputed part of Kashmir in 1999. He falls into US custody for unrelated reasons in 2002. Can the US try that person for the 1999 crime? Is the answer different if the murder in Kashmir was in 2002?
Ok, but haven't any number of nutbar Montana militiamen declared war on the US? There are probably some Japanese imperialist holdouts loitering around somewhere, too.
Yes, Al Qaeda is rather more dangerous than these groups, but I'm not happy creating an entirely different legal regime to address that. The AUMF is Congress's version of #67 here--"Ah, we see your declaration of war is enough of a threat that we now also move to a war footing."
IdeaList, do you have any problems with the US trying people for offenses against the laws of war committed in wars to which the United States was not a party, at the time of the offense?
Being a lawyer, my answer is it depends, both as a matter of law and of policy. Re: your hypo, what you have described is not necessarily a war crime. Assuming that the person committed a war crime, I would say that the US could do so, but should not. Rather, it should turn him over to the Indian authorities.
Here's one for you. We capture Osama bin Laden. Assume that some or all of his attacks against the US prior to the passage of the AUMF were war crimes. Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Sorry, are you asking whether he can be tried? In which case the answer is certainly, just like we could try the 1993 WYC bombers. Or are you asking something else?
But to be tried for war crimes we'd have to be at war with Bin Laden, and to argue that he violated certain laws of war we'd have to show that we recognized them as applicable to the case. And if that were true, where does that get us with Geneva?
I think I would prefer to try bin Laden as a common criminal, because I think calling him the leader of a warring Party overly dignifies his cause.
If we must call it war, though, I'd still want to say that the US was not at war prior to Septmeber 11, 2001, and that for conduct before that he is answerable to us under the laws of nations or the laws of the United States, but not the laws of war.
Now if the government of Afghanistan wants to try him for war crimes committed as part of the Afghan Civil War, I'd be happy to turn him over. After he'd served his sentence.
Assume that some or all of his attacks against the US prior to the passage of the AUMF were war crimes. Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Doesn't this hypothetical define 'begging the question'? War crimes are (in part) crimes committed in relation to an ongoing war. If we assume they were war crimes, then we assume there was a war going on. If not, they were crimes for which he can be tried. The initial assumption does all the work.
I disagree with the plurality in that I still don't think we're at war other than in Iraq. The war on terror is a metaphor, like the war on drugs. Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt with as such -- the alternative is to expand 'war' to encompass all of history. But their approach is preferable in that it puts some sort of rational limitation on what a 'war' is, rather than expanding the definition to meaninglessness.
I was going to make light snark following JM's remark (72) about Montana militiamen about how, as a matter of law, everyone's in their state's militia, even her. So I went to the California Code, and low and behold, "the militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens . . . who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five . . ." while in New York "[t]he unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five . . . " Funny, you'd think it'd be different nowadays. Sort of like in Montana, where "The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state . . ."
I also wanted to make a crack equating adherents of the Addington/Yoo view of executive power with enemy combatants in the war on drugs, but couldn't make it work (even for me).
86 -- I think we intervened in the Afghan Civil War, and I would have said in 2004 that that war was over, but now I'm thinking maybe it was just on hiatus.
Sorry, left out Afghanistan. Sure, we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan waging war. The wars are wars relating to the control of territory and government in those two states. We are not, in my view, at 'war' either with 'terror', or with any particular terrorist organization except insofar as they are relevant to those wars.
70: True, but as Justice Thomas shows, not dispositive of the question of whether a commission can try someone for a war crime.
War commissions or tribunals are regulated by laws of war, even in the case where Congress has declared war, even ignoring Geneva Conventions which Hamden found apply to this conflict. When new specific statutes do not describe tribunals for al-Queda combatants, the president must abide by existing regulations.
we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan waging war.
This is just it, though. They aren't waging war. They are policing. We have troops in countries all over the damn globe, in varying roles, and with that, the opportunity to *always* be at "war". The expansion of the definition of war is exactly the problem here.
Hrm. There's the whole declared/undeclared problem, but what's happening in Iraq looks an awful lot like a war to me. (I am much less on top of what exactly is happening in Afghanistan these days.)
This is just it, though. They aren't waging war. They are policing.
To be fair, they are functioning under the Authorization to use Military Force, a congressional authorization for whatever you want to call the action.
I think that US forces in Iraq & Afghanistan are fighting a war. Yet, every time I read Balko's blog I find the definition of policing continues to shift closer to warfighting. So policing ≠ warfighting is getting blurred.
I'm with LB and Yama on the 'waging war' question; I wish the bit about declarations of war hadn't become a dead letter, but in fact it looks to me like wars don't have to start with a Declaration as opposed to an AUMF-like thing any more.
(Incidentally, Thomas's point makes the crack about the realities of war even fucking stupider. Stevens served in WWII. I recall that the US's active participation in that war began with a minor incident at Pearl Harbor, which may have preceded the declaration of war by a few hours.)
Sure. Part of the problem here, and I wrote out half a screed and then erased it because I didn't have my thoughts straight, is that the law of war is designed for wars that look like traditional military conflicts between armies struggling for control of territory. What we've done here is call a situation with very little resemblance to that a 'war', and then exclaim that the people we've detained in connection with it haven't obeyed the law of war. Sure they haven't, this isn't a war. They're criminals, and should be treated as such.
I have to observe that there's something interesting to see a lot of people who, it is my understanding, have neither served in the military nor seen combat lecturing each other on What It Means To Serve In A War.
If all the comments made along that vein are accurate, they therefore can't be accurate.
The truth -- which I am uniquely positioned to speak on, of course, from my only slightly-comfy-chair (less so just now, but never mind), and high former rank of Second Class Boy Scout, Ass't Patrol Leader, is that a) yes, being in combat can give you insights into combat you might not otherwise have; and that b) it might not.
People are individuals. There's nothing actually magic about one particular way of acquiring wisdom or insight or knowledge. One kind of experience might do it -- fighting in the infantry, say -- but it might not.
One might gain from infantry combat the visceral knowledge of the horrors of the violence and death and blood and lacerated organs spilling out of bodies, and from that one might gain... anything or nothing.
One might be made more realistic about the price of war. Or perhaps one might be made indifferent and callous to it. Or perhaps one might be made slightly (or more) maddened and crazedly belligerent. Or perhaps one might be made a pacifist (even when one shouldn't be). Or perhaps one might be made what some would simply call a coward. Or perhaps one might be made wise and judicious about the use of war.
And on and on, through a thousand more possibilities.
The notion that going through infantry combat -- or any other sort of combat, perhaps firing an anti-aircraft missile, or serving in a submarine, or navigating an airplane -- or serving in the military, and perhaps being a clerk in the Midwest for your entire service, or a cook, or an aircraft mechanic, or any of a long list of MOS -- gives the person with such experience any particular given reaction, knowledge, or wisdom, is just naive, ignorant, and completely wrong.
So when Silvana, in 4, says: "I guess, but the implication is that people who haven't served can't disagree about war with people who have. I think that's false."
That's right.
And when slolernr in 5 says "Naw, the implication is that people who haven't served shouldn't lecture those who have about what war is really like."
That's also right, but only up to a point. It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone who has not served in combat, or not in the military, to have a better grasp of a given, or general, military reality, than someone who did.
On the other hand, the odds are lower that that would be the case than not.
On the first hand, again, we're not statistics, we're people, so unless we have insight into the given individuals in question, and their actual relevant wisdom, statistics and proabilities are of limited usefulness. Not none, but limited.
So, bottom line, there are two valid points here. However, bottomist line, I tend to think that, in fact, Silvana was more correct than those disagreeing.
Moreover, this: "I for one, don't want our country to be such that every president from now until eternity has to have served in the military to get any cred."
This is a crucial point for a variety of reasons, ranging from the specific, unto itself, to that which is more general: we don't, in fact, run our country as a Technocracy. We don't, in fact, believe that only those who are expert in a given field should be allowed to vote on relevant issues in the legislature, or speak to said issues, or be the only people listened to with respect with such issues.
And that's for the same reasons I went on about above: possession of an engineering degree doesn't mean you can't be an idiot about a given engineering project, and all wrong about. Ditto being a lawyer about a given legal issue. Or a social worker or sociologist about a social problem.
And so on and so forth.
These are also, aside from being wrongheaded notions, antithetical to the entire principle of democracy. We hold that as citizens of a democracy, all our opinions hold some value; this is, of course, something of a fiction, but it's a necessary fiction to our system until such time as we choose to instead switch to a technocracy or an oligarchy, or as regards military matters, an oligarchy of those who have served in the military.
Another crucial part of our system, of course, is civilian control of the military. And the notion that the military are best placed to be the final judges on military issues is, again, antithetical to our form of government.
And finally, the notion that only those with military experience should be listened to as regards military issues is the path to the world of Starship Troopers. Now, much though that's a much misunderstood book, it's still certainly not a society I wish to live in, and neither is it one I think anyone around here wishes to live in.
So, yeah, regardless of which individual in question is being spoken of, and regardless of our valid prejudices against him, it's perhaps helpful to forget the individual, and consider the larger, general, issues at stake, which can be turned against any of us.
Establishing the principle that it's improper for someone who hasn't served in the military to lecture someone who has, on military issues, really really really probably isn't the way anyone would want to go, once they've thought through the implications.
Otherwise the specific legal arguments should be taken, I suggest, on their own merits. In which case, on that basis, let fly the denunciations.
I have spoken. You may now all agree.
82: "If we must call it war, though, I'd still want to say that the US was not at war prior to Septmeber 11, 2001,"
Does that make cruise missile strikes launched by Bill Clinton war crimes? Or another form or crime? Or not?
Is it only a war if Congress declares it? IANAL, and I'd be much more comfortable if that were so, but my IANAL understanding is that the legal judgments as regards the Korean War and our adherence to the treaties we signed establishing the UN moved us past that legal understanding, as arguably did or did not subsequent military actions, though obviously there are a variety of legal opinions on this. Thus my asking the question, however, rather than Pronouncing.
"Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt with as such -- the alternative is to expand 'war' to encompass all of history."
The notion of legal declarations of war is pretty darn recent, historically speaking, and also limited to a limited percentage of regimes on the planet. It's undoubtedly more accurate to say that war does, in fact, encompass all of history.
Of course, we do have legal regimes nowadays, so I'm unclear how relevant that is. But discussing the nature of the legal states of war in all of history might not be a profitable direction to go in, I'm thinking.
87: "and I would have said in 2004 that that war was over,"
On what basis?
91: "The expansion of the definition of war is exactly the problem here."
Establishing the principle that it's improper for someone who hasn't served in the military to lecture someone who has, on military issues, really really really probably isn't the way anyone would want to go, once they've thought through the implications.
Jesus Christ how often do we have to make the same point? No one is saying that it's improper for anyone to disagree with Stevens on a point of military necessity. We are saying that Thomas is an asshole for lecturing Stevens on his ignorance of war when Stevens' direct experience vastly outweighs him. The point is not that Thomas's biography makes him necessarily wrong, it's that his language makes him a jerk.
The notion of legal declarations of war is pretty darn recent, historically speaking, and also limited to a limited percentage of regimes on the planet. It's undoubtedly more accurate to say that war does, in fact, encompass all of history.
And this is idiotic. Are you saying that the distinction between wartime and peacetime is a modern distinction? If war encompasses all of history, what's the point of giving it a name, or having special laws relating to it -- it would just be 'the normal state of affairs'.
Incidentally, as regards this sentence I wrote: "IANAL, and I'd be much more comfortable if that were so, but my IANAL understanding is that the legal judgments as regards the Korean War and our adherence to the treaties we signed establishing the UN moved us past that legal understanding, as arguably did or did not subsequent military actions, though obviously there are a variety of legal opinions on this."
I neglected to also point out that prior to the Korean War (or "police action," if you prefer), the United States of America's armed forces were, in fact, since September 17, 1787, involved in hundreds of discrete military actions, some being fired upon, some firing, some two ways; some incidents lasting under an hour (though perhaps resulting in many deaths), and some far more prolonged. I could start running through a list, but it would be Very Very Very long, whether discussing the Whiskey Rebellion, the Barbary Pirates, the Panay Incident, the Mayaguez, the creation of Panama, the Dominican Republic in 1965, the U.S.S. San Jacinto and the Trent, Beirut 1982-3, and on and on and on and on and on.
Has anyone denied the possibility, or possible legality, of uses of military force short of war? I don't believe anyone has, which means I can't imagine what the point of 101 is.
What I and some others have been arguing is that we are not entitled to apply a legal regime appropriate for a state of war under circumstances that do not closely resemble a war. (Or something roughly along those lines -- the legal regime that the administration is attempting to apply isn't appropriate under any circumstances.) But to the extent that it is justified by the existence of an ongoing 'War on Terror', I don't believe that that war closely enough resembles a conventional war to make that a reasonable argument.
Not to interrupt anything, but I was just reading the WaPo's "analysis" piece and was kind of amazed to learn that Bush didn't have much to say because he was "caught by surprise by the decision." WTF? It's the end of the term. Anyone who was paying attention knew that Hamdan was coming down and that there was at least a strong possibility that it would have important things to say about fundamental issues of presidential power that were critical to the administration's approach to the Great War to End Evil. And nobody bothered to tell King Clueless about any of this? I say again, WTF?
"Are you saying that the distinction between wartime and peacetime is a modern distinction?"
Pretty much. Humans have been living in organized societies for tens of thousands of years. We have about 5000 years of recorded history. The concept of "wartime" and "peacetime" in a legal sense has been around approximately some 300-800 years, perhaps. We could have some interesting discussions trying to establish a definition and a time, but it might be difficult to establish agreement. Regardless, it's a relatively small fraction of recorded, let alone unrecored history, that we've had such legal definitions. In fact, the legal concept of nations is relatively recent and modern; in the 14th Century, if you'd asked a French peasant, let alone one on the banks of the Euphrates or Amazon or Congo, if her nation was in a state of war -- I'm assuming the interrogator speaks the language properly -- you'd get a blank stare.
The concept of nations, per se, legally warring on each other, is very modern. Some warriors having at each other isn't the same thing.
"If I had any idea what useful point you imagined you might be making, I'd try to respond."
I assumed you wanted an answer to your query to me. You did ask.
I have plenty of comments hanging since this morning and yesterday on other threads, if you'd prefer to chat about those, instead. Or posts on my own blog.
As regards earlier query: "Jesus Christ how often do we have to make the same point?"
Possibly as long as people think "chickenhawk" makes an effective or important or relevant point and others disagree? Or until everyone agrees that Silvana had a valid point, as well? Or, I dunno, I could go fix more attention on the PBS Newshour and other reading, or on DVDs, or some of the other fun stuff in my life today that I wrote about earlier today, if I'm annoying you too much here and now. That latter is not actually my preferred goal.
The point which I was irritated at being forced to reiterate was that NO ONE CALLED THOMAS A CHICKENHAWK, OR SUGGESTED THAT HIS BIOGRAPHY UNFITTED HIM TO EXPRESS OPINIONS ON MILITARY MATTERS. The point of the post is that his purely civilian personal history DOES unfit him to be snippy about a wartime veteran's understanding of military necessity. It is not that he is unqualified to speak, it's that he's a jerk about it.
You may not recognize that distinction, but it's terribly annoying that you don't acknowledge that it's been made.
That's not really true, LB: Apostropher linked a "chickenhawk" page including Thomas. With the rest, I would agree that I think there's been consensus that the point is the specific crack about the realities of war.
"...but it's terribly annoying that you don't acknowledge that it's been made."
I wrote: "And when slolernr in 5 says 'Naw, the implication is that people who haven't served shouldn't lecture those who have about what war is really like.'
That's also right...."
Should I be annoyed that you don't acknowledge that that point was made by me? (Mostly I'm just focusing my zen on distraction, and such, so somehow I'm mostly sweeping being minimally annoyed under that, and feeling particularly virtuous; it doesn't seem to be for lack of reasons for me to feeling snappish today.)
I am both a big fan (and lurker) of both LizardBreath and Gary, but, obviously, Gary is sticking LB's pigtails in the inkwell. I can certainly understand why (too bad she's already taken).
Totally OT, but LB, have you been reading TPMCafe's elections blog? I find it much better than the TAP one, which we were complaining about earlier. (I feel the answer is probably "Duh, yes.")
And Gary, sure, you acknowledged it. My apologies for saying you didn't. And in fact said you agreed with that point. My crossness was with the argumentative tone aimed at no one present in the discussion, including apo (see his 11). There are few things more annoying than being piously lectured on points not in controversy. (I'm having a bad day at work, so I'm still probably being ruder than you deserve. Sorry about that.)
To the issue of what constitutes a war (aside from Congressional declarations thereof, which do now appear to be quaint), we recently had a war against the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. That war is finished. The regime was destroyed. The vacuum left behind was filled, quite predictably, by chaos. In this chaos, our troops are attempting the (impossible, IMO) task of providing security. This is closer to peacekeeping than war-waging. Whatever term you'd like to place on it, it isn't war. And the amorphous War on Terror is explicitly *not* a war, in any recognizable sense of the word, any more than the War on Drugs is a war. Both are just excuses to ask for both financial and operational blank checks.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still wars. In that case, the prisoners we are holding should have full POW status. The administration can't have it both ways.
Sorry, I was just kidding around. I thought that's what you guys did here. It won't happen again. I'll go away now. (Now I know how Gary feels.) Thanks for being so welcoming.
You know, I'm pretty sure that the distinction between "terrorism" and "not terrorism" doesn't rest in the actual actions done by the "terrorists," but on the question of whether or not said actions are authorized by a nation-state. I.e., the definition of "terrorism" is "warfare waged by a non-state entity."
And I'm further pretty sure that the entire fucking justification for rules of war and for our (America's) claimed moral superiority over the terrorists as well as our (the world's) repudiation of terrorism rests precisely on the idea that nations wage war under specific conditions and following recognizable rules of engagement, whereas terrorists don't.
So if we (1) throw out the fucking rules and (2) declare that "the terrorists" are, effectively, an army, then what the fuck is the difference between us and them?
This completely aside from specific-to-the-US issues like, oh, the Constitution and the separation of powers.
hand grenades in the halls generally wouldn't hurt anybody at 9:00 on Friday night around here
That reads to me sort of like, "hand grenades in the halls would actually do a lot of good," but I know what you mean.
westek, please note that 120 is an open invitation to comment again whenever; I will hold a fruit basket in reserve.
You know, I'm pretty sure that the distinction between "terrorism" and "not terrorism" doesn't rest in the actual actions done by the "terrorists," but on the question of whether or not said actions are authorized by a nation-state. I.e., the definition of "terrorism" is "warfare waged by a non-state entity."
I wouldn't think so -- the Lockerbie bombing was terrorism even if it was sponsored by the Libyan government, various partisan attacks on military forces aren't terrorism even if they don't have any control of the state. That said, I don't see how grabbing someone out of his cab and pulpifying him is that much morally superious to kidnapping someone and decapitating him, just because it's done by a regular army.
I should have said "roughly speaking," of course. The Libyan thing counts as terrorism partly because it was sponsored by Libya but not actually performed by armed soldiers--and, of course, because it was an action against civilians completely absent and separate from any intention to declare or wage war. Whereas partisan attacks against soldiers (or even civil wars) are a pretty recognizable extension of regular war.
Generally speaking, though, I think the distinction I made works.
What if the US was under attack by terrorists on a far grander scale than 9/11, not all that unlikely or impossible. Our defense of an attack like that would be more justified than our retaliatory attack after 9/11, would it not? I don't think the argument against the war in Afghanistan/al-Queda, is one of principle of the sort that we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII.
BPHD's (2) refers, maybe, to a scale, rather than an absolute. We might defend ourselves, justifyably, against a larger attack.
Well, except that I think terrorism often *is* an expression of a desire to declare/wage war, absent the necessary apparatus (a state, an army) to do so effectively, or at least in the way we conventionally understand it.
I don't think the argument against the war in Afghanistan/al-Queda, is one of principle of the sort that we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII.
I do, emphatically. At least, we shouldn't throw those rules out without a great deal of national and international discussion of the consequences and effects of doing so.
I'm not clear what you're saying Yamamoto; I'm not sure that anyone here opposed the war in Afghanistan or use of force against Al Qaeda (as opposed, perhaps, to the AUMF). I do think, by and large, that those wars are bound by the Geneva Conventions or rules of legal justice.
I'm sorry I was rude, I try to be nice to lurkers, and generally by the time you've made three comments or so I don't remember whether you've been commenting forever or not. That said, having the first thing you ever say to someone be a comment on how they're conducting an argument with a friend, regardless of whether you're being friendly and jocular about it or not? Not calculated to avoid being annoying. But all is forgiven, and feel free to comment again.
What Weiner said in 136. We are justified in defending ourselves when attacked, certainly. That doesn't mean we get to discard all rules of law, domestic and internation, when attacked.
134: Sure, but note your use of "often." Basically, I think the non-state actor element of terrorism is epiphenomenal; it's a tactic that non-state groups often use against states because of the massive asymmetry in power, but that's not an essential part of its meaning. States can use terrorist tactics too, and do (such as in the Libya example).
Re: the only Congress can declare war thing, there is the notion that once Congress has authorized the spending to raise and maintain a particular military force, then the President, as Commander in Chief, has the power to decide what to do with that force. Congress then has the power to deny further funding if it then disapproves.
The primary proponent of this view that I've read (and been taught by, incidentally) is Philip Bobbit. I have some serious reservations about this view, but it's comprehensible and defensible, I think.
One of the problems with Constitutional analysis of War Powers is that the whole business of raising and maintaining an army and waging war was so incredibly different in the 18th Century. In the 20th Century post WWII, there's been general Congressional acceptance / compliance / acquiescence with the view that the standing army is under the President's control. The War Powers Act following the issues raised by the Gulf of Tonkin incident is an example of Congress trying to negotiate the modern reality of massive standing armed forces.
I'm just saying that terrorist action on our part seems to be rather loosely applied only because our current engagements largerly concern military action against a non-state actors. I think I've already made clear above that I agree with abiding by rules of war and the Geneva Convention. Please don't try to look for an argument I am not making.
Look, Yamamoto, you're growing on me here. My intent was to point out that I don't think we're disagreeing -- I'm not arguing that we can't defend ourselves against terrorism, just that the legal arguments based on the existence of the 'war on terror' are weak ones, because terrorist activity isn't much like a war.
Well, then say what you're saying clearly. Even your explanation doesn't make sense: by "terrorist action on our part seems to be rather loosely applied" do you mean that we are ourselves engaging in terrorism? Or that someone has said we are? Or that we're (the administration? the people talking in this thread?) defining terrorism loosely?
In 133 you proposed a hypothetical situation in which we were "under attack," declared such a situation "not unlikely," and then seemed to dismiss the idea that "we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII." That certainly seems like implying, if not stating directly, that in wars with terrorists we might be justified dumping Geneva.
I just want to say that re-reading those accounts of Dilawar being pulpified still make me want to throw up. They also make me intensely ashamed of what my countrymen and women have wrought. Suskind's accounts in the last few days have also sickened and ashamed me.
These policies and practices, suborned and promulgated by this administration, have shamed us and are manifestly against the interests of our nation and counterproductive in fighting terrorists or bringing stability to Afghanistan or Iraq.
I know that "people of reason" will say "of course these things are awful, how could you doubt that anyone in this administration supports them?" But there comes a point where the evidence is just too substantial to support any other explanation than that Bush and Co. don't f&*king care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary Americans, Iraqis, Aghanistanis, etc.
But there comes a point where the evidence is just too substantial to support any other explanation than that Bush and Co. don't f&*king care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary Americans, Iraqis, Aghanistanis, etc.
Not harsh enough. I'm convinced that a bunch of these guys seriously get off on this stuff. It's not exactly sadism, but they enjoy exercising power in ways that other people (i.e. contemptible weaklings) find abhorrent. We probably should have declared Godwin's Law quaint about the time they so declared the Geneva Conventions.
I'm not arguing that we can't defend ourselves against terrorism, just that the legal arguments based on the existence of the 'war on terror' are weak ones, because terrorist activity isn't much like a war.
It isn't much like a traditional war but I think it's going to be the way of wars of the future. Small groups and single actors will have even greater technological ability to do great harm to large numbers of innocent people. I just don't see a way to fight them without falling into what is traditionally known as terrorist action on our part. I tend to think that love will conquer a great deal more than war, but that's probably naive, politicians are unlikely to think that way.
Small groups and single actors will have even greater technological ability to do great harm to large numbers of innocent people.
Sure.
I just don't see a way to fight them without falling into what is traditionally known as terrorist action on our part.
This bit I don't see. Terrorist action is generally the murder of civilians in order to exert pressure on their government or leaders. (A) I don't see where that gets us practically and, more importantly (B) I'd rather be killed with my whole family than sponsor it. Did you mean something different?
To be more specific about my 123, with Congress having abdicated its Constitutional role of declaring war, the commander-in-chief can always insert our forces into a civil war and magically be at war. Even easier when you go in and create your own failed state, as we've done. And the best part is that, with no borders to drive an expansionist power back into or territory to annex and cleanse, the war never has to end and a president gets to claim extra-double-special wartime powers for his entire term. As does the next one and the one after and the one after, forever and always, amen.
Such powers as Bush is claiming amount to an unfettered ability to do anything he damn well pleases—not just in foreign policy, but the right to look at any mail, phone record, bank transaction, internet activity, et cetera, for every person in the country. That is a terrifying claim whether you like him or not, and something that ought to have people in the streets with torches and pitchforks even if we had President Baby Jesus Einstein. Which, lord knows, we don't.
So, I'm not at all interested in allowing our government to fudge on what constitutes a war, because that currently affects a hell of a lot more than the bombs we're dropping halfway around the world.
153: I'm not at all interested in allowing our government to fudge on what constitutes a war...
We don't fudge, but we have to make rules that apply to modern conflicts.
I'm very pleased with the USSC ruling on Hamdan. It'll have a wider impact than the treatment of "enemy combatants" and I think it will have a severe dampening effect on the invasion of privacy, the spying activities. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I see this as a turning point. Bush will certainly attempt to turn to Congress to legislate what he wants to do, but I have a feeling that Congress may not have the stomach for that.
Seriously, 146, 148, and 154 get it right (and I didn't mean to impute any particular view to you Yamamoto; I really didn't understand what that was saying). As for 153, I think the solution is probably not so much to say "all those things where our forces are fighting aren't wars" as "war doesn't mean the president gets a special Wartime President card that turns him into an absolute monarch."
The latter definitely needs to be said. But the "new warfare" is a deliberate formula for a permanent war footing. We don't know which or how many groups we're fighting against, don't have leaders with whom we can negotiate, and the goal seems to be not achieving a solution but ensuring a state of hostilities. I suppose that's a type of warfare, but it's something different than how we've defined it previously.
158: That's right. We've already moved beyond traditional rules of warfare by pursuing terrorists.
154: is just a bit glib. There are no traditional rules of war for this kind of action and it's clear to me, if not to everyone else here, that Congress has been making new rules as we enter this kind of new warfare (or police action) that are perfectly legal but abhorrent. Just wait and see that the court's decision will force Congress to make rules that will make Gitmo tribunals perfectly legal.
I agree to a point, Y, except that I haven't really noticed Congress making rules. That role seems to have been usurped by the executive branch, as far as military action goes.
I agree that the executive branch has usurped that role (and done so illegally), but the Authorization for Military Force has already, yet, legally overstepped the bounds of traditional rules of war by authorizing the pursuit of terrorists, who are civilian actors, with the military. The parallel with the war on drugs is clear, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread.
I see two problems. (1), the president is doing whatever he wants to do without congressional oversight wrt war-related activities, and (2)Congress can find a legal way to do what the president wants to do. The court has found a way to limit 1) but not 2).
I'm concerned about other things as well, for instance, that the president will say that the court rulings don't apply in war time.
There are some things that the President wants that Congress can't give him. It can't take Guantanamo out of the reach of the Fifth Amendment. I'm not sure it could make a Suspension stick -- there's no rational argument that can be made that "the Public safety" requires that a prisoner's habeas petition be heard in the DC Circuit, rather than in the district court. They are in the same building.
The bigger problem is, as everyone agrees, political. There's nothing to prevent Republicans in Congress from trading away the nation's honor* for gain in the 2006 mid-terms. And no reason for Democrats in Congress to think that they will not be utterly destroyed in the mid-terms if they resist in the least. (Plenty of people like to blame Democrats for failing to stand up to their constituents on this and similar issues. It's the job of interested constituents to help their representatves see that they're not being asked to undertake a suicide mission, that will not even get the target.)
* I'd be interested to hear from any rational person who thinks this not an apt description for a repudiation of the Geneva Conventions.
Also, Idealist, if you get the chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the response to what you said in that earlier thread.
Of course I could have been wrong, and the points washerdryer makes in the other thread that one could support the war and the President and still applaud the decision if one honestly thought that it had righted an injustice are obviously true. On the other hand, given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was by people who had not even read what he wrote or understood the point he was making, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
I'm a little bit concerned about the Court's deference to Congress here. (I don't think that deference is the proper word in a bunch of these cases--none of which I've read through--but I'm not sure what is.) They keep saying that the reason some action X or procedure Y is not allowed is that Congress didn't authorize it in the AUMF. I kind of feel that some of these things ought to be viewed as unconstitutional. I know that it's a basic principal of American jurisprudence that you decide a case on narrower, more technical grounds first. That is, you're supposed to rely on statutory authority before you go to a constitutional argument, but in situations like this "war on terror" this approach really bothers me. Deciding these cases on the basis that Congress didn't authorize the practices could encourage Congress to pass laws specifically authorizing them. Maybe those will then be found unconstitutional,but it will require a lot of expensive litigation and more people will suffer unnecessary detention or horrible procedures that would seem to me (and I never took Con Law 2) to violate due process--if not legally, then under some sort of layman's "fundamentall fair" standard.
apo in 153: That is a terrifying claim whether you like him or not, and something that ought to have people in the streets with torches and pitchforks even if we had President Baby Jesus Einstein. Which, lord knows, we don't.
I agree. emphatically. How does one organize that kind of thing?
Here's what bugs me about this discussion (and btw, y'all obviously don't know anything about the realities of warfare).
We're all taking it as a given that there's some all-new kind of war to which we're reacing after the fact and that requires some all-new kind of rules. And we're letting pass the idea that the Geneva Conventions are now antiquated, quaint ideas made up by past generations who really just couldn't have imagined what the future would hold.
And that's ridiculous. Professional military folks, including those who were involved in creating the Geneva Conventions, are constantly thinking about threat possibilities, strategies, effective ways of using force, the advantages and disadvantages of terrorizing civilian populations as well as armies, how to gain information, and so on. (In fact, the NSA wiretapping thing is one reason why the argument that cryptographers know nothing of warfare is so irritatingly foolish.) It is simply not true that terrorism is a threat possibility that hasn't been considered and planned for. And yet, the professional military increasingly hates Rumsfeld and the Administration's nonsense about new rules. And I'm pretty sure that this is because (1) they know it's just nonsense, invented to rationalize a massive power grab; (2) they know that the "new rules" actually endanger them; (3) they know that the "new rules" aren't effective.
given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was by people who had not even read what he wrote or understood the point he was making, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
I hadn't read Thomas' dissent or the majority opinion yet. And I'm glad the administration lost. But I resent the implication that my reason for that is uninformed and shallow. I'm glad they lost because in fact I know a fair bit about what was happening at Guantanamo, about the Geneva Conventions, about war, and about how the Administration has seriously fucked this one up, and I care about those issues.
If the current Administration weren't fucking up, I wouldn't want them to lose. See how that works? My opposition is based on something other than opposition for opposition's sake, and it's pretty damn smug to imply that your support is based on information but everyone else's oppostion is based on ignorance.
happy with the result simply because the Administration lost
Inasmuch as the administration has established its position as exactly antithetical to the black-letter common law that I regard as the basis of our freedom, then I am delighted---DEE-LIGHTED--- that the administration lost. If perchance the administration had been on the side of law and liberty, I would have been aggrieved at its loss. You're imputing an awful lot of bad faith on no basis, Idealist.
y'all obviously don't know anything about the realities of warfare
please see
it's pretty damn smug to imply that your support is based on information but everyone else's oppostion is based on ignorance
By the way, B. Where did you serve? I ended up taking the Command and General Staff College by the non-resident option, did you go to Leavenworth for it? Were we in the 101st at the same time? I was only a warplanner at the US Forces Korea headquarters, I guess you were assigned to someplace flashier, like CENTCOM or EUCOM.
Now that I have the snarkiness out of my system, I did not say, nor do I believe, nor do I believe that a reasonable person could infer from my comment that your or anyone else's opposition to the Adminstration or happiness at the Administration's loss in the Hamdan case were evidence of ignorance or shallowness or opposition for opposition's case. And to anyone out there who honestly read my comment that way, I apologize.
You're imputing an awful lot of bad faith on no basis, Idealist
Oh please. That is just silly. I'm done justifying my comment. Get over it. Or not.
Oh, and FWIW, I have in fact attended lectures at the USAF Weapons School, simply because I was interested. And I used regularly to read Mr. B.'s professional stuff to him out loud while he was in the bath, not to mention a solid decade of listening to, asking questions of, and arguing with more than one squadron full of smart military professionals. Wife I may be, but I was doing more than shopping at the BX and waving bye-bye during all those years.
Oh, for fuck's sake. You don't need to have been in the military to understand this stuff; you just need to have been in a democracy. Thomas wants to give monarchial power to the executive branch whenever the country's at war - and considering this is a "war" that has no end in sight, that amounts to elevating the president above the law. Military experience might give me the ability to spout lots of neat, sexy-sounding acronyms but it isn't necessary to understand the basic point that we live in a fucking republic.
You don't need to have been in the military to understand this stuff; you just need to have been in a democracy.
While I imagine that we disagree on what follows from this, you are basically right. This is why what Justice Thomas wrote, in context, was, while harsh (custom (unfortuantely, in my view) allows a fair amount of harshness in dissents), reasonable and not subject to the criticism it was subjected to here.
More generally, I think Gary got it right when he wrote:
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone who has not served in combat, or not in the military, to have a better grasp of a given, or general, military reality, than someone who did.
On the other hand, the odds are lower that that would be the case than not.
On the first hand, again, we're not statistics, we're people, so unless we have insight into the given individuals in question, and their actual relevant wisdom, statistics and proabilities are of limited usefulness. Not none, but limited.
So, bottom line, there are two valid points here. However, bottomist line, I tend to think that, in fact, Silvana was more correct than those disagreeing.
As a young soldier, one of the most annoying things was to have to listen to a sergeant justify some particularly unsafe or stupid way of doing things by saying "this is the way we did it in 'Nam." To which the (unspoken) reply usually was "sure, and you were an idiot then, too."
On the other hand, it is a bit much to have uninformed preconceived notions of how things work crowd out facts. Just the other day I had a colleague whom I greatly admire cut me off from trying to explain the basis for information security and operation security and how that played into how things were classified with the comment that it would insult my colleague's intelligence to try to explain such obvious things. I can assure you that (and this is, of course true of most professions) things about the military and warfighting that look obvious on the outside are not necesarily so.
FWIW, the bottom line, for me, regarding the chickenhawk thing is mostly what Gary and Silvana said.
re: 171, can I just say the we disagree on the law. Indeed, part of what makes it very difficult for me to participate in such discussions is that I (annoying, but I assure you unintentionally) end up arguing about something different from what many people want to talk about. In analyzing the Court's opinion, I am interested in whether it is right on the law. If being right on the law means that the President gets to make decisions with which I disagree, so be it. That is a problem to be solved through the political process, not the courts.
On the other hand, given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was
While acknowledging that this is not adressed to me, and that Ideal has said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, I'm going to: If I ever get around to reading the Court's opinions in this case, I may wll express by views of them. My previously expressed opinions have been that I am happy with the result (that is, to my understanding, that military tribunals in which, among other things the person charged need not be informed of any of the evidence against them and their confessions elicted under harsh treatment or worse are admissible are not a permissible way to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of any Guantanamo detainee until and unless Congress says otherwise), and to argue that if the President goes ahead and asks Congress to reinstate the pre-Hamdan status quo it would involve a concession about the falsity of his previous arguments about his Article II powers. I also said that a truly awfu John Yoo op-ed was terrible and that I hoped he suffered the consequence of many people having very low opinions of him, and treating him as such.
On that last, for instance: They replaced his wartime judgment and Congress' support with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks. Their decision to impose specific rules and override political judgments about military necessity mistakes war — inherently unpredictable, and where our government must act quickly and sometimes secretly to protect national security — for the familiarity of the criminal justice system.
Unless I've been misled about the opinions that I haven't read, the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
Unless I've been misled about the opinions that I haven't read, the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
I'm sorry, but this is why people think you're imputing bad faith. You don't actually say that wd has been misled about the content of the opinion. You just say that he should read it. The implication is that his not having read it *in and of itself* disqualifies him from having an opinion--which isn't all that different from saying that not having seen combat disqualifies one from having an opinion about military strategy. Most of us rely a great deal on second-hand sources for a lot of things, and generally we expect respectable sources to be accurate in their summaries. When secondhand sources are inaccurate, then one points it out. But if they are *not* inaccurate, then dismissing conclusions based on them *simply* because they're not based on primary sources is bad faith.
If I were to do so, would I think differently because the Court held that Common Article 3 applies to accused members of Al Qaeda in some circumstancess or for some other reason?
You don't actually say that wd has been misled about the content of the opinion.
Yes, I believe he has. He is an (almost) lawyer. He should read the opinions and draw his own conclusions and discuss what they actually say rather than accusing those who have read them and disagree of bad faith.
Oh, Idealist. You used a male pronoun to refer to a female person with an androgynous username. Now people will make fun of you for no good reason, and you will no longer be listened to be anybody.
For those with out access to the decision, the Court ruled that Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply.
Thus, there is really not much basis for w/d's accusation that the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
One might disagree with the strength of Yoo's assessment (I do), but w/d's accusations are way off base given the Court's decision.
Cryptic, it would be very strange if Ideal is confused about my gender, having met me. Ideal, I think Cryptic is confused because only picture of me linked to Unfogged is of me with my arm around a girl.
Ideal, I find this, "with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks" particularly objectionable. Did the court order that the trial must occur? It seems to me that, broadly, the court could have done at least three things. The first would have been to uphold the procedures in place. The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future. If they are willing to wait, they can go to Congress and get pretty much the rules that they desire. The third is that the Court could have imposed their own procedures on either a statutory (so that the go to Congress safety valve would still exist) or Constitutional basis. If they had done the third, I'd still be uncomfortable with Yoo's description, because they still wouldn't be commanding that the trials be held, but it just doesn't describe the second at all. This will be my last comment relating to what the opinions say until I read them.
Cryptic, it would be very strange if Ideal is confused about my gender, having met me. Ideal, I think Cryptic is confused because only picture of me linked to Unfogged is of me with my arm around a girl.
Ideal, I find this, "with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks" particularly objectionable. Did the court order that the trial must occur? It seems to me that, broadly, the court could have done at least three things. The first would have been to uphold the procedures in place. The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future. If they are willing to wait, they can go to Congress and get pretty much the rules that they desire. The third is that the Court could have imposed their own procedures on either a statutory (so that the go to Congress safety valve would still exist) or Constitutional basis. If they had done the third, I'd still be uncomfortable with Yoo's description, because they still wouldn't be commanding that the trials be held, but it just doesn't describe the second at all. This will be my last comment relating to what the opinions say until I read them.
The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future.
See
Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply.
I was trying to say the same thing you had said, and note that Yoo doesn't describe anything like it. I think your "[s]ee" is for agreement, not contrast, but am uncertain. This was not a comment about the opinions.
I have read the opinions twice, skimming Kennedy's concurrence the second time, and Alito's only once, because he is an anal twit. Can't deny I skim the citations, and don't go to outside sources for full understanding of the cites and precedents. They aren't so bad.
The administration has some problems, but they are not because of SCOTUS, but because of their earlier decisions on treatment. Big problems. War crimes have been committed, and any fair trials will disclose uncomfortable truths.
Billmon incidentally thinks Stevens totally blew off the Johnson vs Eisentrager footnote. Wooo...talking dirty.
Appears it wasn't Stevens willfully misinterpreting Eisentrager, but perhaps some scurrilous miscreant on the DC Circuit. Perhaps even formerly of the DC Circuit.
Thanks for responding, Idealist. But here's what you said in the other thread:
I recognize its symbolic importance to opponents of the war
And here's what you said here by way of explanation:
I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
By "people who oppose . . . the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror" do you mean people who think we shouldn't be fighting terrorism? Or people who oppose the way this Administration has chosen to prosecute the global war on terror?
I hope you don't mean the first. I actually don't know of anyone who thinks that. Matt Weiner puts it well in the other thread:
this is close to a casual inference from "You oppose Bush's specific tactics" to "You don't want to defend America from its enemies." Which has been the GOP's electoral strategy since 9/11, and which is incredibly offensive to those who oppose Bush's tactics because they're morally wrong, and incidentally not effective at protecting America from its enemies.
It's been said upthread too, but I'll reiterate that I, and pretty much everyone here I think, oppose Bush because of policies like this. We don't oppose policies like this because they were put in place by Bush.
I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then. Or is acting in bad faith. Or maybe, just maybe, your writing isn't as crystal clear as you think it is. I know my writing isn't, and on a regular basis.
Asking for clarification, or pointing out that what you wrote has the potential to mean something else, is not evidence of thinking unreasonably or acting in bad faith, it's just engaging in discussion.
". . . people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost."
OK, I guess by using the conjunctive, you're hoping that the reader understands that you are not referring to (a) people who oppose the Administration, but agree with the prosecution or (b) people who support the Administration, but disagree with the prosecution. This still means, though, that opposition to the Administration is a necessary defining attribute of the set you describe. And that still gets you into the country of people who think the term "BDS" has significant meaning. Even if only as a tourist.
WD is correct that the SC did not order any trials of anyone. It did not order specific procedures, nor can it in this context. Its power in this kind of situation is strictly negative: you may not do X unless you first do Y. This is obviously not a command to do Y, where X is strictly voluntary.
As to whether the public trial of Salim Hamdan would compromise intelligence sources, that's a fact specific question. I don't know the answer, because I don't know what the evidence is, and whether the witnesses are already known to the people that matter. It's clear enough that the government bears the burden of showing this to be the case, and that it didn't, as a hypothetical matter, carry its burden in the SC.
This kind of claim should really never be done in gross. Say I have a client arrested in Pakistan with four other men. Mine confesses under torture to crimes on his own part, and on the part of the other four. Each of them does so as well. Now if any one of them is tried, the government might want to prevent cross-examination of the other men -- and say that cross-examination might reveal torture techniques, the identity of the US intelligence officer who conducted and/or oversaw the torture, and other 'intelligence' information. And yet, it's impossible to have a fair trial without it.
The government argues, often successfully, that civil suits against it must be dismissed because it cannot defend itself without revealing secret information. It certainly seems to me that the necessary flip side of that is that if you can't have a prosecution without revealing secret information, you have to make a choice: reveal or acquit. (By reveal, I don't mean make public -- I'm allowing the possibility of protective orders, filings under seal, and the rest, so long as the defendant gets to know all evidence against him).
And that still gets you into the country of people who think the term "BDS" has significant meaning. Even if only as a tourist.
I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. I assume you mean it as an insult of some kind. If so, not need to explain.
As to the rest of the first paragraph, the only point I think you are making--people who oppose the Administration are, all things being equal, indifferent to whether the Administration is embarassed--makes no sense. So you must have been trying to make another point. What was it?
Your second paragraph is trivially right. Of course, the Court did not order that trials go forward, and thus they did not order that any procedure be used. And it is true that Congress might be able to provide for procedures for trials which are different from those in the Manual for Courts Martial that pass Supreme Court muster. But until they do, the Supreme Court has said that the Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply. Someone who was not a careful reader might misunderstand what you wrote and think that the Court has not so ruled.
As to your last three paragraphs, I am only about half with you. To the extent you are implying that impossible to have a fair trial without the same procedural protections found in a court martial, that is quite a strong statement, in light of the fact that most countries, including most Western European countries, do not provide that level of protection in each and every respect (jury trials being an obvious example). IMHO, the procedural rules of the commissions which the Supreme Court struck down, while justifiable, do not provide a level of proceural protection that I would like. But that, of course, does not mean that the Supreme Court was right. Because the question before them was not what would they have done, the question was whether the law permitted the Administration to do what it did. IMHO, this is a vital distinction.
BDS in CharleyCarp's post stands for Bush Derangement Syndrome, an affliction liberals are said to have when they say negative things about the President or any of his policies. The idea is that we can't objectively assess him or his policies, because we really don't like him. For instance.
your writing isn't as crystal clear as you think it is.
You overestimate my opinion of my writing. And of course, it is possible (indeed, often a certainty) that I may have written things that could be misconstrued.
Asking for clarification, or pointing out that what you wrote has the potential to mean something else, is not evidence of thinking unreasonably or acting in bad faith, it's just engaging in discussion.
Obviously. However, saying that I, or others, are arguing in bad faith has nothing to do with this. Even more, it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think that all liberals hate America, support islamofacism, hate religion and just generally are bad people. That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments, because it allows them to (a) take the most outrageous, least charitable reading from a statement by a conservative tnan dismiss it out of hand as mean or silly or ill-conceived or (b) assume that a statement from a conservative is being made in bad faith and with a bad motive, and thus ignore the statement, and concentrate on the accustion of bad faith or bad motive. The thing that got this thread and the threads to which it linked started is a perfect example. Look at asshole Justice Thomas telling Justice Stevens about the realities of combat when Justice Stevens is a war hero (a Bronze Star was mentioned) and Justice Thomas is a draft dodger. Well, of course, I do not believe that anyone who read Thomas's dissent could reasonbly think that he was lecturing Justice Stevens on the realities of combat. The only way you can get from what Justice wrote to this thread and the ones it linked was by assuming the very worst at every step. And that, of course, relieves one of the burden of actually reading what Justice Thomas wrote and evaluating it fairly.
it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think . . . . That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments. . . . The thing that got this thread and the threads to which it linked started is a perfect example.
196 -- I didn't mean it as an insult at all. You don't know me, but that's very infrequently the correct interpretation of what I write.
That you are unfamiliar with the term BDS speaks well of you, and anyone else in that position. It is an abbreviation for Bush Derangement Syndrome, essentially a claim that opponents are so blinded by antipathy towards the President that they'll hail anything bad for him as 'good,' even if it's also bad for the country. One finds it among some right wing types. Calling you a tourist in BDS country is a way of saying that while you might not sincerely believe that your interlocutors act with this kind of bad faith, your remark could reasonably be understood as saying that you do. Opponents of the Administrative who are genuinely patriotic are quite sensitive to the treason charge -- even the 'committing treason in his heart' charge. I don't find the motives of anyone who hails Hamdan as a significant victory to be particularly important to understand what it means, either legally or politically, and have no ready understanding why you (among many others) bring it up. It reminds me of people who say they voted for Bush in '04 because they hated the people who were supporting Kerry, even if they were in agreement with Kerry on most of the issues. (I do not mean to imply that this is a set that includes you, Idealist). This is out there and it's real, and, in my opinion, it's why Mr. Rove like to be so quick with the 'treason' or virtual treason charge.
As for Hamdan, I think what I said about what the Court ordered is a fair defense of WD's remark above -- and I think it's what he meant. Guessing, without inside information, but I think that's there. It is a big deal. The government does not, it appears to me, have to hurry to try Salim Hamdan -- if it does, it can use procedures on the books, if it does not, it can craft new procedures -- and if Congress crafts new procedures that are inconsistent with Geneva, they will govern, not Geneva. This is what Justice Breyer's opinion means to me. That's a whole lot different from saying that the Court ordered a trial using specific procedures.
I'm not saying at the end of my comment that each of the particular procedures in the UCMJ are necessary for a fair trial. I am saying that plenty of what the government wanted to do, or would be permitted to do under the recently introduced Specter bill, was not consistent with a fair trial. Whatever the procedures are going to be, they must have confrontation, serious hearsay rules, and bar the use of coerced confessions. I'm not saying Miranda warnings were required, but if witnesses (including the defendant) were subjected to torture, then, it seems to me, their statements during and after must be excluded. And so the defendant has to have the opportunity to examine the witnesses, to build a record for exclusion. I don't think a trial can be called fair without this.
I agree that this issue has to be hashed further, that the content of the procedures is not set by Hamdan. Hence my defense of WD's comment . . .
"Also, I don't recall Gary being given the power to elect Mitch to speak for 'everyone'."
I neither have it nor need it. I specifically disclaimed even voting in favor.
"I also don't recall Gary being unable to comprehend the construction 'I guess . . . '.
I guess that I'm unaware that the construction "I guess" changes the meaning of a claim significantly. I guess I didn't know that putting "I guess" at the beginning of a sentence allows one to legitimately claim that therefore the sentence has a significantly different meaning. I guess that since it apparently does, that therefore I can insult anyone to my heart's desire by merely putting "I guess" at the beginning. I guess therefore if I said that I guess M/tch M/lls was an [ADJECTIVE] [NOUN] that he couldn't possibly take offense, because, after all, I'm using the construction "I guess."
I guess that in future, I can make whatever claim I want by beginning the claim with "I guess," and that if anyone tries to hold me to account, I can claim that since I said "I guess," hey, presto, it's fine.
Naturally, though, I wouldn't do that, since I'm not an [ADJECTIVE] [NOUN] (most of the time).
And I'm unaware that prefixing a sentence with "I guess" actually would magically relieve anyone from dealing with the responsibility of what they wrote.
"You're right, I shouldn't have implied I was speaking for anyone other than myself," might have been a simpler, better, option, though. It's still available. I commend it.
I herewith elect everyone else to speak for me, especially Gary but excluding charleycarp. All opinions are my own, however contradictory or incoherent. I agree with everyone. so you can now say:"Well, Bob and I think..."
One thing I really wish I'd done when I started law school is created a database which would updated in the following fashion: Whenever I read an opinion, an entry would go in with the name of the case, name of Judge (or Justice as the case may be) who wrote that opinion (majority, concurrence, dissent) my rating of the reasoning in the opinion as I understand it (probably 0-5 moving by tenths), and how confident I am in that rating (have I read any of the cases or other sources it relies on, not sure on what scale this would be). The goal of this project would be to quasi-empirically know my own opinion.
Scott Lemieux's defense of Clarence Thomas. I largely argee with it, especially the parts where it fails to mention any Thomas opinions or describe them positively. I would, of course, describe his opinion in Raich positively.
EB, you're only proving Idealist's point that liberals base their arguments on fantasies about evil conservatives rather than on actually reading what people say.
Huh, that linked chickenhawk entry does mention Thomas not being drafted. I actually agree more with Silvana's comments in this thread, so that doesn't change my opinion, but I didn't realize that. I thought Thomas was old enough to be pretty much out of draft range by the time of escalation.
"EB, you're only proving Idealist's point that liberals base their arguments on fantasies about evil conservatives rather than on actually reading what people say."
Could you cite the number of that comment? I missed it.
I did read 201, which said something vaguely in the neighborhood, but clearly with a quite significantly different meaning: "Even more, it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think that all liberals hate America, support islamofacism, hate religion and just generally are bad people."
Needless to say, whomever wrote the version you read, B, wrote something that uses some of the same words as 201, but which would have to be said to severely distort its meaning if it was intended to represent what was actually written in 201.
But either I missed that other comment, or someone must have made an innocent, very careless, error.
Generally speaking, I find that there are people of every possible predilection who read poorly or who distort the meaning of what others say when they allegedly recapitulate it. It's very unfortunate.
Don't worry Bob, I wouldn't dream of it. Actually, if anyone wants me to speak for them, I have a form engagement letter I'd be happy to send, and you'll find I'm quite reasonable about an initial retainer.
I agree with Idealist (and Bob?) that disparaging Justice Thomas for the understanding war remark is unsupported by the context. I'm glad no one authorized to speak for me has said anything like that.
I do think it would be useful for Idealist to more carefully distinguish 'some conservatives are jerks' from 'all conservatives are jerks.' I'm unaware of anyone (even Bob!) who holds the latter view, although the former is indisputable. In return, I'll endeavor to hear such qualifications as Idealist writes.
I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
I then responded:
I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then.
In my response, I'm noting that Idealist seems to imply that anyone who asked him to clarify his language must be unreasonable, or since he can't see how that's possible, must have been asking questions in bad faith. I'm not at all claiming to speak for you or anyone else. Of course, if you want to claim that your questions in this or the other thread really were in fact unreasonable or in bad faith, then knock yourself out, and I'm sorry for implying that they weren't.
Perhaps I was unclear, and I'm sorry if that's the case, but to be honest your reading of it as a claim that I speak for you or anyone else seems pretty damned strained.
That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments, because it allows them to (a) take the most outrageous, least charitable reading from a statement by a conservative tnan dismiss it out of hand as mean or silly or ill-conceived or (b) assume that a statement from a conservative is being made in bad faith and with a bad motive, and thus ignore the statement, and concentrate on the accustion of bad faith or bad motive.
Idealist, when you said something that resembled a common and contemptible charge often leveled at anyone who doesn't support Bush, I don't think anyone here responded in the fashion of either (a) or (b) towards you. I know I certainly didn't. All I did was ask for clarification.
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to that charge, but it is one that gets made often, and your language was frankly sloppy. But I don't think anyone dismissed what you said on the basis of it, they just asked you what you meant.
Look, I do not have a cool kitten picture to link to, and I'm too old, cranky and lacking in eloquence to express what I want to in a way that will not get someone offended, but let me try to restore some comity before I stop reading and go cook my kids dinner.
My initial comment was not intended to imply anything bad about anybody. I still do not understand how it got read that way. I'm sorry it did. I really was not trying to be mean or snarky or accuse anyone of doing anything remotely improper. The repeated further explanations and accusations/demands for further clarification got into a less than totally pleasant pissing contest because . . . well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I am, as noted, old and cranky (and a bit outnumbered here--baa, why have you foresaken me?) and when I think people are being unpleasant, I can get sarcastic in return. I'm human. Sorry.
I have mixed feelings on this issue. I've expressed before my sense that the country lost something when military life and its dangers ceased to be a common experience of all classes. I am on the other hand sympathetic to Silvana's sense that this topic can be both irrelevant and revolting.
There is nothing new about this issue on the Supreme Court, by the way. I've been looking for my copy of Holmes' speeches, and can't find it, but there is an example there of this process in action a hundred years ago. He really did claim a kind of special privilege for veterans, and did not hesitate to use his combat record in the Civil War, rare in his class, to intimidate people. The speech I'm looking for is the one with the phrase: "...in our youths, our hearts were touched by fire." Ken Burns made it iconic. Stephen Ambrose and Tom Brokaw, meet Oliver Wendell Holmes.
For maximum clarity, I probably should have phrased the sentence Farber objected to something like this:
I guess [you, Idealist, are saying/implying that] everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then.
As this edit hopefully makes clear, my intent was never to claim to speak for Gary or everyone. To the extent that this was unclear, I apologize. I wasn't even claiming to speak for Idealist, as the "I guess" construction was employed to imply that what followed was my interpretation of the logical conclusion of what he had said previously.
I shall now take this hobbyhorse to the glue factory a happy farm where it can live out its days in a meadow full of sunshine. I know you may object that it already appears dead, but I assure you that's nothing a few short sharp shocks won't cure. And I will continue to beat it until its morale improves, don't you worry.
218: "Perhaps I was unclear, and I'm sorry if that's the case, but to be honest your reading of it as a claim that I speak for you or anyone else seems pretty damned strained."
Good for the first part. But the second part fails because referring to what any one person might do isn't mirrored by what everyone did do. That's a failure of basic logic, or at least, wording.
218: "I know I certainly didn't."
See, that's the proper way to do it. It's arguable, but fairly. Well done.
219: "but I am, [...] and a bit outnumbered here"
Which is part of why I was speaking up for Idealist. That, and I hate hate hate when people are illogical or use arguments that fail, regardless of the larger issues, and regardless of the politics.
221: "As this edit hopefully makes clear, my intent was never to claim to speak for Gary or everyone. To the extent that this was unclear, I apologize."
All done on that, then. Thanks, and again, well done, in the end. Or perhaps, on this blog, I should say: good job.
I posted a lot of stuff over the weekend on my own blog, by the way, if anyone is interested. (Which variously got linky love from such as Glenn Greenwald, Brad deLong, Pharyngula, Digby, Sideshow, Hilzoy, Mahablog, and elsewhere, so possibly I wasn't as totally boring as ever, though it's all in the eye of the beholder, which is probably really annoying, in which case I recommend lots of water and blinking.)
"But the second part fails because referring to what any one person might do isn't mirrored by what everyone did do."
Okay:
In comment 193 I first quoted Idealist:
I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
I then responded:
I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then.
See, he referred to "I'm not sure how anyone." You responded as if "I guess everyone" were an appropriate mirror. It isn't.
The opposite of " not... anyone" is not "everyone."
"And I'm honestly curious as to how you construe the sentence you quoted in 195 to mean that I'm claiming to speak for you."
Because you responded with "I guess everyone who's discussed it here...just thinks unreasonably"
In point of fact, you were speaking for yourself, and doubtless some others, but not "everyone."
The proper phrasing would have been (sarcastically) "I guess I just think unreasonably." You can't respond on behalf over "everyone" sarcastically unless everyone has in fact elected you spokesperson.
You were assuming and acting as if everyone agreed with you. You specifically made that claim by writing that "everyone" disagreed with Idealist.
That's a common sort of illegitimate claim in a discussion, an attempt to claim rhetorical superiority of unanimity on behalf of your own position over another individual you (and perhaps others, but not everyone) are disagreeing with, that you're not entitled to claim. It was also specifically false. (I'm perfectly willing to grant that you were just writing clumsily, and not intentionally trying to make an illegitimate rhetorical claim.)
The traditional response on Usenet for decades, to this rhetorical trick -- someone adopting "we," or some other plural form, rather than "I" -- is "do you have a mouse in your pocket?" or some other variant. But I thought I'd use something less tired and less snotty, tried and true as the "do you have a small animal in your pocket to entitle you to speak plurally?" usage is.
I canNOT believe I'm entering into this nonsense, but Gary: that's nonsense. "Not anyone" means "no one." Hence the original sentence was quite reasonably read (and not only by M/tch) as "No one who read what I wrote could reasonably have interpreted it differently than I intended." Given that a number of people had, in fact, interpreted what was written differently than it was apparently intended, the implication was that those people were unreasonable.
Now, if you want to pick bones because M/tch said "everyone who's discussed [that thing you said] here is unreasonable, then"--which is a perfectly valid response--because he didn't go through both freaking threads and tally who interpreted X one way and who didn't then feel free. But to belabor the point and get all huffy about M/tch claiming "to speak for you" when he clearly was not making any such claim is nonsensical. To cloak this nonsense under being "logical" and to quibble about it for thirty comments over thirty-six hours is.... well, I don't know what it is. It's irritating as hell, though.
"Hence the original sentence was quite reasonably read (and not only by M/tch) as "No one who read what I wrote could reasonably have interpreted it differently than I intended." Given that a number of people had, in fact, interpreted what was written differently than it was apparently intended, the implication was that those people were unreasonable."
Yes, indeed, and Mitch was entirely entitled to speak on his own behalf, and the behalf of anyone who agreed with him.
Which wasn't "everyone."
"...to quibble about it for thirty comments"
Yeah, I said we were done, and then Mitch asked me to explain again, and I again said I was done. Don't like it? Complain to him about that. Don't complain to me, or about me, please, for courteously responding to his request when I'd said I thought we were done. Being kicked for being courteous in responding on something I'd said I'd prefer to have dropped, after I'd said I was done, isn't something I appreciate. Thanks.
Idealist, it's too late for me to engage you on substance right now, but this:
I still do not understand how it got read that way. I'm sorry it did.
is not an apology. You cannot restore comity by saying "I'm sorry [that] p" where p is of the form "Other people did bad stuff to me or misinterpreted my words."
232 should not be taken to say that I'll have time to engage you on substance later, since it's a busy week. But, I do believe that you're sincere when you use "opponents of the war" to mean "opponents of the way the Bush Administration does what it was." Nevertheless, there is an important distinction there, and I think you should be more careful to make it, in your thoughts and in your words. I believe this isn't the first time you've failed to.
Also, my last comment wasn't particularly predicated on any disagreement we've been having, it's just that those non-apology apologies are tremendously annoying in general.
233: No shit--nothing is more annoying. I remember an incident at an agency where I was freelancing, where this Traffic Chick got hostile and even abusive with me over a misfiled job, and after a brief engagement I decided to go for a walk rather than unleashing the nuclear option. When I got back, I found that one of the other designers had reported the encounter to TC's boss, who forced her to leave a written apology on my desk. It began: "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said. I just thought you were getting defensive."
This nearly drove me insane. it was wrong in oh so many ways.
I haven't been following this thread at all, so I don't know what happened, but I just wanted to tell a story from Tia's childhood. Once, when I was about 15, I went with my father and his mistress to a wedding of a friend of an adult friend of his, who I was also pretty comfortable. This friend was the only person I knew at this wedding. There were no kids there. I was pretty shy, but even non shy kids might feel uncomfortable being left alone among a bunch of grownups. The wedding was in this big outdoor compound where there were lots of places to disappear to, and he and the mistress took advantage of it and disappeared for 45 minutes to have sex without telling me they were going anywhere. For a while I just stood around awkwardly, but as time passed I was nervous about when they were planning on coming back, so I started asking if anyone had seen them, looking around, etc. When they finally reappeared I was really mad, but the mistress said, "Why couldn't you have just mingled?" In the car on the way home, my father, very uncharacteristically for him, realized he had in fact done something reprovable, and apologized to me, and asked the mistress to do the same. She said, "I'm sorry you got upset."
Not to pile onto Idealist, btw, just that this episode still makes my knotted and combined locks to part and each particular hair to stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine in retrospect. also my eyes like twin stars to start from their spheres, IYKWIM.
I want oodles of good karma points for not having been the one to make an issue of the non-apology apology. For once in my life.
Also next time I get hassled about the boyfriend in one of those "what about the children?" ways, I'm so going to say, "hey, at least I've never left my kid alone at a wedding in order to go fuck my boyfriend in the bushes."
Idealist, I don't think you actually want to see me making an issue about a crappy apology.
I do not doubt that you are capable of being even less gracious than Matt (and anyone else who insisted on finding a way to take offense at what I wrote, rather than assuming that I meant (as I did) a real apology that what I wrote had offended people). Go for it, if it gives you joy.
That's my personal favorite. The implication is that they're not only sorry for the original offense; if you weren't such a WATB, they wouldn't look bad right now.
Well damn, that horse still has some beating on left in it. For extra special maximum super clarity, perhaps I should have written the sentence Gary objected to this way:
I guess then that you, Idealist, are saying, "everyone who's discussed what my words meant here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably".
See, Gary, how that's not me claiming to speak for you, or for everyone, but rather it's me positing a logical interpretation of "I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise".
I think it was wrong of Tia's dad to ask the woman to apologise, whosever idea the tryst was. I hate non-apology apologies as much as the next person, but they are often "asked" of people who don't feel in the wrong.
mc: Have you ever done a painting of yourself in that Medusa state? I'd love to see it.
But Tia's dad and his mistress did owe Tia an apology. Whether or not she "felt" in the wrong is irrelevant; she was. You don't abandon a child at a grownup event you've dragged her to in order to go have private grownup time, and then blow off the kid's justified anger.
M/tch, I'm pretty sure that having responding-to-something-that-he's-said-he'd-prefer-to-have-dropped-after-he's-said -he-was-done called "stupid" isn't something Gary will appreciate.
I'll keep this response in mind next time you ask me something of the form "And I'm honestly curious as to how [...] Help me out here."
Consider it unlikely that I'll again assume you're acting in good faith. (I also note that you continue to fail to comprehend the point at issue, but I have utterly no interest in saying more about it; I'll just note for the future.)
I'm a little bollixed at the notion that someone is a "child" at age 15, though, to be sure, everyone is an individual, and if someone feels they were a child at that age, I'd certainly not contest the point as regards themselves.
But 15 was when I'd moved out, was living with my 22-year-old girlfriend (and, obviously, having sex), was otherwise supporting myself, was taking college courses, and, well, there's no particular standard by which I later became "adult" in a way I wasn't already.
In most of human history, until the last couple of hundred years in the West, most people were married by age 13-14.
People do vary wildly, though. I just have to subjectively blink at 15 being "childhood." (Of course, that sort of thing is why most other kids tended to drive me crazy when I was a kid, and is why I felt so alienated.)
Leaving aside whether someone is a child at 15 -- and fwiw, a lot of people really aren't -- I'd be pretty pissed off *now*, as an adult, if I was taken by friends to some event where I knew no-one apart from them and then they buggered off and left me alone.
File under "things that would be funny if they weren't undermining our liberties". Is there a catchy name for that category? Aside from, "the GOP"?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 11:29 AM
I have to say that I find all general dialogue about who did and did not serve in the military to be annoying. It's the kind of thing that is fun for a while, but then you are left going "dude, wtf?" when it's applied to your own party. I for one, don't want our country to be such that every president from now until eternity has to have served in the military to get any cred. And frankly, I don't give a shit whether supreme court justices served or not. Yeah, Thomas sucks, but it's for many, many other reasons than his lack of military service.
Plus, as we can see from the '04 election, even when you do serve, it apparently doesn't mean shit.
Okay, getting off my horse now.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:11 PM
And frankly, I don't give a shit whether supreme court justices served or not. Yeah, Thomas sucks, but it's for many, many other reasons than his lack of military service.
Okay, the point isn't to make fun of him for not serving, the point is to make fun of him for not serving and then badmouthing a combat veteran for not understanding the realities of war. Certainly there's no reason to care if Thomas was in the military.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:24 PM
I guess, but the implication is that people who haven't served can't disagree about war with people who have. I think that's false.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:25 PM
the implication is that people who haven't served can't disagree about war with people who have
Naw, the implication is that people who haven't served shouldn't lecture those who have about what war is really like.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:27 PM
Nah. If Thomas wants to say Stevens is wrong, more power to him. If the lifelong civilian wants to say that the combat veteran is "unfamiliar with the realities of warfare", he's a ass.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:31 PM
Isn't that what I said?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:32 PM
There does seem to be an echo in here, doesn't there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:33 PM
I am compelled to argue about this more, but I am taking a half-day now (why this military talk gets my goat so much, I do not know). Happy 4th of July weekend, all!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:33 PM
But to add to it, Thomas was pulling a common rhetorical maneuver: Republicans are, by virtue of their policy preference for military solutions, a priori more militarily knowledgeable and experienced than Democrats, regardless of the actual knowledge or experience of the specific people involved. That's just dumb and should be mocked.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:36 PM
Silvana, I agree that combat experience doesn't give anybody extra qualifications for anything. Except understanding the realities of war.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:39 PM
To add to all the echoing, Thomas brought it up, not Stevens.
If Stevens were to claim that Thomas didn't know anything about what it's like to grow up as a member of a racial minority, would your response be that you don't think Stevens should be called on that because you don't care what race any of the Supreme Court justices is?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:46 PM
That last sentence was constructed in fond memory of ben wolfson.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 12:54 PM
When he gets back, I'm totally going to lecture him about the realities of visiting Helsinki.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 1:00 PM
14: Don't forget to bring up his lack of understanding of the realities of bugging fur seals.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 1:09 PM
Stevens was a cryptographer in the Navy. I doubt he ever held a weapon. Bush is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. It's clear to me, from my desk, never having served in the military, that Bush knows nothing about warfare. One doesn't have to serve to know or understand something about warfare.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 2:56 PM
No one is saying you have to serve to know something about warfare. The argument is that if you didn't serve, you're not in a position to say that someone who did doesn't know anything about warfare.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:00 PM
Cryptography is not warfare. There are many positions in the armed services that do not expose people to warfare either in a specific or general sense.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:02 PM
Cryptography is, in fact, an important part of warfare. But that still doesn't have anything to do with the main point.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:03 PM
Nitpick: Cryptography is not combat. It is certainly a part of warfare.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:04 PM
There are many positions in the armed services that do not expose people to warfare either in a specific or general sense.
There are many chairs on the Supreme Court that also do not expose people to warfare in any sense.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:06 PM
Cryptography is not warfare. There are many positions in the armed services that do not expose people to warfare either in a specific or general sense.
obvs. Yamamoto doesn't understand the realities of warfare.
M/tch M/lls doesn't understand the realities of sex with willing, of-age, human females.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:07 PM
It's perfectly legitimate for someone who hasn't served to accuse someone who has that they know nothing about warfare. If they know of the service (I doubt Thomas is that aware), it's a way of saying that nothing was learned.
Just as it's legitimate for layment to accuse professionals they don't know their stuff.
Cryptography is, in fact, an important part of warfare.
So is steel manufacturing and road-building. I, for one, would not attribute any knowledge of warfare to the workers in those industries during wartime.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:08 PM
So is steel manufacturing and road-building.
Oh come on. Think about this a bit more.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:10 PM
There are many chairs on the Supreme Court that also do not expose people to warfare in any sense.
Did you think I was defending Thomas?
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:10 PM
I bet Thomas has a website called "Veterans Love Me".
And Michael, I do so! (luckily for me you didn't include "living" in your list)
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:10 PM
So is your point that one does, or does not, need to see combat in order to know something about war? Make up your mind.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:10 PM
or, if you mean "combat" then say "combat", not warefare. But Thomas said "warfare."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:11 PM
Oh and Michael, I'd appreciate it if you'd de-google-ize my name when you refer to me.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:12 PM
Mitch, you have to be living to be willing. Unless ok-with-necrophilia is stipulatedin the will, I guess.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:12 PM
M/tch, you only care about being googleable because you know nothing of the realities of googling.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:13 PM
Did you think I was defending Thomas?
Since we're talking about Thomas and what he said, then yeah, I did think you were defending him, or at least what he said.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:13 PM
oh, sorry. someone edit me comment, then, pls.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:13 PM
30: What are you, some kind of lawyer or something? I asked her to speak up if she minded anything I was doing!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:14 PM
No, Yamamoto was trying to reiterate what Silvana already said in 2. Only Yama was saying it much more incoherently.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:16 PM
Unless ok-with-necrophilia is stipulatedin the will, I guess.
I am so putting this in my will.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:17 PM
Isn't necrophilia covered by the "I donate my body for any use or purpose" thing?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:19 PM
Some of my previous comments (not in regards to M!tch) were over-hasty. Thomas probably was referring to combat. But it's inconceivable that a guy who lived and served through WWII, even in a non-combat capacity, would be unfamiliar with the realities of warfare. I mean, how the hell could anyone who served in a big war live in such an insular bubble as to be kept from the realities of warfare?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:20 PM
I googleproofed 22 and fixed the italics while I was at it.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:21 PM
36: And teo hurdles over the kink bar!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:22 PM
37: I think that just allows scientists to use it. I'd prefer a general waiver.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:22 PM
Y'all can see the failed italics? I am so going to start writing invisible, dirty messages.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:23 PM
The point isn't whether or not Stevens knows jack shit about war. The point is that Thomas is a fucking dumbshit who is using a stupid (and, by the way, baseless) ad hominem in a fucking legal opinion.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:24 PM
Becks is the hero! Screw FL and ogged and LB!!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:24 PM
I think I'll hold off until I'm dead.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:28 PM
So B, how do you feel about Volokh?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:28 PM
I should say that I screwed up in 6, saying 'combat' when I meant 'wartime'. Doesn't make Yamamoto's point valid -- military service during war, combat or not, should be expected to acquaint one with the realities of warfare, and Thomas is a nitwit for suggesting otherwise. Nothing wrong with his saying that Stevens was wrong, but saying that Stevens didn't understand the issues was goofy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:30 PM
And liveblog it!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:30 PM
Ahem. Bit slow there. 48 was to 44.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:31 PM
Unimpressed. I have to give Drum credit, though, that when people jump his shit, he stays calm and rethinks.
If the underlying question, as I suspect, is how do I feel about Ogged, then obviously the answer is I love him more than PK and the boyfriend and Mr. B. all rolled up into one.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:32 PM
Ogged, you're going to have a bit of extra space once that kidney is removed, right? Why not fill it with something? You could make a timecapsule!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:33 PM
Why not fill it with something? You could make a timecapsule!
Fill it with a giant tooth!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:36 PM
44 - Were your affections not so fleeting, that might mean something. But I know you, M/tch. You'll be whispering sweet nothings to apostropher any time now.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:37 PM
Sweet nothings? No, apostropher likes it when I call him "dirty slut".
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:38 PM
He should fill it with something musical so when people poke him in the tummy, it will play a little song.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:38 PM
I mean, um, so I'm told . . .
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:38 PM
What would be the best song I wonder?
Something by Brighteyes, probably.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:39 PM
It'll have to be emo, whatever it is.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:40 PM
Hmmmm, I feel a "Lost Organs Tribute Bands" post coming up . . .
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:41 PM
"Yummy yummy yummy I've got Love in my Tummy," obvs.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:50 PM
Bit slow there.
It's okay, Ogged. You have cancer.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:51 PM
One problem with this thread is that no one seems to have read Justice Thomas's dissent or understand the point he was making. I have, and I think he is absolutely right.
First, what he actually wrote was:
Thus, he is not accusing Justice Stevens of being generally ignorant of warfare, but rather is complaining (with great justification) that the justices agreeing to the plurality opinion had ignored both the general nature of how wars happen and the Court's precedents regarding the particular, narrow issue he was addressing.
The rest of the dissent on this topic is about a page, so I won't paste it all in this comment. But Justice Thomas seems exactly right in his criticism, both as a matter of common sense and as a matter of law. Here are a few bits.
. . .
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:51 PM
Why does Idealist hate America?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 3:56 PM
I was just looking at that. I'm no law practicing person, but in context "But this suggestion betrays the plurality’s unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents" seems like a harsh throwaway line whose only substance is that Thomas is disagreeing about when a war starts and what the precedents are. Every other sentence in that part of the dissent - admittedly, the only part I read after searching the pdf for "unrealities" - has more substance than that one. Making this about who's served when and in what capacity seems completely beside the point, which is probably why it's a parenthetical in one of the linked posts.
I think I need to follow FL and stop reading political blogs and posts for weeks.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:01 PM
Nothing wrong with his saying that Stevens was wrong, but saying that Stevens didn't understand the issues was goofy.
There's an insignificant distinction between these two. The far bigger issue is the awful dissent he wrote. Thomas is just worst judge on the bench. Just my opinion, I haven't served on the bench.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:08 PM
Idealist, doesn't Congress declare war?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:09 PM
I declare, there seems to be a war going on.
Posted by congress | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:14 PM
Idealist, doesn't Congress declare war?
Certainly. However, as Justice Thomas points out, that is not the end of the analysis on the point he is addressing.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:15 PM
The initiation of hostilities by al-Queda using attacks on the US or threats of attacks is not a de jure declaration of war on al-Queda by the US.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:19 PM
The initiation of hostilities by al-Queda using attacks on the US or threats of attacks is not a de jure declaration of war on al-Queda by the US.
True, but as Justice Thomas shows, not dispositive of the question of whether a commission can try someone for a war crime.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:22 PM
IdeaList, do you have any problems with the US trying people for offenses against the laws of war committed in wars to which the United States was not a party, at the time of the offense?
Hypothetical: a guy fighting in Kashmir (as part of a Pakistani organization that has operational ties to AQ) kills an Indian civilian in a disputed part of Kashmir in 1999. He falls into US custody for unrelated reasons in 2002. Can the US try that person for the 1999 crime? Is the answer different if the murder in Kashmir was in 2002?
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:23 PM
Ok, but haven't any number of nutbar Montana militiamen declared war on the US? There are probably some Japanese imperialist holdouts loitering around somewhere, too.
Yes, Al Qaeda is rather more dangerous than these groups, but I'm not happy creating an entirely different legal regime to address that. The AUMF is Congress's version of #67 here--"Ah, we see your declaration of war is enough of a threat that we now also move to a war footing."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:26 PM
70.--Dude, Hamdan was being charged with "conspiracy." That's a pretty weird warcrime.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:27 PM
Seriously, David Cole's review of Yoo's legal theories has a good section on war declarations.
The other side of this is: on what can war be declared? On non-state entities? If so, then what are the precedents for state vs. non-state wars?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:28 PM
Ah. Thanks, eb. That's the sort of thing I was looking for.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:30 PM
IdeaList, do you have any problems with the US trying people for offenses against the laws of war committed in wars to which the United States was not a party, at the time of the offense?
Being a lawyer, my answer is it depends, both as a matter of law and of policy. Re: your hypo, what you have described is not necessarily a war crime. Assuming that the person committed a war crime, I would say that the US could do so, but should not. Rather, it should turn him over to the Indian authorities.
Here's one for you. We capture Osama bin Laden. Assume that some or all of his attacks against the US prior to the passage of the AUMF were war crimes. Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:40 PM
76 was me.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:41 PM
Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Sorry, are you asking whether he can be tried? In which case the answer is certainly, just like we could try the 1993 WYC bombers. Or are you asking something else?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:43 PM
are you asking whether he can be tried?
For war crimes.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:44 PM
In a court of law; or by a supersecret military commission, possibly without knowing the charges against him; or by something in between?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:45 PM
Ogged is not the only slow one around here.
But to be tried for war crimes we'd have to be at war with Bin Laden, and to argue that he violated certain laws of war we'd have to show that we recognized them as applicable to the case. And if that were true, where does that get us with Geneva?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:48 PM
I think I would prefer to try bin Laden as a common criminal, because I think calling him the leader of a warring Party overly dignifies his cause.
If we must call it war, though, I'd still want to say that the US was not at war prior to Septmeber 11, 2001, and that for conduct before that he is answerable to us under the laws of nations or the laws of the United States, but not the laws of war.
Now if the government of Afghanistan wants to try him for war crimes committed as part of the Afghan Civil War, I'd be happy to turn him over. After he'd served his sentence.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:49 PM
Assume that some or all of his attacks against the US prior to the passage of the AUMF were war crimes. Can he be tried for those crimes by the US notwithstanding that they occurred prior to the US declaration of war?
Doesn't this hypothetical define 'begging the question'? War crimes are (in part) crimes committed in relation to an ongoing war. If we assume they were war crimes, then we assume there was a war going on. If not, they were crimes for which he can be tried. The initial assumption does all the work.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:49 PM
War crimes are (in part) crimes committed in relation to an ongoing war.
Of course, but do you agree with the plurality that there was no war until we declared war?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:55 PM
I disagree with the plurality in that I still don't think we're at war other than in Iraq. The war on terror is a metaphor, like the war on drugs. Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt with as such -- the alternative is to expand 'war' to encompass all of history. But their approach is preferable in that it puts some sort of rational limitation on what a 'war' is, rather than expanding the definition to meaninglessness.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 4:59 PM
I disagree with the plurality in that I still don't think we're at war other than in Iraq.
What of our combat forces in Afghanistan?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:01 PM
I was going to make light snark following JM's remark (72) about Montana militiamen about how, as a matter of law, everyone's in their state's militia, even her. So I went to the California Code, and low and behold, "the militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens . . . who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five . . ." while in New York "[t]he unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five . . . " Funny, you'd think it'd be different nowadays. Sort of like in Montana, where "The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state . . ."
I also wanted to make a crack equating adherents of the Addington/Yoo view of executive power with enemy combatants in the war on drugs, but couldn't make it work (even for me).
86 -- I think we intervened in the Afghan Civil War, and I would have said in 2004 that that war was over, but now I'm thinking maybe it was just on hiatus.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:08 PM
Sorry, left out Afghanistan. Sure, we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan waging war. The wars are wars relating to the control of territory and government in those two states. We are not, in my view, at 'war' either with 'terror', or with any particular terrorist organization except insofar as they are relevant to those wars.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:08 PM
And by 'relevant' I mean 'directly engaged in'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:11 PM
70: True, but as Justice Thomas shows, not dispositive of the question of whether a commission can try someone for a war crime.
War commissions or tribunals are regulated by laws of war, even in the case where Congress has declared war, even ignoring Geneva Conventions which Hamden found apply to this conflict. When new specific statutes do not describe tribunals for al-Queda combatants, the president must abide by existing regulations.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:12 PM
we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan waging war.
This is just it, though. They aren't waging war. They are policing. We have troops in countries all over the damn globe, in varying roles, and with that, the opportunity to *always* be at "war". The expansion of the definition of war is exactly the problem here.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:18 PM
Hrm. There's the whole declared/undeclared problem, but what's happening in Iraq looks an awful lot like a war to me. (I am much less on top of what exactly is happening in Afghanistan these days.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:31 PM
So the Thomas argument is 'Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia'?
Did our war against Saddam start with the USS Stark? If so, which war?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:34 PM
This is just it, though. They aren't waging war. They are policing.
To be fair, they are functioning under the Authorization to use Military Force, a congressional authorization for whatever you want to call the action.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:35 PM
I think that US forces in Iraq & Afghanistan are fighting a war. Yet, every time I read Balko's blog I find the definition of policing continues to shift closer to warfighting. So policing ≠ warfighting is getting blurred.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:38 PM
I'm with LB and Yama on the 'waging war' question; I wish the bit about declarations of war hadn't become a dead letter, but in fact it looks to me like wars don't have to start with a Declaration as opposed to an AUMF-like thing any more.
(Incidentally, Thomas's point makes the crack about the realities of war even fucking stupider. Stevens served in WWII. I recall that the US's active participation in that war began with a minor incident at Pearl Harbor, which may have preceded the declaration of war by a few hours.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:47 PM
Sure. Part of the problem here, and I wrote out half a screed and then erased it because I didn't have my thoughts straight, is that the law of war is designed for wars that look like traditional military conflicts between armies struggling for control of territory. What we've done here is call a situation with very little resemblance to that a 'war', and then exclaim that the people we've detained in connection with it haven't obeyed the law of war. Sure they haven't, this isn't a war. They're criminals, and should be treated as such.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:50 PM
I have to observe that there's something interesting to see a lot of people who, it is my understanding, have neither served in the military nor seen combat lecturing each other on What It Means To Serve In A War.
If all the comments made along that vein are accurate, they therefore can't be accurate.
The truth -- which I am uniquely positioned to speak on, of course, from my only slightly-comfy-chair (less so just now, but never mind), and high former rank of Second Class Boy Scout, Ass't Patrol Leader, is that a) yes, being in combat can give you insights into combat you might not otherwise have; and that b) it might not.
People are individuals. There's nothing actually magic about one particular way of acquiring wisdom or insight or knowledge. One kind of experience might do it -- fighting in the infantry, say -- but it might not.
One might gain from infantry combat the visceral knowledge of the horrors of the violence and death and blood and lacerated organs spilling out of bodies, and from that one might gain... anything or nothing.
One might be made more realistic about the price of war. Or perhaps one might be made indifferent and callous to it. Or perhaps one might be made slightly (or more) maddened and crazedly belligerent. Or perhaps one might be made a pacifist (even when one shouldn't be). Or perhaps one might be made what some would simply call a coward. Or perhaps one might be made wise and judicious about the use of war.
And on and on, through a thousand more possibilities.
The notion that going through infantry combat -- or any other sort of combat, perhaps firing an anti-aircraft missile, or serving in a submarine, or navigating an airplane -- or serving in the military, and perhaps being a clerk in the Midwest for your entire service, or a cook, or an aircraft mechanic, or any of a long list of MOS -- gives the person with such experience any particular given reaction, knowledge, or wisdom, is just naive, ignorant, and completely wrong.
So when Silvana, in 4, says: "I guess, but the implication is that people who haven't served can't disagree about war with people who have. I think that's false."
That's right.
And when slolernr in 5 says "Naw, the implication is that people who haven't served shouldn't lecture those who have about what war is really like."
That's also right, but only up to a point. It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone who has not served in combat, or not in the military, to have a better grasp of a given, or general, military reality, than someone who did.
On the other hand, the odds are lower that that would be the case than not.
On the first hand, again, we're not statistics, we're people, so unless we have insight into the given individuals in question, and their actual relevant wisdom, statistics and proabilities are of limited usefulness. Not none, but limited.
So, bottom line, there are two valid points here. However, bottomist line, I tend to think that, in fact, Silvana was more correct than those disagreeing.
Moreover, this: "I for one, don't want our country to be such that every president from now until eternity has to have served in the military to get any cred."
This is a crucial point for a variety of reasons, ranging from the specific, unto itself, to that which is more general: we don't, in fact, run our country as a Technocracy. We don't, in fact, believe that only those who are expert in a given field should be allowed to vote on relevant issues in the legislature, or speak to said issues, or be the only people listened to with respect with such issues.
And that's for the same reasons I went on about above: possession of an engineering degree doesn't mean you can't be an idiot about a given engineering project, and all wrong about. Ditto being a lawyer about a given legal issue. Or a social worker or sociologist about a social problem.
And so on and so forth.
These are also, aside from being wrongheaded notions, antithetical to the entire principle of democracy. We hold that as citizens of a democracy, all our opinions hold some value; this is, of course, something of a fiction, but it's a necessary fiction to our system until such time as we choose to instead switch to a technocracy or an oligarchy, or as regards military matters, an oligarchy of those who have served in the military.
Another crucial part of our system, of course, is civilian control of the military. And the notion that the military are best placed to be the final judges on military issues is, again, antithetical to our form of government.
And finally, the notion that only those with military experience should be listened to as regards military issues is the path to the world of Starship Troopers. Now, much though that's a much misunderstood book, it's still certainly not a society I wish to live in, and neither is it one I think anyone around here wishes to live in.
So, yeah, regardless of which individual in question is being spoken of, and regardless of our valid prejudices against him, it's perhaps helpful to forget the individual, and consider the larger, general, issues at stake, which can be turned against any of us.
Establishing the principle that it's improper for someone who hasn't served in the military to lecture someone who has, on military issues, really really really probably isn't the way anyone would want to go, once they've thought through the implications.
Otherwise the specific legal arguments should be taken, I suggest, on their own merits. In which case, on that basis, let fly the denunciations.
I have spoken. You may now all agree.
82: "If we must call it war, though, I'd still want to say that the US was not at war prior to Septmeber 11, 2001,"
Does that make cruise missile strikes launched by Bill Clinton war crimes? Or another form or crime? Or not?
Is it only a war if Congress declares it? IANAL, and I'd be much more comfortable if that were so, but my IANAL understanding is that the legal judgments as regards the Korean War and our adherence to the treaties we signed establishing the UN moved us past that legal understanding, as arguably did or did not subsequent military actions, though obviously there are a variety of legal opinions on this. Thus my asking the question, however, rather than Pronouncing.
"Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt with as such -- the alternative is to expand 'war' to encompass all of history."
The notion of legal declarations of war is pretty darn recent, historically speaking, and also limited to a limited percentage of regimes on the planet. It's undoubtedly more accurate to say that war does, in fact, encompass all of history.
Of course, we do have legal regimes nowadays, so I'm unclear how relevant that is. But discussing the nature of the legal states of war in all of history might not be a profitable direction to go in, I'm thinking.
87: "and I would have said in 2004 that that war was over,"
On what basis?
91: "The expansion of the definition of war is exactly the problem here."
"Expansion" from what baseline?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 5:57 PM
Establishing the principle that it's improper for someone who hasn't served in the military to lecture someone who has, on military issues, really really really probably isn't the way anyone would want to go, once they've thought through the implications.
Jesus Christ how often do we have to make the same point? No one is saying that it's improper for anyone to disagree with Stevens on a point of military necessity. We are saying that Thomas is an asshole for lecturing Stevens on his ignorance of war when Stevens' direct experience vastly outweighs him. The point is not that Thomas's biography makes him necessarily wrong, it's that his language makes him a jerk.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:01 PM
The notion of legal declarations of war is pretty darn recent, historically speaking, and also limited to a limited percentage of regimes on the planet. It's undoubtedly more accurate to say that war does, in fact, encompass all of history.
And this is idiotic. Are you saying that the distinction between wartime and peacetime is a modern distinction? If war encompasses all of history, what's the point of giving it a name, or having special laws relating to it -- it would just be 'the normal state of affairs'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:03 PM
Incidentally, as regards this sentence I wrote: "IANAL, and I'd be much more comfortable if that were so, but my IANAL understanding is that the legal judgments as regards the Korean War and our adherence to the treaties we signed establishing the UN moved us past that legal understanding, as arguably did or did not subsequent military actions, though obviously there are a variety of legal opinions on this."
I neglected to also point out that prior to the Korean War (or "police action," if you prefer), the United States of America's armed forces were, in fact, since September 17, 1787, involved in hundreds of discrete military actions, some being fired upon, some firing, some two ways; some incidents lasting under an hour (though perhaps resulting in many deaths), and some far more prolonged. I could start running through a list, but it would be Very Very Very long, whether discussing the Whiskey Rebellion, the Barbary Pirates, the Panay Incident, the Mayaguez, the creation of Panama, the Dominican Republic in 1965, the U.S.S. San Jacinto and the Trent, Beirut 1982-3, and on and on and on and on and on.
All illegal? Or what?
Were those actions,
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:09 PM
They weren't all wars, that's for sure.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:13 PM
Has anyone denied the possibility, or possible legality, of uses of military force short of war? I don't believe anyone has, which means I can't imagine what the point of 101 is.
What I and some others have been arguing is that we are not entitled to apply a legal regime appropriate for a state of war under circumstances that do not closely resemble a war. (Or something roughly along those lines -- the legal regime that the administration is attempting to apply isn't appropriate under any circumstances.) But to the extent that it is justified by the existence of an ongoing 'War on Terror', I don't believe that that war closely enough resembles a conventional war to make that a reasonable argument.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:14 PM
Not to interrupt anything, but I was just reading the WaPo's "analysis" piece and was kind of amazed to learn that Bush didn't have much to say because he was "caught by surprise by the decision." WTF? It's the end of the term. Anyone who was paying attention knew that Hamdan was coming down and that there was at least a strong possibility that it would have important things to say about fundamental issues of presidential power that were critical to the administration's approach to the Great War to End Evil. And nobody bothered to tell King Clueless about any of this? I say again, WTF?
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:16 PM
"Are you saying that the distinction between wartime and peacetime is a modern distinction?"
Pretty much. Humans have been living in organized societies for tens of thousands of years. We have about 5000 years of recorded history. The concept of "wartime" and "peacetime" in a legal sense has been around approximately some 300-800 years, perhaps. We could have some interesting discussions trying to establish a definition and a time, but it might be difficult to establish agreement. Regardless, it's a relatively small fraction of recorded, let alone unrecored history, that we've had such legal definitions. In fact, the legal concept of nations is relatively recent and modern; in the 14th Century, if you'd asked a French peasant, let alone one on the banks of the Euphrates or Amazon or Congo, if her nation was in a state of war -- I'm assuming the interrogator speaks the language properly -- you'd get a blank stare.
The concept of nations, per se, legally warring on each other, is very modern. Some warriors having at each other isn't the same thing.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:16 PM
If I had any idea what useful point you imagined you might be making, I'd try to respond.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:19 PM
"If I had any idea what useful point you imagined you might be making, I'd try to respond."
I assumed you wanted an answer to your query to me. You did ask.
I have plenty of comments hanging since this morning and yesterday on other threads, if you'd prefer to chat about those, instead. Or posts on my own blog.
As regards earlier query: "Jesus Christ how often do we have to make the same point?"
Possibly as long as people think "chickenhawk" makes an effective or important or relevant point and others disagree? Or until everyone agrees that Silvana had a valid point, as well? Or, I dunno, I could go fix more attention on the PBS Newshour and other reading, or on DVDs, or some of the other fun stuff in my life today that I wrote about earlier today, if I'm annoying you too much here and now. That latter is not actually my preferred goal.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:28 PM
I could suggest a close look at the photo here, if that would help.
Or we could talk about John Killian Houston Brunner.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:31 PM
There is but one conflict-resolving kitten, and Becks is its prophet.
(Seriously, though, that's some nice kitten-puppy embracing.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:35 PM
The point which I was irritated at being forced to reiterate was that NO ONE CALLED THOMAS A CHICKENHAWK, OR SUGGESTED THAT HIS BIOGRAPHY UNFITTED HIM TO EXPRESS OPINIONS ON MILITARY MATTERS. The point of the post is that his purely civilian personal history DOES unfit him to be snippy about a wartime veteran's understanding of military necessity. It is not that he is unqualified to speak, it's that he's a jerk about it.
You may not recognize that distinction, but it's terribly annoying that you don't acknowledge that it's been made.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:35 PM
Hm. Probably wouldn't have raised my voice like that if I'd seen the kittens first.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:37 PM
NO ONE CALLED THOMAS A CHICKENHAWK
That's not really true, LB: Apostropher linked a "chickenhawk" page including Thomas. With the rest, I would agree that I think there's been consensus that the point is the specific crack about the realities of war.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:38 PM
Whoops, didn't click through. But it still wasn't the point being made here.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:41 PM
"...but it's terribly annoying that you don't acknowledge that it's been made."
I wrote: "And when slolernr in 5 says 'Naw, the implication is that people who haven't served shouldn't lecture those who have about what war is really like.'
That's also right...."
Should I be annoyed that you don't acknowledge that that point was made by me? (Mostly I'm just focusing my zen on distraction, and such, so somehow I'm mostly sweeping being minimally annoyed under that, and feeling particularly virtuous; it doesn't seem to be for lack of reasons for me to feeling snappish today.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:41 PM
I am both a big fan (and lurker) of both LizardBreath and Gary, but, obviously, Gary is sticking LB's pigtails in the inkwell. I can certainly understand why (too bad she's already taken).
Posted by westek | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:42 PM
Totally OT, but LB, have you been reading TPMCafe's elections blog? I find it much better than the TAP one, which we were complaining about earlier. (I feel the answer is probably "Duh, yes.")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:44 PM
Oh, put a sock in it. If you're going to delurk pick something substantive. Or entertaining. Take your pick.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:44 PM
"But it still wasn't the point being made here."
This post is under some other post? Comments as regards the post are irrelevant?
In any case, I otherwise thought I was addressing the points that I addressed. But, well, whatever. Not having happy fun now.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:44 PM
Sorry about my two "boths"; I'll go back to lurking now.
Posted by westek | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:45 PM
Oh, feel free to re-delurk anytime.
And Gary, sure, you acknowledged it. My apologies for saying you didn't. And in fact said you agreed with that point. My crossness was with the argumentative tone aimed at no one present in the discussion, including apo (see his 11). There are few things more annoying than being piously lectured on points not in controversy. (I'm having a bad day at work, so I'm still probably being ruder than you deserve. Sorry about that.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:53 PM
If you're still there at this time on a Friday, doesn't that make it a bad day pretty much by definition?
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:54 PM
No, that makes it a law firm.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:54 PM
To the issue of what constitutes a war (aside from Congressional declarations thereof, which do now appear to be quaint), we recently had a war against the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. That war is finished. The regime was destroyed. The vacuum left behind was filled, quite predictably, by chaos. In this chaos, our troops are attempting the (impossible, IMO) task of providing security. This is closer to peacekeeping than war-waging. Whatever term you'd like to place on it, it isn't war. And the amorphous War on Terror is explicitly *not* a war, in any recognizable sense of the word, any more than the War on Drugs is a war. Both are just excuses to ask for both financial and operational blank checks.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still wars. In that case, the prisoners we are holding should have full POW status. The administration can't have it both ways.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 6:59 PM
Not in my world. We may start a bit earlier, but hand grenades in the halls generally wouldn't hurt anybody at 9:00 on Friday night around here.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:05 PM
Sorry, I was just kidding around. I thought that's what you guys did here. It won't happen again. I'll go away now. (Now I know how Gary feels.) Thanks for being so welcoming.
Posted by westek | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:06 PM
You know, I'm pretty sure that the distinction between "terrorism" and "not terrorism" doesn't rest in the actual actions done by the "terrorists," but on the question of whether or not said actions are authorized by a nation-state. I.e., the definition of "terrorism" is "warfare waged by a non-state entity."
And I'm further pretty sure that the entire fucking justification for rules of war and for our (America's) claimed moral superiority over the terrorists as well as our (the world's) repudiation of terrorism rests precisely on the idea that nations wage war under specific conditions and following recognizable rules of engagement, whereas terrorists don't.
So if we (1) throw out the fucking rules and (2) declare that "the terrorists" are, effectively, an army, then what the fuck is the difference between us and them?
This completely aside from specific-to-the-US issues like, oh, the Constitution and the separation of powers.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:06 PM
what the fuck is the difference between us and them?
Umm, that we have bigger dicks and ours are (mostly) white?
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:11 PM
westek, we do kid around. You just caught LB in a bad mood. Nothing to do with you, I'm sure (see 120).
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:16 PM
hand grenades in the halls generally wouldn't hurt anybody at 9:00 on Friday night around here
That reads to me sort of like, "hand grenades in the halls would actually do a lot of good," but I know what you mean.
westek, please note that 120 is an open invitation to comment again whenever; I will hold a fruit basket in reserve.
You know, I'm pretty sure that the distinction between "terrorism" and "not terrorism" doesn't rest in the actual actions done by the "terrorists," but on the question of whether or not said actions are authorized by a nation-state. I.e., the definition of "terrorism" is "warfare waged by a non-state entity."
I wouldn't think so -- the Lockerbie bombing was terrorism even if it was sponsored by the Libyan government, various partisan attacks on military forces aren't terrorism even if they don't have any control of the state. That said, I don't see how grabbing someone out of his cab and pulpifying him is that much morally superious to kidnapping someone and decapitating him, just because it's done by a regular army.
(Extra link because the blog deserves it.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:17 PM
I should have said "roughly speaking," of course. The Libyan thing counts as terrorism partly because it was sponsored by Libya but not actually performed by armed soldiers--and, of course, because it was an action against civilians completely absent and separate from any intention to declare or wage war. Whereas partisan attacks against soldiers (or even civil wars) are a pretty recognizable extension of regular war.
Generally speaking, though, I think the distinction I made works.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:31 PM
I will hold a fruit basket in reserve.
I, for one, plan on staying as far away from Weiner's fruit basket as possible.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 7:34 PM
it was an action against civilians completely absent and separate from any intention to declare or wage war
That seems like a pretty good definition of "terrorism" right there. At least as good as your other one.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:04 PM
What if the US was under attack by terrorists on a far grander scale than 9/11, not all that unlikely or impossible. Our defense of an attack like that would be more justified than our retaliatory attack after 9/11, would it not? I don't think the argument against the war in Afghanistan/al-Queda, is one of principle of the sort that we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII.
BPHD's (2) refers, maybe, to a scale, rather than an absolute. We might defend ourselves, justifyably, against a larger attack.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:21 PM
Well, except that I think terrorism often *is* an expression of a desire to declare/wage war, absent the necessary apparatus (a state, an army) to do so effectively, or at least in the way we conventionally understand it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:25 PM
I don't think the argument against the war in Afghanistan/al-Queda, is one of principle of the sort that we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII.
I do, emphatically. At least, we shouldn't throw those rules out without a great deal of national and international discussion of the consequences and effects of doing so.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:27 PM
I'm not clear what you're saying Yamamoto; I'm not sure that anyone here opposed the war in Afghanistan or use of force against Al Qaeda (as opposed, perhaps, to the AUMF). I do think, by and large, that those wars are bound by the Geneva Conventions or rules of legal justice.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:27 PM
Westek-
I'm sorry I was rude, I try to be nice to lurkers, and generally by the time you've made three comments or so I don't remember whether you've been commenting forever or not. That said, having the first thing you ever say to someone be a comment on how they're conducting an argument with a friend, regardless of whether you're being friendly and jocular about it or not? Not calculated to avoid being annoying. But all is forgiven, and feel free to comment again.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:32 PM
Yamamoto--
What Weiner said in 136. We are justified in defending ourselves when attacked, certainly. That doesn't mean we get to discard all rules of law, domestic and internation, when attacked.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:33 PM
134: Sure, but note your use of "often." Basically, I think the non-state actor element of terrorism is epiphenomenal; it's a tactic that non-state groups often use against states because of the massive asymmetry in power, but that's not an essential part of its meaning. States can use terrorist tactics too, and do (such as in the Libya example).
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:36 PM
Re: the only Congress can declare war thing, there is the notion that once Congress has authorized the spending to raise and maintain a particular military force, then the President, as Commander in Chief, has the power to decide what to do with that force. Congress then has the power to deny further funding if it then disapproves.
The primary proponent of this view that I've read (and been taught by, incidentally) is Philip Bobbit. I have some serious reservations about this view, but it's comprehensible and defensible, I think.
One of the problems with Constitutional analysis of War Powers is that the whole business of raising and maintaining an army and waging war was so incredibly different in the 18th Century. In the 20th Century post WWII, there's been general Congressional acceptance / compliance / acquiescence with the view that the standing army is under the President's control. The War Powers Act following the issues raised by the Gulf of Tonkin incident is an example of Congress trying to negotiate the modern reality of massive standing armed forces.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:41 PM
I'm just saying that terrorist action on our part seems to be rather loosely applied only because our current engagements largerly concern military action against a non-state actors. I think I've already made clear above that I agree with abiding by rules of war and the Geneva Convention. Please don't try to look for an argument I am not making.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:42 PM
Look, Yamamoto, you're growing on me here. My intent was to point out that I don't think we're disagreeing -- I'm not arguing that we can't defend ourselves against terrorism, just that the legal arguments based on the existence of the 'war on terror' are weak ones, because terrorist activity isn't much like a war.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:48 PM
Congress then has the power to deny further funding if it then disapproves.
There are so many points at which Congress could have turned against this war and has chosen not to. Where were our Senators?
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:50 PM
Well, then say what you're saying clearly. Even your explanation doesn't make sense: by "terrorist action on our part seems to be rather loosely applied" do you mean that we are ourselves engaging in terrorism? Or that someone has said we are? Or that we're (the administration? the people talking in this thread?) defining terrorism loosely?
In 133 you proposed a hypothetical situation in which we were "under attack," declared such a situation "not unlikely," and then seemed to dismiss the idea that "we must only and ever engage in war by rules established after WWII." That certainly seems like implying, if not stating directly, that in wars with terrorists we might be justified dumping Geneva.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:50 PM
144 to 141.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:51 PM
I just want to say that re-reading those accounts of Dilawar being pulpified still make me want to throw up. They also make me intensely ashamed of what my countrymen and women have wrought. Suskind's accounts in the last few days have also sickened and ashamed me.
These policies and practices, suborned and promulgated by this administration, have shamed us and are manifestly against the interests of our nation and counterproductive in fighting terrorists or bringing stability to Afghanistan or Iraq.
I know that "people of reason" will say "of course these things are awful, how could you doubt that anyone in this administration supports them?" But there comes a point where the evidence is just too substantial to support any other explanation than that Bush and Co. don't f&*king care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary Americans, Iraqis, Aghanistanis, etc.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:54 PM
Where were our Senators?
Hiding under their desks, mostly. A few because they were scared of Osama bin Laden, most because they were scared of Karl Rove.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 8:55 PM
But there comes a point where the evidence is just too substantial to support any other explanation than that Bush and Co. don't f&*king care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary Americans, Iraqis, Aghanistanis, etc.
Not harsh enough. I'm convinced that a bunch of these guys seriously get off on this stuff. It's not exactly sadism, but they enjoy exercising power in ways that other people (i.e. contemptible weaklings) find abhorrent. We probably should have declared Godwin's Law quaint about the time they so declared the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:00 PM
Also, Idealist, if you get the chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the response to what you said in that earlier thread.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:00 PM
I'm not arguing that we can't defend ourselves against terrorism, just that the legal arguments based on the existence of the 'war on terror' are weak ones, because terrorist activity isn't much like a war.
It isn't much like a traditional war but I think it's going to be the way of wars of the future. Small groups and single actors will have even greater technological ability to do great harm to large numbers of innocent people. I just don't see a way to fight them without falling into what is traditionally known as terrorist action on our part. I tend to think that love will conquer a great deal more than war, but that's probably naive, politicians are unlikely to think that way.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:03 PM
Small groups and single actors will have even greater technological ability to do great harm to large numbers of innocent people.
Sure.
I just don't see a way to fight them without falling into what is traditionally known as terrorist action on our part.
This bit I don't see. Terrorist action is generally the murder of civilians in order to exert pressure on their government or leaders. (A) I don't see where that gets us practically and, more importantly (B) I'd rather be killed with my whole family than sponsor it. Did you mean something different?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:07 PM
If we fight terrorists, directly, we are fighting civilians according to traditional rules of war. There's just no way around that.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:17 PM
To be more specific about my 123, with Congress having abdicated its Constitutional role of declaring war, the commander-in-chief can always insert our forces into a civil war and magically be at war. Even easier when you go in and create your own failed state, as we've done. And the best part is that, with no borders to drive an expansionist power back into or territory to annex and cleanse, the war never has to end and a president gets to claim extra-double-special wartime powers for his entire term. As does the next one and the one after and the one after, forever and always, amen.
Such powers as Bush is claiming amount to an unfettered ability to do anything he damn well pleases—not just in foreign policy, but the right to look at any mail, phone record, bank transaction, internet activity, et cetera, for every person in the country. That is a terrifying claim whether you like him or not, and something that ought to have people in the streets with torches and pitchforks even if we had President Baby Jesus Einstein. Which, lord knows, we don't.
So, I'm not at all interested in allowing our government to fudge on what constitutes a war, because that currently affects a hell of a lot more than the bombs we're dropping halfway around the world.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:19 PM
Law enforcement involves state actors apprehending civilians according to established, but negotiable within certain limits, rules.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:27 PM
153: I'm not at all interested in allowing our government to fudge on what constitutes a war...
We don't fudge, but we have to make rules that apply to modern conflicts.
I'm very pleased with the USSC ruling on Hamdan. It'll have a wider impact than the treatment of "enemy combatants" and I think it will have a severe dampening effect on the invasion of privacy, the spying activities. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I see this as a turning point. Bush will certainly attempt to turn to Congress to legislate what he wants to do, but I have a feeling that Congress may not have the stomach for that.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 9:41 PM
154 gets it pretty much right.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 10:43 PM
Philip Bobbit
Hey, I'm going into business with him.
Seriously, 146, 148, and 154 get it right (and I didn't mean to impute any particular view to you Yamamoto; I really didn't understand what that was saying). As for 153, I think the solution is probably not so much to say "all those things where our forces are fighting aren't wars" as "war doesn't mean the president gets a special Wartime President card that turns him into an absolute monarch."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-30-06 11:29 PM
The latter definitely needs to be said. But the "new warfare" is a deliberate formula for a permanent war footing. We don't know which or how many groups we're fighting against, don't have leaders with whom we can negotiate, and the goal seems to be not achieving a solution but ensuring a state of hostilities. I suppose that's a type of warfare, but it's something different than how we've defined it previously.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 1:29 AM
158: That's right. We've already moved beyond traditional rules of warfare by pursuing terrorists.
154: is just a bit glib. There are no traditional rules of war for this kind of action and it's clear to me, if not to everyone else here, that Congress has been making new rules as we enter this kind of new warfare (or police action) that are perfectly legal but abhorrent. Just wait and see that the court's decision will force Congress to make rules that will make Gitmo tribunals perfectly legal.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 7:01 AM
I agree to a point, Y, except that I haven't really noticed Congress making rules. That role seems to have been usurped by the executive branch, as far as military action goes.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 7:09 AM
I agree that the executive branch has usurped that role (and done so illegally), but the Authorization for Military Force has already, yet, legally overstepped the bounds of traditional rules of war by authorizing the pursuit of terrorists, who are civilian actors, with the military. The parallel with the war on drugs is clear, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread.
I see two problems. (1), the president is doing whatever he wants to do without congressional oversight wrt war-related activities, and (2)Congress can find a legal way to do what the president wants to do. The court has found a way to limit 1) but not 2).
I'm concerned about other things as well, for instance, that the president will say that the court rulings don't apply in war time.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 7:40 AM
There are some things that the President wants that Congress can't give him. It can't take Guantanamo out of the reach of the Fifth Amendment. I'm not sure it could make a Suspension stick -- there's no rational argument that can be made that "the Public safety" requires that a prisoner's habeas petition be heard in the DC Circuit, rather than in the district court. They are in the same building.
The bigger problem is, as everyone agrees, political. There's nothing to prevent Republicans in Congress from trading away the nation's honor* for gain in the 2006 mid-terms. And no reason for Democrats in Congress to think that they will not be utterly destroyed in the mid-terms if they resist in the least. (Plenty of people like to blame Democrats for failing to stand up to their constituents on this and similar issues. It's the job of interested constituents to help their representatves see that they're not being asked to undertake a suicide mission, that will not even get the target.)
* I'd be interested to hear from any rational person who thinks this not an apt description for a repudiation of the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 8:29 AM
Also, Idealist, if you get the chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the response to what you said in that earlier thread.
Of course I could have been wrong, and the points washerdryer makes in the other thread that one could support the war and the President and still applaud the decision if one honestly thought that it had righted an injustice are obviously true. On the other hand, given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was by people who had not even read what he wrote or understood the point he was making, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 8:52 AM
I'm a little bit concerned about the Court's deference to Congress here. (I don't think that deference is the proper word in a bunch of these cases--none of which I've read through--but I'm not sure what is.) They keep saying that the reason some action X or procedure Y is not allowed is that Congress didn't authorize it in the AUMF. I kind of feel that some of these things ought to be viewed as unconstitutional. I know that it's a basic principal of American jurisprudence that you decide a case on narrower, more technical grounds first. That is, you're supposed to rely on statutory authority before you go to a constitutional argument, but in situations like this "war on terror" this approach really bothers me. Deciding these cases on the basis that Congress didn't authorize the practices could encourage Congress to pass laws specifically authorizing them. Maybe those will then be found unconstitutional,but it will require a lot of expensive litigation and more people will suffer unnecessary detention or horrible procedures that would seem to me (and I never took Con Law 2) to violate due process--if not legally, then under some sort of layman's "fundamentall fair" standard.
apo in 153: That is a terrifying claim whether you like him or not, and something that ought to have people in the streets with torches and pitchforks even if we had President Baby Jesus Einstein. Which, lord knows, we don't.
I agree. emphatically. How does one organize that kind of thing?
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 9:01 AM
Here's what bugs me about this discussion (and btw, y'all obviously don't know anything about the realities of warfare).
We're all taking it as a given that there's some all-new kind of war to which we're reacing after the fact and that requires some all-new kind of rules. And we're letting pass the idea that the Geneva Conventions are now antiquated, quaint ideas made up by past generations who really just couldn't have imagined what the future would hold.
And that's ridiculous. Professional military folks, including those who were involved in creating the Geneva Conventions, are constantly thinking about threat possibilities, strategies, effective ways of using force, the advantages and disadvantages of terrorizing civilian populations as well as armies, how to gain information, and so on. (In fact, the NSA wiretapping thing is one reason why the argument that cryptographers know nothing of warfare is so irritatingly foolish.) It is simply not true that terrorism is a threat possibility that hasn't been considered and planned for. And yet, the professional military increasingly hates Rumsfeld and the Administration's nonsense about new rules. And I'm pretty sure that this is because (1) they know it's just nonsense, invented to rationalize a massive power grab; (2) they know that the "new rules" actually endanger them; (3) they know that the "new rules" aren't effective.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 9:30 AM
given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was by people who had not even read what he wrote or understood the point he was making, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
I hadn't read Thomas' dissent or the majority opinion yet. And I'm glad the administration lost. But I resent the implication that my reason for that is uninformed and shallow. I'm glad they lost because in fact I know a fair bit about what was happening at Guantanamo, about the Geneva Conventions, about war, and about how the Administration has seriously fucked this one up, and I care about those issues.
If the current Administration weren't fucking up, I wouldn't want them to lose. See how that works? My opposition is based on something other than opposition for opposition's sake, and it's pretty damn smug to imply that your support is based on information but everyone else's oppostion is based on ignorance.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 9:40 AM
happy with the result simply because the Administration lost
Inasmuch as the administration has established its position as exactly antithetical to the black-letter common law that I regard as the basis of our freedom, then I am delighted---DEE-LIGHTED--- that the administration lost. If perchance the administration had been on the side of law and liberty, I would have been aggrieved at its loss. You're imputing an awful lot of bad faith on no basis, Idealist.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 9:50 AM
y'all obviously don't know anything about the realities of warfare
please see
it's pretty damn smug to imply that your support is based on information but everyone else's oppostion is based on ignorance
By the way, B. Where did you serve? I ended up taking the Command and General Staff College by the non-resident option, did you go to Leavenworth for it? Were we in the 101st at the same time? I was only a warplanner at the US Forces Korea headquarters, I guess you were assigned to someplace flashier, like CENTCOM or EUCOM.
Now that I have the snarkiness out of my system, I did not say, nor do I believe, nor do I believe that a reasonable person could infer from my comment that your or anyone else's opposition to the Adminstration or happiness at the Administration's loss in the Hamdan case were evidence of ignorance or shallowness or opposition for opposition's case. And to anyone out there who honestly read my comment that way, I apologize.
You're imputing an awful lot of bad faith on no basis, Idealist
Oh please. That is just silly. I'm done justifying my comment. Get over it. Or not.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 10:02 AM
168: My parenthetical was. A. Joke.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 10:24 AM
Oh, and FWIW, I have in fact attended lectures at the USAF Weapons School, simply because I was interested. And I used regularly to read Mr. B.'s professional stuff to him out loud while he was in the bath, not to mention a solid decade of listening to, asking questions of, and arguing with more than one squadron full of smart military professionals. Wife I may be, but I was doing more than shopping at the BX and waving bye-bye during all those years.
Nice try at snark, but no dice.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 10:33 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake. You don't need to have been in the military to understand this stuff; you just need to have been in a democracy. Thomas wants to give monarchial power to the executive branch whenever the country's at war - and considering this is a "war" that has no end in sight, that amounts to elevating the president above the law. Military experience might give me the ability to spout lots of neat, sexy-sounding acronyms but it isn't necessary to understand the basic point that we live in a fucking republic.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 10:58 AM
I regret the idiocy of 170.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 11:02 AM
You don't need to have been in the military to understand this stuff; you just need to have been in a democracy.
While I imagine that we disagree on what follows from this, you are basically right. This is why what Justice Thomas wrote, in context, was, while harsh (custom (unfortuantely, in my view) allows a fair amount of harshness in dissents), reasonable and not subject to the criticism it was subjected to here.
More generally, I think Gary got it right when he wrote:
As a young soldier, one of the most annoying things was to have to listen to a sergeant justify some particularly unsafe or stupid way of doing things by saying "this is the way we did it in 'Nam." To which the (unspoken) reply usually was "sure, and you were an idiot then, too."
On the other hand, it is a bit much to have uninformed preconceived notions of how things work crowd out facts. Just the other day I had a colleague whom I greatly admire cut me off from trying to explain the basis for information security and operation security and how that played into how things were classified with the comment that it would insult my colleague's intelligence to try to explain such obvious things. I can assure you that (and this is, of course true of most professions) things about the military and warfighting that look obvious on the outside are not necesarily so.
FWIW, the bottom line, for me, regarding the chickenhawk thing is mostly what Gary and Silvana said.
re: 171, can I just say the we disagree on the law. Indeed, part of what makes it very difficult for me to participate in such discussions is that I (annoying, but I assure you unintentionally) end up arguing about something different from what many people want to talk about. In analyzing the Court's opinion, I am interested in whether it is right on the law. If being right on the law means that the President gets to make decisions with which I disagree, so be it. That is a problem to be solved through the political process, not the courts.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 11:19 AM
On the other hand, given the significant rejoicing about the adminstration's loss and the lengthy discussion here of how terrible Justice Thomas was
While acknowledging that this is not adressed to me, and that Ideal has said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, I'm going to: If I ever get around to reading the Court's opinions in this case, I may wll express by views of them. My previously expressed opinions have been that I am happy with the result (that is, to my understanding, that military tribunals in which, among other things the person charged need not be informed of any of the evidence against them and their confessions elicted under harsh treatment or worse are admissible are not a permissible way to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of any Guantanamo detainee until and unless Congress says otherwise), and to argue that if the President goes ahead and asks Congress to reinstate the pre-Hamdan status quo it would involve a concession about the falsity of his previous arguments about his Article II powers. I also said that a truly awfu John Yoo op-ed was terrible and that I hoped he suffered the consequence of many people having very low opinions of him, and treating him as such.
On that last, for instance: They replaced his wartime judgment and Congress' support with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks. Their decision to impose specific rules and override political judgments about military necessity mistakes war — inherently unpredictable, and where our government must act quickly and sometimes secretly to protect national security — for the familiarity of the criminal justice system.
Unless I've been misled about the opinions that I haven't read, the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:02 PM
Unless I've been misled about the opinions that I haven't read, the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
You really should read the opinions.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:14 PM
I'm sorry, but this is why people think you're imputing bad faith. You don't actually say that wd has been misled about the content of the opinion. You just say that he should read it. The implication is that his not having read it *in and of itself* disqualifies him from having an opinion--which isn't all that different from saying that not having seen combat disqualifies one from having an opinion about military strategy. Most of us rely a great deal on second-hand sources for a lot of things, and generally we expect respectable sources to be accurate in their summaries. When secondhand sources are inaccurate, then one points it out. But if they are *not* inaccurate, then dismissing conclusions based on them *simply* because they're not based on primary sources is bad faith.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:20 PM
If I were to do so, would I think differently because the Court held that Common Article 3 applies to accused members of Al Qaeda in some circumstancess or for some other reason?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:20 PM
You don't actually say that wd has been misled about the content of the opinion.
Yes, I believe he has. He is an (almost) lawyer. He should read the opinions and draw his own conclusions and discuss what they actually say rather than accusing those who have read them and disagree of bad faith.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:28 PM
Oh, Idealist. You used a male pronoun to refer to a female person with an androgynous username. Now people will make fun of you for no good reason, and you will no longer be listened to be anybody.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:35 PM
For those with out access to the decision, the Court ruled that Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply.
Thus, there is really not much basis for w/d's accusation that the claim that they ordered open, or any other kind of trial, or that they decided to impose any specific rules, is as false as it would be if Yoo had claimed that they awarded Osama Bin Laden the Medal of Honor. And Yoo knows it.
One might disagree with the strength of Yoo's assessment (I do), but w/d's accusations are way off base given the Court's decision.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:40 PM
You used a male pronoun to refer to a female person with an androgynous username.
Are you referring to washerdreyer?
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:41 PM
Cryptic, it would be very strange if Ideal is confused about my gender, having met me. Ideal, I think Cryptic is confused because only picture of me linked to Unfogged is of me with my arm around a girl.
Ideal, I find this, "with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks" particularly objectionable. Did the court order that the trial must occur? It seems to me that, broadly, the court could have done at least three things. The first would have been to uphold the procedures in place. The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future. If they are willing to wait, they can go to Congress and get pretty much the rules that they desire. The third is that the Court could have imposed their own procedures on either a statutory (so that the go to Congress safety valve would still exist) or Constitutional basis. If they had done the third, I'd still be uncomfortable with Yoo's description, because they still wouldn't be commanding that the trials be held, but it just doesn't describe the second at all. This will be my last comment relating to what the opinions say until I read them.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:52 PM
Cryptic, it would be very strange if Ideal is confused about my gender, having met me. Ideal, I think Cryptic is confused because only picture of me linked to Unfogged is of me with my arm around a girl.
Ideal, I find this, "with their own speculation that open trials would not run intelligence risks" particularly objectionable. Did the court order that the trial must occur? It seems to me that, broadly, the court could have done at least three things. The first would have been to uphold the procedures in place. The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future. If they are willing to wait, they can go to Congress and get pretty much the rules that they desire. The third is that the Court could have imposed their own procedures on either a statutory (so that the go to Congress safety valve would still exist) or Constitutional basis. If they had done the third, I'd still be uncomfortable with Yoo's description, because they still wouldn't be commanding that the trials be held, but it just doesn't describe the second at all. This will be my last comment relating to what the opinions say until I read them.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:53 PM
Fuck to oboe. "...the only picture of..."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:54 PM
The second is to say the government must use a set of already existing rules, which were created in part for use in similar, though not the same circumstances if the government wants to have the trials in the very near future.
See
Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 12:57 PM
I was trying to say the same thing you had said, and note that Yoo doesn't describe anything like it. I think your "[s]ee" is for agreement, not contrast, but am uncertain. This was not a comment about the opinions.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 1:01 PM
I have read the opinions twice, skimming Kennedy's concurrence the second time, and Alito's only once, because he is an anal twit. Can't deny I skim the citations, and don't go to outside sources for full understanding of the cites and precedents. They aren't so bad.
The administration has some problems, but they are not because of SCOTUS, but because of their earlier decisions on treatment. Big problems. War crimes have been committed, and any fair trials will disclose uncomfortable truths.
Billmon incidentally thinks Stevens totally blew off the Johnson vs Eisentrager footnote. Wooo...talking dirty.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 1:24 PM
Update alert! Billmon sure reads someone, for he has reversed himself on Stevens and Eisentrager, and so must I, as a matter of honor.
Crime and Punishment ...scroll for update.
Appears it wasn't Stevens willfully misinterpreting Eisentrager, but perhaps some scurrilous miscreant on the DC Circuit. Perhaps even formerly of the DC Circuit.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 6:04 PM
Thanks for responding, Idealist. But here's what you said in the other thread:
I recognize its symbolic importance to opponents of the war
And here's what you said here by way of explanation:
I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that there is a more than theoretical possibility that a non-trivial number of people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost.
By "people who oppose . . . the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror" do you mean people who think we shouldn't be fighting terrorism? Or people who oppose the way this Administration has chosen to prosecute the global war on terror?
I hope you don't mean the first. I actually don't know of anyone who thinks that. Matt Weiner puts it well in the other thread:
this is close to a casual inference from "You oppose Bush's specific tactics" to "You don't want to defend America from its enemies." Which has been the GOP's electoral strategy since 9/11, and which is incredibly offensive to those who oppose Bush's tactics because they're morally wrong, and incidentally not effective at protecting America from its enemies.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 6:30 PM
It's been said upthread too, but I'll reiterate that I, and pretty much everyone here I think, oppose Bush because of policies like this. We don't oppose policies like this because they were put in place by Bush.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 6:57 PM
Oh please. That is just silly. I'm done justifying my comment. Get over it. Or not.
Woo! When can I use my get out of jail free card for totally distorting your position?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 1-06 7:09 PM
Woo! When can I use my get out of jail free card for totally distorting your position?
You certainly totally distorted my position, but no reason to expend a get out of jail free card, I'm used to it.
people who oppose the way this Administration has chosen to prosecute the global war on terror
This, obviously. I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 8:46 AM
I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then. Or is acting in bad faith. Or maybe, just maybe, your writing isn't as crystal clear as you think it is. I know my writing isn't, and on a regular basis.
Asking for clarification, or pointing out that what you wrote has the potential to mean something else, is not evidence of thinking unreasonably or acting in bad faith, it's just engaging in discussion.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 9:13 AM
". . . people who oppose the Administration and the Administration's prosecution of the global war on terror were happy with the result simply because the Administration lost."
OK, I guess by using the conjunctive, you're hoping that the reader understands that you are not referring to (a) people who oppose the Administration, but agree with the prosecution or (b) people who support the Administration, but disagree with the prosecution. This still means, though, that opposition to the Administration is a necessary defining attribute of the set you describe. And that still gets you into the country of people who think the term "BDS" has significant meaning. Even if only as a tourist.
WD is correct that the SC did not order any trials of anyone. It did not order specific procedures, nor can it in this context. Its power in this kind of situation is strictly negative: you may not do X unless you first do Y. This is obviously not a command to do Y, where X is strictly voluntary.
As to whether the public trial of Salim Hamdan would compromise intelligence sources, that's a fact specific question. I don't know the answer, because I don't know what the evidence is, and whether the witnesses are already known to the people that matter. It's clear enough that the government bears the burden of showing this to be the case, and that it didn't, as a hypothetical matter, carry its burden in the SC.
This kind of claim should really never be done in gross. Say I have a client arrested in Pakistan with four other men. Mine confesses under torture to crimes on his own part, and on the part of the other four. Each of them does so as well. Now if any one of them is tried, the government might want to prevent cross-examination of the other men -- and say that cross-examination might reveal torture techniques, the identity of the US intelligence officer who conducted and/or oversaw the torture, and other 'intelligence' information. And yet, it's impossible to have a fair trial without it.
The government argues, often successfully, that civil suits against it must be dismissed because it cannot defend itself without revealing secret information. It certainly seems to me that the necessary flip side of that is that if you can't have a prosecution without revealing secret information, you have to make a choice: reveal or acquit. (By reveal, I don't mean make public -- I'm allowing the possibility of protective orders, filings under seal, and the rest, so long as the defendant gets to know all evidence against him).
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 9:57 AM
"I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then."
I don't recall electing you to speak for me, or "everyone", Mitch.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 11:24 AM
And that still gets you into the country of people who think the term "BDS" has significant meaning. Even if only as a tourist.
I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. I assume you mean it as an insult of some kind. If so, not need to explain.
As to the rest of the first paragraph, the only point I think you are making--people who oppose the Administration are, all things being equal, indifferent to whether the Administration is embarassed--makes no sense. So you must have been trying to make another point. What was it?
Your second paragraph is trivially right. Of course, the Court did not order that trials go forward, and thus they did not order that any procedure be used. And it is true that Congress might be able to provide for procedures for trials which are different from those in the Manual for Courts Martial that pass Supreme Court muster. But until they do, the Supreme Court has said that the Under the circumstances, then, the rules applicable in courts-martial must apply. Someone who was not a careful reader might misunderstand what you wrote and think that the Court has not so ruled.
As to your last three paragraphs, I am only about half with you. To the extent you are implying that impossible to have a fair trial without the same procedural protections found in a court martial, that is quite a strong statement, in light of the fact that most countries, including most Western European countries, do not provide that level of protection in each and every respect (jury trials being an obvious example). IMHO, the procedural rules of the commissions which the Supreme Court struck down, while justifiable, do not provide a level of proceural protection that I would like. But that, of course, does not mean that the Supreme Court was right. Because the question before them was not what would they have done, the question was whether the law permitted the Administration to do what it did. IMHO, this is a vital distinction.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:07 PM
195: Who are you talking to, Gary?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:09 PM
Yeah, what does "BDS" mean?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:10 PM
I don't recall electing you to speak for me, or "everyone", Mitch.
Also, I don't recall Gary being given the power to elect Mitch to speak for "everyone".
I also don't recall Gary being unable to comprehend the construction "I guess . . . ".
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:15 PM
BDS in CharleyCarp's post stands for Bush Derangement Syndrome, an affliction liberals are said to have when they say negative things about the President or any of his policies. The idea is that we can't objectively assess him or his policies, because we really don't like him. For instance.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:24 PM
your writing isn't as crystal clear as you think it is.
You overestimate my opinion of my writing. And of course, it is possible (indeed, often a certainty) that I may have written things that could be misconstrued.
Asking for clarification, or pointing out that what you wrote has the potential to mean something else, is not evidence of thinking unreasonably or acting in bad faith, it's just engaging in discussion.
Obviously. However, saying that I, or others, are arguing in bad faith has nothing to do with this. Even more, it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think that all liberals hate America, support islamofacism, hate religion and just generally are bad people. That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments, because it allows them to (a) take the most outrageous, least charitable reading from a statement by a conservative tnan dismiss it out of hand as mean or silly or ill-conceived or (b) assume that a statement from a conservative is being made in bad faith and with a bad motive, and thus ignore the statement, and concentrate on the accustion of bad faith or bad motive. The thing that got this thread and the threads to which it linked started is a perfect example. Look at asshole Justice Thomas telling Justice Stevens about the realities of combat when Justice Stevens is a war hero (a Bronze Star was mentioned) and Justice Thomas is a draft dodger. Well, of course, I do not believe that anyone who read Thomas's dissent could reasonbly think that he was lecturing Justice Stevens on the realities of combat. The only way you can get from what Justice wrote to this thread and the ones it linked was by assuming the very worst at every step. And that, of course, relieves one of the burden of actually reading what Justice Thomas wrote and evaluating it fairly.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:36 PM
it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think . . . . That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments. . . . The thing that got this thread and the threads to which it linked started is a perfect example.
Bzzt! Strawman alert. Statement disqualified.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:40 PM
Bzzt! Strawman alert. Statement disqualified.
I knew I could count on you to prove my point. Thanks, B.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:42 PM
196 -- I didn't mean it as an insult at all. You don't know me, but that's very infrequently the correct interpretation of what I write.
That you are unfamiliar with the term BDS speaks well of you, and anyone else in that position. It is an abbreviation for Bush Derangement Syndrome, essentially a claim that opponents are so blinded by antipathy towards the President that they'll hail anything bad for him as 'good,' even if it's also bad for the country. One finds it among some right wing types. Calling you a tourist in BDS country is a way of saying that while you might not sincerely believe that your interlocutors act with this kind of bad faith, your remark could reasonably be understood as saying that you do. Opponents of the Administrative who are genuinely patriotic are quite sensitive to the treason charge -- even the 'committing treason in his heart' charge. I don't find the motives of anyone who hails Hamdan as a significant victory to be particularly important to understand what it means, either legally or politically, and have no ready understanding why you (among many others) bring it up. It reminds me of people who say they voted for Bush in '04 because they hated the people who were supporting Kerry, even if they were in agreement with Kerry on most of the issues. (I do not mean to imply that this is a set that includes you, Idealist). This is out there and it's real, and, in my opinion, it's why Mr. Rove like to be so quick with the 'treason' or virtual treason charge.
As for Hamdan, I think what I said about what the Court ordered is a fair defense of WD's remark above -- and I think it's what he meant. Guessing, without inside information, but I think that's there. It is a big deal. The government does not, it appears to me, have to hurry to try Salim Hamdan -- if it does, it can use procedures on the books, if it does not, it can craft new procedures -- and if Congress crafts new procedures that are inconsistent with Geneva, they will govern, not Geneva. This is what Justice Breyer's opinion means to me. That's a whole lot different from saying that the Court ordered a trial using specific procedures.
I'm not saying at the end of my comment that each of the particular procedures in the UCMJ are necessary for a fair trial. I am saying that plenty of what the government wanted to do, or would be permitted to do under the recently introduced Specter bill, was not consistent with a fair trial. Whatever the procedures are going to be, they must have confrontation, serious hearsay rules, and bar the use of coerced confessions. I'm not saying Miranda warnings were required, but if witnesses (including the defendant) were subjected to torture, then, it seems to me, their statements during and after must be excluded. And so the defendant has to have the opportunity to examine the witnesses, to build a record for exclusion. I don't think a trial can be called fair without this.
I agree that this issue has to be hashed further, that the content of the procedures is not set by Hamdan. Hence my defense of WD's comment . . .
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 12:51 PM
"195: Who are you talking to, Gary?"
M/tch M/lls
"Also, I don't recall Gary being given the power to elect Mitch to speak for 'everyone'."
I neither have it nor need it. I specifically disclaimed even voting in favor.
"I also don't recall Gary being unable to comprehend the construction 'I guess . . . '.
I guess that I'm unaware that the construction "I guess" changes the meaning of a claim significantly. I guess I didn't know that putting "I guess" at the beginning of a sentence allows one to legitimately claim that therefore the sentence has a significantly different meaning. I guess that since it apparently does, that therefore I can insult anyone to my heart's desire by merely putting "I guess" at the beginning. I guess therefore if I said that I guess M/tch M/lls was an [ADJECTIVE] [NOUN] that he couldn't possibly take offense, because, after all, I'm using the construction "I guess."
I guess that in future, I can make whatever claim I want by beginning the claim with "I guess," and that if anyone tries to hold me to account, I can claim that since I said "I guess," hey, presto, it's fine.
Naturally, though, I wouldn't do that, since I'm not an [ADJECTIVE] [NOUN] (most of the time).
And I'm unaware that prefixing a sentence with "I guess" actually would magically relieve anyone from dealing with the responsibility of what they wrote.
"You're right, I shouldn't have implied I was speaking for anyone other than myself," might have been a simpler, better, option, though. It's still available. I commend it.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 1:50 PM
I herewith elect everyone else to speak for me, especially Gary but excluding charleycarp. All opinions are my own, however contradictory or incoherent. I agree with everyone. so you can now say:"Well, Bob and I think..."
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 2:05 PM
Well, Bob and I think that Justice Thomas--while he sometimes get things quite wrong--is the best of the current justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Just trying it out to see how it sounds. Sounds good!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 2:10 PM
One thing I really wish I'd done when I started law school is created a database which would updated in the following fashion: Whenever I read an opinion, an entry would go in with the name of the case, name of Judge (or Justice as the case may be) who wrote that opinion (majority, concurrence, dissent) my rating of the reasoning in the opinion as I understand it (probably 0-5 moving by tenths), and how confident I am in that rating (have I read any of the cases or other sources it relies on, not sure on what scale this would be). The goal of this project would be to quasi-empirically know my own opinion.
Scott Lemieux's defense of Clarence Thomas. I largely argee with it, especially the parts where it fails to mention any Thomas opinions or describe them positively. I would, of course, describe his opinion in Raich positively.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 2:30 PM
Only one comment in this thread uses the phrase "draft dodger"; conclusions may be drawn from both it, and the context in which it appears.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 2:46 PM
EB, you're only proving Idealist's point that liberals base their arguments on fantasies about evil conservatives rather than on actually reading what people say.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 3:02 PM
What idealist, washerdreyer, eb, and bitchphd said.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 3:08 PM
Well, Bob and I think that 211 gets it exactly wrong.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 3:18 PM
Huh, that linked chickenhawk entry does mention Thomas not being drafted. I actually agree more with Silvana's comments in this thread, so that doesn't change my opinion, but I didn't realize that. I thought Thomas was old enough to be pretty much out of draft range by the time of escalation.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 3:35 PM
"EB, you're only proving Idealist's point that liberals base their arguments on fantasies about evil conservatives rather than on actually reading what people say."
Could you cite the number of that comment? I missed it.
I did read 201, which said something vaguely in the neighborhood, but clearly with a quite significantly different meaning: "Even more, it seems to be a common fantasy that conservatives all think that all liberals hate America, support islamofacism, hate religion and just generally are bad people."
Needless to say, whomever wrote the version you read, B, wrote something that uses some of the same words as 201, but which would have to be said to severely distort its meaning if it was intended to represent what was actually written in 201.
But either I missed that other comment, or someone must have made an innocent, very careless, error.
Generally speaking, I find that there are people of every possible predilection who read poorly or who distort the meaning of what others say when they allegedly recapitulate it. It's very unfortunate.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 3:41 PM
Can't cite anything; I'm making it all up because I so love being condescended to.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 4:07 PM
Don't worry Bob, I wouldn't dream of it. Actually, if anyone wants me to speak for them, I have a form engagement letter I'd be happy to send, and you'll find I'm quite reasonable about an initial retainer.
I agree with Idealist (and Bob?) that disparaging Justice Thomas for the understanding war remark is unsupported by the context. I'm glad no one authorized to speak for me has said anything like that.
I do think it would be useful for Idealist to more carefully distinguish 'some conservatives are jerks' from 'all conservatives are jerks.' I'm unaware of anyone (even Bob!) who holds the latter view, although the former is indisputable. In return, I'll endeavor to hear such qualifications as Idealist writes.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 4:07 PM
Gary:
In comment 193 I first quoted Idealist:
I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise.
I then responded:
I guess everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then.
In my response, I'm noting that Idealist seems to imply that anyone who asked him to clarify his language must be unreasonable, or since he can't see how that's possible, must have been asking questions in bad faith. I'm not at all claiming to speak for you or anyone else. Of course, if you want to claim that your questions in this or the other thread really were in fact unreasonable or in bad faith, then knock yourself out, and I'm sorry for implying that they weren't.
Perhaps I was unclear, and I'm sorry if that's the case, but to be honest your reading of it as a claim that I speak for you or anyone else seems pretty damned strained.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 5:14 PM
That fantasy allows people to let themselvs off the hook much too easily in arguments, because it allows them to (a) take the most outrageous, least charitable reading from a statement by a conservative tnan dismiss it out of hand as mean or silly or ill-conceived or (b) assume that a statement from a conservative is being made in bad faith and with a bad motive, and thus ignore the statement, and concentrate on the accustion of bad faith or bad motive.
Idealist, when you said something that resembled a common and contemptible charge often leveled at anyone who doesn't support Bush, I don't think anyone here responded in the fashion of either (a) or (b) towards you. I know I certainly didn't. All I did was ask for clarification.
Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to that charge, but it is one that gets made often, and your language was frankly sloppy. But I don't think anyone dismissed what you said on the basis of it, they just asked you what you meant.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 5:23 PM
Look, I do not have a cool kitten picture to link to, and I'm too old, cranky and lacking in eloquence to express what I want to in a way that will not get someone offended, but let me try to restore some comity before I stop reading and go cook my kids dinner.
My initial comment was not intended to imply anything bad about anybody. I still do not understand how it got read that way. I'm sorry it did. I really was not trying to be mean or snarky or accuse anyone of doing anything remotely improper. The repeated further explanations and accusations/demands for further clarification got into a less than totally pleasant pissing contest because . . . well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I am, as noted, old and cranky (and a bit outnumbered here--baa, why have you foresaken me?) and when I think people are being unpleasant, I can get sarcastic in return. I'm human. Sorry.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 5:38 PM
I have mixed feelings on this issue. I've expressed before my sense that the country lost something when military life and its dangers ceased to be a common experience of all classes. I am on the other hand sympathetic to Silvana's sense that this topic can be both irrelevant and revolting.
There is nothing new about this issue on the Supreme Court, by the way. I've been looking for my copy of Holmes' speeches, and can't find it, but there is an example there of this process in action a hundred years ago. He really did claim a kind of special privilege for veterans, and did not hesitate to use his combat record in the Civil War, rare in his class, to intimidate people. The speech I'm looking for is the one with the phrase: "...in our youths, our hearts were touched by fire." Ken Burns made it iconic. Stephen Ambrose and Tom Brokaw, meet Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 6:03 PM
For maximum clarity, I probably should have phrased the sentence Farber objected to something like this:
I guess [you, Idealist, are saying/implying that] everyone who's discussed it here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably then.
As this edit hopefully makes clear, my intent was never to claim to speak for Gary or everyone. To the extent that this was unclear, I apologize. I wasn't even claiming to speak for Idealist, as the "I guess" construction was employed to imply that what followed was my interpretation of the logical conclusion of what he had said previously.
I shall now take this hobbyhorse to
the glue factorya happy farm where it can live out its days in a meadow full of sunshine. I know you may object that it already appears dead, but I assure you that's nothing a few short sharp shocks won't cure. And I will continue to beat it until its morale improves, don't you worry.Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 8:04 PM
Um, 221 was me, obvs.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 8:06 PM
Dead horses, raccoons. You're a sick, sick man.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 8:18 PM
218: "Perhaps I was unclear, and I'm sorry if that's the case, but to be honest your reading of it as a claim that I speak for you or anyone else seems pretty damned strained."
Good for the first part. But the second part fails because referring to what any one person might do isn't mirrored by what everyone did do. That's a failure of basic logic, or at least, wording.
218: "I know I certainly didn't."
See, that's the proper way to do it. It's arguable, but fairly. Well done.
219: "but I am, [...] and a bit outnumbered here"
Which is part of why I was speaking up for Idealist. That, and I hate hate hate when people are illogical or use arguments that fail, regardless of the larger issues, and regardless of the politics.
221: "As this edit hopefully makes clear, my intent was never to claim to speak for Gary or everyone. To the extent that this was unclear, I apologize."
All done on that, then. Thanks, and again, well done, in the end. Or perhaps, on this blog, I should say: good job.
I posted a lot of stuff over the weekend on my own blog, by the way, if anyone is interested. (Which variously got linky love from such as Glenn Greenwald, Brad deLong, Pharyngula, Digby, Sideshow, Hilzoy, Mahablog, and elsewhere, so possibly I wasn't as totally boring as ever, though it's all in the eye of the beholder, which is probably really annoying, in which case I recommend lots of water and blinking.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 8:49 PM
Good for the first part. But the second part fails because referring to what any one person might do isn't mirrored by what everyone did do.
Um, what?
And I'm honestly curious as to how you construe the sentence you quoted in 195 to mean that I'm claiming to speak for you. Help me out here.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 9:06 PM
225: Well, I thought we were done on this.
"But the second part fails because referring to what any one person might do isn't mirrored by what everyone did do."
Okay:
See, he referred to "I'm not sure how anyone." You responded as if "I guess everyone" were an appropriate mirror. It isn't.
The opposite of " not... anyone" is not "everyone."
"And I'm honestly curious as to how you construe the sentence you quoted in 195 to mean that I'm claiming to speak for you."
Because you responded with "I guess everyone who's discussed it here...just thinks unreasonably"
In point of fact, you were speaking for yourself, and doubtless some others, but not "everyone."
The proper phrasing would have been (sarcastically) "I guess I just think unreasonably." You can't respond on behalf over "everyone" sarcastically unless everyone has in fact elected you spokesperson.
You were assuming and acting as if everyone agreed with you. You specifically made that claim by writing that "everyone" disagreed with Idealist.
That's a common sort of illegitimate claim in a discussion, an attempt to claim rhetorical superiority of unanimity on behalf of your own position over another individual you (and perhaps others, but not everyone) are disagreeing with, that you're not entitled to claim. It was also specifically false. (I'm perfectly willing to grant that you were just writing clumsily, and not intentionally trying to make an illegitimate rhetorical claim.)
The traditional response on Usenet for decades, to this rhetorical trick -- someone adopting "we," or some other plural form, rather than "I" -- is "do you have a mouse in your pocket?" or some other variant. But I thought I'd use something less tired and less snotty, tried and true as the "do you have a small animal in your pocket to entitle you to speak plurally?" usage is.
Does this clarify?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 9:59 PM
I canNOT believe I'm entering into this nonsense, but Gary: that's nonsense. "Not anyone" means "no one." Hence the original sentence was quite reasonably read (and not only by M/tch) as "No one who read what I wrote could reasonably have interpreted it differently than I intended." Given that a number of people had, in fact, interpreted what was written differently than it was apparently intended, the implication was that those people were unreasonable.
Now, if you want to pick bones because M/tch said "everyone who's discussed [that thing you said] here is unreasonable, then"--which is a perfectly valid response--because he didn't go through both freaking threads and tally who interpreted X one way and who didn't then feel free. But to belabor the point and get all huffy about M/tch claiming "to speak for you" when he clearly was not making any such claim is nonsensical. To cloak this nonsense under being "logical" and to quibble about it for thirty comments over thirty-six hours is.... well, I don't know what it is. It's irritating as hell, though.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 10:07 PM
Shorter 227: The thread about nit-picking is over here.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 10:10 PM
228 is awesome.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 10:21 PM
"Hence the original sentence was quite reasonably read (and not only by M/tch) as "No one who read what I wrote could reasonably have interpreted it differently than I intended." Given that a number of people had, in fact, interpreted what was written differently than it was apparently intended, the implication was that those people were unreasonable."
Yes, indeed, and Mitch was entirely entitled to speak on his own behalf, and the behalf of anyone who agreed with him.
Which wasn't "everyone."
"...to quibble about it for thirty comments"
Yeah, I said we were done, and then Mitch asked me to explain again, and I again said I was done. Don't like it? Complain to him about that. Don't complain to me, or about me, please, for courteously responding to his request when I'd said I thought we were done. Being kicked for being courteous in responding on something I'd said I'd prefer to have dropped, after I'd said I was done, isn't something I appreciate. Thanks.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 2-06 10:22 PM
Ooh, shall I point out that in the original post by Idealist, "not" modifies "sure" and not "anyone"?
Indeed I shall! And then I shall write a treatise called How to Win Friends By Influencing Their Grammar!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 6:11 AM
Idealist, it's too late for me to engage you on substance right now, but this:
I still do not understand how it got read that way. I'm sorry it did.
is not an apology. You cannot restore comity by saying "I'm sorry [that] p" where p is of the form "Other people did bad stuff to me or misinterpreted my words."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 7:35 AM
232 should not be taken to say that I'll have time to engage you on substance later, since it's a busy week. But, I do believe that you're sincere when you use "opponents of the war" to mean "opponents of the way the Bush Administration does what it was." Nevertheless, there is an important distinction there, and I think you should be more careful to make it, in your thoughts and in your words. I believe this isn't the first time you've failed to.
Also, my last comment wasn't particularly predicated on any disagreement we've been having, it's just that those non-apology apologies are tremendously annoying in general.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 7:39 AM
233: No shit--nothing is more annoying. I remember an incident at an agency where I was freelancing, where this Traffic Chick got hostile and even abusive with me over a misfiled job, and after a brief engagement I decided to go for a walk rather than unleashing the nuclear option. When I got back, I found that one of the other designers had reported the encounter to TC's boss, who forced her to leave a written apology on my desk. It began: "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said. I just thought you were getting defensive."
This nearly drove me insane. it was wrong in oh so many ways.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 8:01 AM
I haven't been following this thread at all, so I don't know what happened, but I just wanted to tell a story from Tia's childhood. Once, when I was about 15, I went with my father and his mistress to a wedding of a friend of an adult friend of his, who I was also pretty comfortable. This friend was the only person I knew at this wedding. There were no kids there. I was pretty shy, but even non shy kids might feel uncomfortable being left alone among a bunch of grownups. The wedding was in this big outdoor compound where there were lots of places to disappear to, and he and the mistress took advantage of it and disappeared for 45 minutes to have sex without telling me they were going anywhere. For a while I just stood around awkwardly, but as time passed I was nervous about when they were planning on coming back, so I started asking if anyone had seen them, looking around, etc. When they finally reappeared I was really mad, but the mistress said, "Why couldn't you have just mingled?" In the car on the way home, my father, very uncharacteristically for him, realized he had in fact done something reprovable, and apologized to me, and asked the mistress to do the same. She said, "I'm sorry you got upset."
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 8:20 AM
Not to pile onto Idealist, btw, just that this episode still makes my knotted and combined locks to part and each particular hair to stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine in retrospect. also my eyes like twin stars to start from their spheres, IYKWIM.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 8:37 AM
I want oodles of good karma points for not having been the one to make an issue of the non-apology apology. For once in my life.
Also next time I get hassled about the boyfriend in one of those "what about the children?" ways, I'm so going to say, "hey, at least I've never left my kid alone at a wedding in order to go fuck my boyfriend in the bushes."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:16 AM
make an issue of the non-apology apology.
Whoops, just lost all those points.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:21 AM
Idealist, I don't think you actually want to see me making an issue about a crappy apology.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:25 AM
Idealist, I don't think you actually want to see me making an issue about a crappy apology.
I do not doubt that you are capable of being even less gracious than Matt (and anyone else who insisted on finding a way to take offense at what I wrote, rather than assuming that I meant (as I did) a real apology that what I wrote had offended people). Go for it, if it gives you joy.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:32 AM
On the topic of weird locutions, I'd like to nominate "no offense." No offense, but anyone who uses this construction is a moron.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:43 AM
I do not doubt that you are capable of being even less gracious than Matt
Okay, good. Because it would suck if I were no longer the rudest commenter around.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 9:47 AM
235:
"I'm sorry you got upset."
That's my personal favorite. The implication is that they're not only sorry for the original offense; if you weren't such a WATB, they wouldn't look bad right now.
Posted by Miss Emily | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:00 AM
"not only not sorry..." is what I meant to say. Sorry!
Posted by Miss Emily | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:06 AM
Well damn, that horse still has some beating on left in it. For extra special maximum super clarity, perhaps I should have written the sentence Gary objected to this way:
I guess then that you, Idealist, are saying, "everyone who's discussed what my words meant here and on the other thread just thinks unreasonably".
See, Gary, how that's not me claiming to speak for you, or for everyone, but rather it's me positing a logical interpretation of "I'm not sure how anyone who has read what I have written here could reasonably have thought otherwise".
Geez this is stupid.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:32 AM
I think it was wrong of Tia's dad to ask the woman to apologise, whosever idea the tryst was. I hate non-apology apologies as much as the next person, but they are often "asked" of people who don't feel in the wrong.
mc: Have you ever done a painting of yourself in that Medusa state? I'd love to see it.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:33 AM
But Tia's dad and his mistress did owe Tia an apology. Whether or not she "felt" in the wrong is irrelevant; she was. You don't abandon a child at a grownup event you've dragged her to in order to go have private grownup time, and then blow off the kid's justified anger.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:39 AM
M/tch, I'm pretty sure that having responding-to-something-that-he's-said-he'd-prefer-to-have-dropped-after-he's-said -he-was-done called "stupid" isn't something Gary will appreciate.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:42 AM
"Geez this is stupid."
I'll keep this response in mind next time you ask me something of the form "And I'm honestly curious as to how [...] Help me out here."
Consider it unlikely that I'll again assume you're acting in good faith. (I also note that you continue to fail to comprehend the point at issue, but I have utterly no interest in saying more about it; I'll just note for the future.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:51 AM
All this squabbling really makes me feel like I'm spending the holidays with family.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:57 AM
I'm a little bollixed at the notion that someone is a "child" at age 15, though, to be sure, everyone is an individual, and if someone feels they were a child at that age, I'd certainly not contest the point as regards themselves.
But 15 was when I'd moved out, was living with my 22-year-old girlfriend (and, obviously, having sex), was otherwise supporting myself, was taking college courses, and, well, there's no particular standard by which I later became "adult" in a way I wasn't already.
In most of human history, until the last couple of hundred years in the West, most people were married by age 13-14.
People do vary wildly, though. I just have to subjectively blink at 15 being "childhood." (Of course, that sort of thing is why most other kids tended to drive me crazy when I was a kid, and is why I felt so alienated.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 10:59 AM
"All this squabbling really makes me feel like I'm spending the holidays with family."
Anything to bring warmth and joy.
If people want to recapitulate my own biological family experience, they'll wind up disowning me, and we won't have spoken in decades.
But, really, you needn't go to the trouble.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07- 3-06 11:02 AM
Leaving aside whether someone is a child at 15 -- and fwiw, a lot of people really aren't -- I'd be pretty pissed off *now*, as an adult, if I was taken by friends to some event where I knew no-one apart from them and then they buggered off and left me alone.
Posted by Matt McGrattan |