I guess by repeating that quote of his they're saying "Two wrongs don't make a right," which acquires a special Twilight Zone quality when we're not admitting our own acts are wrong.
What do you want NPR to do? Ignore the case? Not report his defense?
I assume NPR is accurately reporting the state of the courtroom, where there was a lot of emphasis on whether or not he felt regret. I just think it's a little sadistic that we're so determined to milk him for regret.
Isn't failure to show the emotion demanded by the public (or just the media?) the same thing Obama is in trouble for; in Obama's case it being anger at BP. I don't know when florid outbursts of emotion became a necessary condition for anyone in public life but it sure seems to be required these days on both sides of the pond (though perhaps less in the UK). It sure is bullshit as well.
I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard comparing Clinton and Blair's responses to Princess Diana's death with the Queen's response.
Maybe it's screen entertainment setting our standards?
(though perhaps less in the UK)
Not at all, as per Minivet at 5. The British press crucified the royal family for not showing enough emotion when that awful woman was killed. Apparently quiet dignity is no longer acceptable behaviour.
Are you easing us into a pseudonym switch, chris?
I'm not sure what he has to regret, in as much as he didn't actually hurt anybody. Maybe he regrets being a shitty bomb builder?
Yes, I mentioned it on another thread that I'm bored with the pseud and reverting to (more or less) my real name. I'm doing it gradually out of consideration for LB's sensibilities over this stuff.
But with Faisal, they're not actually calling on him to have effusive regret. It's just ridiculous that we'd demand lip service of regret, when we'd never express regret for bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan.
8 is also what I was thinking. What exactly is he supposed to regret?
awful woman
Really? Did she kick puppies?
11: He's supposed to realize that he was trying to do something very bad.
He could at least have the courtesy to pretend, as it is in his own best interest.
12. She was what was summed up in some newspaper during her lifetime as a "bread-throwing Sloane". I've met enough of the type to have no patience with it.
Did she kick puppies?
Well, there was that one time she punted the Queen Mum's favorite Corgi....
8: I don't know that not hurting anybody is necessarily relevant. It's not crazy that someone who didn't manage to hurt his intended victim in, say, an attempted murder that was a crime of passion might later regret having even tried. Of course, that depends on the motivation for the crime no longer holding, and somehow Faisal has not yet realized that we are bombing these people for their own good.
A FUNNY THING ABOUT REGRET IS, IT'S BETTER TO REGRET SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE THAN SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T DONE.
8: What was interesting/unexpected in some local reportage was the apparently rather dry tone he took (this was onscreen as text with a NY1 anchor doing a dramatic reading in that "bear in mind this isn't me" tone, so I'm allowing for some difficulty in knowing) even about his bombfail. He sort of said more or less well I'm really surprised the thing didn't go off. Seemed like a good enough bomb to me.
Once again heebie implants a Beatles song in my head, although I'm not sure this one is intentional.
Specifically, their version of "Big Papa". They were ahead of their time.
So, everyone that reads/posts on this site actually agrees with Heebie-Geebie?
Btw, NPR is not "us," it's a particularly skinny (and muddled) view of the world. Of course they're dumb enough on NPR to expect Faisal to have regret; this is because they (NPR) regret that we're in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, etc.
What I'd like to know is, what is a liberal's geopolitical vision, anyway? The UN? Isolationism? Has there ever been a military act in the history of the world that a liberal wouldn't "regret"? (Can you name it?)
No. Varies. Varies. Varies. Yes. Yes.
Hope that helps.
What I'd like to know is, what is a liberal's geopolitical vision, anyway?
Have you seen Star Trek?
He did attempt mass murder, and it was politically motivated. If he just wanted a forum, there were less bloody ways to get it, as well as people and buildings more closely connected to the military to attack.
Regardless of what's happening in Afghanistan, I don't have much sympathy for someone who attacks passers-by, regardless of how well-spoken he is or how stupid the reporters at the trial are.
It's possible to condemn random violence, whether it's done by the US military, some contractor, or guys like this. I have to say, I was pretty disappointed in press coverage of the acquittal of the Blackwater guys for whom there was unambiguous evidence of guilt-- they got off on a technicality.
When foreigners free their criminals that way, there are serious articles about the weakness of the legal system in XYZ country. It seems to me that ours is failing pretty badly as well-- John Yoo is still respected, any harassment of Blackwater staff is being done behind closed doors, Taguba got fired for talking. It is these failings, where things are clearest and potentially fixable that really have me worried.
Has there ever been a military act in the history of the world that a liberal wouldn't "regret"?
You're starting to understand the liberal perspective, but you're not quite there.
There is no action ever taken that this liberal wouldn't eventually regret. And then I would also regret my regret.
Finally, an answer to the question Who Is Ioz?"
What NPR lacks in bombast, it more than makes up for in sanctimony. Minute 1:50: "And . . . and he didn't seem very apologetic, did he?" Yo, brah, your girlfriend Dina just reported, literally Joe Biden, just said twenty seconds ago that Faisal Shazad calmly and cleary explained to the court that he considered himself a soldier in a war, that his attempted bombing was conceived as a direct retaliation for American military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he and others like him would continue to attempt such counterattacks so long as the US continued its wars in those countries, and to this your natural response is, uh, oh, and, uh, was he sorry?
It's Heebie!
Has there ever been a military act in the history of the world that a liberal wouldn't "regret"? (Can you name it?)
The surrender at Appomattox?
22: Here's one, not especially representative:
What I'd like to know is, what is a liberal's geopolitical vision, anyway?
Minimal use of coercion, generally accepted standards of human rights that focus on individual autonomy and the basic dignity of all people, enforced primarily through sanctions. The legitimate use of force restricted to cases of self defence or in order to prevent internal disorder from resulting in mass killings. The UN as primarily a talking shop where nations can try to work things out without violence. The US with a military about half the current size, and an end to the creeping imperialism that has marked US policy since like forever.
Has there ever been a military act in the history of the world that a liberal wouldn't "regret"?
The bombing of Serbia. If the US had intervened in Rwanda it would have been legitimate. The invasion of Afghanistan, incompetently handled though it was, was a legitimate case of self defence. I'd add WWII and the Korean war. Also the near-miss cruise missile attack on Bin Laden in the late 1990s. The bombing campaign that finally eliminated the last of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs was also arguably legitimate. All killing is regrettable, but sometimes the consequences of not doing it are worse than the consequences of doing it.
I don't understand this thread. Do you believe that as long as "we" are involved in atttacks that kill civilians in Afghanistan, all violence against any of "us" is justified? I don't. I consider violence against Time Square pedestrians evil, the sort of thing that any sane person should regret participating in. Curiosity about whether the terrorist is regretful isn't sadism, it's a natural question and arguably relevant to sentencing.
Also I heard the story this morning, and I'm pretty sure that they discussed his lack of regret once and quoted his statement once. Not particularly a case of "keep harping."
That said, there are liberals and radicals who would argue the merits all of those. One of our characteristics is to wonder whether there's a way to solve problems without violence, which you might find annoying.
Wikipedia informs that "not all Sloanes are philistine anti-intellectuals[citation needed]".
in 31 "that" = 29.last
uinimaginative, it's not whether the violence is justified, it's the demand for a performance of regret. More IOZ:
It's characteristically American to presume that no one else can possibly believe what they believe. Thus do we grow whole cottage industries of analysts, experts, correspondents, think-tankers, assistant best boy grips to the sub-secretary of the department of the ministry of the bureau of whathaveyou, all devoted to such imponderables as what do Osama et al. really want? When of course they have elaborately and in great detail outlined exactly what they want.
The question carries an assumption of "why would he hurt us? we're so cute!" which is an assumption that somehow shields itself from stuff like this.
31: I think it's a defining characteristic of liberalism to find ways of solving problems without coercion. In practice there are some problems that are very resistant to non-coercive solutions, though.
34: No. High taxes, regret, and self-doubt.
My own writing has been so chock full of typos of late that I feel hypocritical even pointing it out, but it's "Times Square", heebster. And don't worry about regretting it, for serious.
The US with a military about half the current size would still have far too large a military.
38: True, but I might actually see something like that in my lifetime. Attractive as it is to imagine the US turning into Japan from a military standpoint, it seems rather unlikely from where we stand now.
I don't understand this thread. Do you believe that as long as "we" are involved in atttacks that kill civilians in Afghanistan, all violence against any of "us" is justified? I don't.
No. The attempted bombing is not justified. But expecting Faisal to play out the theater of regret is ridiculous and a bit perverted.
but it's "Times Square", heebster.
When I was little, our local mall was called "The Oaks Mall" which I misheard as "The Oak Small" and misgeneralized that these shopping complexes were called Smalls. But of course no one corrected me because they sound so similar, so it persisted.
There wasn't a demand for a performance of regret, theree was a report on whether or not the attempted murderer expressed regret. It's very fundamental in the United States criminal justice system that a sincerely regretful criminal may receive a lighter sentence, especially if the judge decides he's less likely to commit another crime. The judge ahs is to figure out whether an expresion of regret is sincere, and whether it means in the particular case that the crininal is less likely to offend again. Murders or other crimes committed by other Americans, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, are completely irrelevant to whether this Defendant regrets, or should regret, his own attempted murder.
But expecting Faisal to play out the theater of regret is ridiculous and a bit perverted.
It worked for Hugh Grant!
Sure, I get that regret has a long-hallowed spot in our justice system. It's still bizarre in this situation, given that we are literally reciprocating, on 1000x the bombing scale, and we seem to display no regret.
Once again heebie implants a Beatles song in my head, although I'm not sure this one is intentional.
Hmm. In my head was Willie Nelson's Good Morning, America. Want to think of that song instead?
Great. Now I'm hearing Arlo Guthrie's "New Orleans".
43: Completely disagree. It's not all that unusual for criminals to later regret their crimes. This includes criminals who commit crimes at the same time that other criminals commit other crimes elsewhere in the world.
We seem to agree that the crime was not justified. Apparently at the time Shahzad committed the crime he thought it was justified. Why is it ridiculous or perverted to hope (not expect) that with the passage of time, he has recognized that setting off a bomb in Times Square is, you know, a bad thing to do?
There is One True "Good Morning" Earworm.
49: Bob McGrath begs to differ. Nooby abba nabba.
Great. Now I'm hearing Arlo Guthrie's "New Orleans".
Dammit, now I am too. Except it's as performed by Judy Collins.
It's not all that unusual for criminals to later regret their crimes. This includes criminals who commit crimes at the same time that other criminals commit other crimes elsewhere in the world.
This isn't random, unlinked violence.
Faisal was aiming for retaliation. The size of the crime that he is retaliating against is a million times larger than the size of the crime he attempted, and failed.
It's perverted and ridiculous because there's no acknowledgement - at least in the courtroom, to Faisal, or somehow in the context - that there is any legitimate reason he might be angry at us.
(His anger is legitimate, just not his violent actions.)
Great. Now I'm hearing Arlo Guthrie's "New Orleans".
Oh right, it's called "New Orleans". You should try getting earwormed by Willie Nelson instead, though.
Oh right, it's called "New Orleans"
I believe it's technically "City of New Orleans".
The focus of liberal regret today seems to be reading words that remind one of songs.
Apparently, the liberal eschewal of violence leads to utter helplessness when confronted by the power of music.
I like the song. When the extended family sings folk songs at family gatherings, it sometimes makes it into rotation.
Speaking of songs . . .
Sure, I get that regret has a long-hallowed spot in our justice system. It's still bizarre in this situation, given that we are literally reciprocating, on 1000x the bombing scale, and we seem to display no regret.
It is unusual for people to use the same expressions of regret for collective guilt as for individual guilt.
(I thought of that song when I first saw the post.)
I believe it's technically "City of New Orleans".
Written by Steve Goodman, right? yes.
Did Bob Dylan ever express regret for writing "Masters of War"?
60: "My Back Pages"?
But, seriously, no, he did not.
No. Nor for recording Self-Portrait.
Back to the OP, talking about regret doesn't seem inappropriate. We're treating this guy as a criminal, rather than as a combatant in the Global War on Bad Stuff. And in that context, criminal acts (like trying to kill people) are properly regrettable even if they're in some sense justified as revenge -- there wouldn't be anything weird about asking a non-political murderer if he regretted his crimes even if they were in some sense made necessary by the nature of his situation (he was under threat from rival criminals, whatever). Talking about regret would seem inappropriate if we were talking about someone lawfully fighting a war, but that's not this guy.
It's screwed up that the organization that's prosecuting him and looking for expressions of regret is in some sense the same organization that's committing similar crimes overseas. But what's screwed up is that we're committing crimes, not that we're treating him as a criminal when he commits crimes.
62: Aw, but I kind of love his cover of "The Boxer".
I don't see how the second paragraph of 63 doesn't make the first paragraph inapplicable.
I do get that if we ask everyone if they feel regret, we're certainly not going to omit this guy. So I'm not actually asking us to alter our routine.
But when I step back and put on my Conehead Glasses, it's completely insane and bizarre that we're bombing the shit out of these countries, and asking this little guy to feel bad for a hapless retaliation.
62: The words to say I'm sorry, I haven't found yet
Talking about regret would seem inappropriate if we were talking about someone lawfully fighting a war, but that's not this guy.
I'm not clear on this. The war we began has become completely ridiculous, even if it was initially justifiedish. So he ought not feel regret if he were lawfully attacking our drones in Afghanistan, but this is wildly different? Doesn't the fact that we've got drones there make the whole situation so insanely asymmetric that the whole thing is ludicrous?
63: The US would like to see his acts as separate from the war. He clearly does not. The expectation of regret demonstrates an unstated assumption that only our viewpoint is valid.
But when I step back and put on my Conehead Glasses, it's completely insane and bizarre that we're bombing the shit out of these countries, and asking this little guy to feel bad for a hapless retaliation.
I'm not saying that it's reasonable, but that really is what, "monopoly on the legitimate use of force" means.
nd asking this little guy to feel bad for a hapless retaliation.
Aren't you making 'hapless' do too much work there? He really was trying to kill a whole bunch of individually innocent people (I'd get huffy about "who could have been me!" but I'm rarely in Times Square.) That's a straightforwardly regrettable act, and he should regret it. If the French Resistance were setting off bombs in civilian areas German cities in WW II, I'd call that regrettable, and the sort of thing I'd want the bombers to feel bad about, regardless of how bad the Nazis were. (The actual bombing of German civilians we did is a less perfect analogy, but also IMO criminal and to be regretted.)
70 hets it right. Yeah, this was not a guy going around breaking the windows of recruiting offices.
OK, so is there some avenue by which he might be lawfully fighting us?
Well, if he were in Afghanistan as part of an organized resistance openly carrying weapons and wearing uniforms, the US would still find some excuse for calling his behavior unlawful. But under those circumstances I'd be with Heebie, saying that it was insane of us to be asking him if he regretted his crimes. I'd probably feel the same way if he were attacking specifically military installations within the US.
Targeting civilians, on the other hand, is criminal. It's criminal when we do it, but it doesn't become legitimate warfighting when someone else does it to us.
He really was trying to kill a whole bunch of individually innocent people
If there was any acknowledgment (in any context around Faisal) that we also feel regret over civillian casualities, then it would be consistent for us to ask him if he feels regret. And if he were super-self-actualized, he would already feel regret, and it would be legitimate.
But we're asking him to be super-self-actualized while we're bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, and we feel fine. Which is stupid and theatric of us.
How effective is our legal system in investigating and prosecuting our soldiers for careless uses of force against civillians? If the answer is "not very", one could argue that, in effect, we don't care if we target civillians, and the situation becomes a bit less asymmetric.
Another song about collective guilt.
My name is Lisa Kalvelage, I was born in Nuremberg / And when the trials were held there nineteen years ago / It seemed to me ridiculous to hold a nation all to blame / For the horrors that the world did undergo / A short while later when I applied to be a G. I. bride / An American consular official questioned me / He refused my exit permit, said my answers did not show / I'd learned my lesson about responsibility.
There are probably a lot of Vietnam era songs on the topic.
Again, I think that it's not normal for people to experience collective guilt in the same way as individual guilt. It's worth making that argument, because it doesn't get made often enough, but I don't think it's reasonable to be mystified by the fact that people don't normally react that way.
Targeting civilians, on the other hand, is criminal. It's criminal when we do it, but it doesn't become legitimate warfighting when someone else does it to us.
I'm not excusing his actions. I'm just looking at the regret aspect.
Well, if he were in Afghanistan as part of an organized resistance openly carrying weapons and wearing uniforms,...I'd be with Heebie, saying that it was insane of us to be asking him if he regretted his crimes.
But a big part of the huge asymmetry is the location of the war, and whose lives are being ruined.
I get that by coming here, he's provoking us instead of defending Afghanistan, and thus he's breaking the rules. It's still idiotic that the rules include mandatory regret for breaking the rules.
But what's screwed up is that we're committing crimes, not that we're treating him as a criminal when he commits crimes.
The former makes the latter farcical in context. Reasoning it out independently, yes, of course, it makes sense to hope he feels regret; but considering it independently is part of the great double standard.
I don't think we disagree on key issues here, just emphasis. The regret-flogging just gives me the feeling "What the hell has our country come to?"
I don't think it's reasonable to be mystified by the fact that people don't normally react that way.
I'm not mystified, I'm just angry.
74: Faisal was a decision-maker, in a position to determine whether or not a crime would be committed. He decided to commit that crime, and he should regret it.
The law enforcement officials prosecuting him aren't themselves blowing up Afghan/Pakistani civilians. They don't have the power to stop it from happening. So they're not being individually inconsistent. I would very much desire that we stop blowing up Afghan/Pakistani civilians, but I don't know how to make us stop. I'm not being inconsistent for thinking Faisal should regret trying to kill people in Times Square. There really isn't any necessary inconsistency on an individual basis here.
To get inconsistency, you need to treat the US Government as a single entity that is so tainted by its crimes that it cannot legitimately assert authority in any context. Which there's a reasonable argument for, but the consequences are pretty intense: you end up in the Concord jail for refusing to pay taxes to an illegitimate government.
77, 78: I don't think anyone's particularly surprised that he's not regretful -- it's perfectly comprehensible that someone in his shoes might not find our rules against killing civilians unfair and not to be respected. But if we're going to treat our criminal law as valid, part of the process of dealing with a criminal is establishing whether they do now accept the law as valid and regret transgressing.
He decided to commit that crime, and he should regret it.
It's important for us to ascertain if he's likely to re-offend, so that we can protect ourselves. One indicator is whether he regrets the attempt or not. So it's fine for us to investigate his regret.
But that doesn't mean he should regret it. It's silly for us to behave as though he should morally rise to that level of uber-ethical-self-reflection.
I can see why you would want your hypothetical French bombers (or Faisal) to feel regret, but it doesn't seem plausible to me that they would. They would have developed a longstanding grievance from living under the Nazis and then spent significant time to plan and carry out their civilian bombings. The entire premise of this protracted work is that they believe (wrongly, if I have to say it) that the killing of civilians is justified. To anticipate regret is to treat them not as criminals, but as children who woke up one morning and said, "Let's kill some civilians today."
Also, I walk through Times Square twice a day.
The Concord jail is pretty sweet. If you're willing to check your metal objects and such, the prisoners will make you lunch for like $1.50.
82 cont'd: And if our principal concern were rehabilitating him so that he doesn't re-offend, it would be helpful for us to acknowledge the legitimacy of his anger. That might foster some genuine reflection and regret.
you end up in the Concord jail for refusing to pay taxes to an illegitimate government.
Would you accept as a substitute scoffing at the presumption of moral authority?
It's silly for us to behave as though he should morally rise to that level of uber-ethical-self-reflection.
Okay, I don't actually think it requires any particularly remarkable level of saintliness to regret attempting to kill unarmed people who haven't done anything, individually, to you or anyone you care about. Even if there are other people your victims are politically associated with killing unarmed people in your home country. Given that he's the sort of person who attempts to kill unarmed people who haven't done anything to him or to anyone he cares about, it's not surprising that he doesn't regret that decision, but it's a pretty easy moral call that he shouldn't have done that.
Would you feel the same way about the 7/7 bombers in London? Their justification was just as good as this guy's -- would it seem silly to you to ask them if they regretted murdering London commuters?
87 crossed with 83, but kind of addresses it. It's certainly not surprising that someone who does this sort of thing thinks they're justified, and doesn't regret their actions just because they got caught. That doesn't make the inquiry into regret any less reasonable than it is for any other criminal.
Would you feel the same way about the 7/7 bombers in London?
I'd say their case is a lot murkier, mostly because of the size and success of their terrorism. Faisal was completely unsuccessful. We're asking him to regret a thwarted attempt. That just magnifies the asymmetry of our crimes and his.
That doesn't make the inquiry into regret any less reasonable than it is for any other criminal.
Why do we want regret in our prisoners? Besides to evaluate their likelihood to re-offend? Which of those reasons apply very well to this particular situation?
Yes, it would seem silly to me to ask the 7/7 bombers if they regretted murdering London commuters.
Has there ever been a military act in the history of the world that a liberal wouldn't "regret"?
From what I can tell, liberals are just as likely to support launching foreign wars as conservatives are. To be sure, they exhibit a lot more wistful head-shaking and we-hate-to-be-forced-into-this-ism as they do, but that flavor of regret is cheap unto meaningless.
89: I don't think that makes any significant moral difference -- he was genuinely trying to kill people, and was just lucky that he didn't.
I'm happy to focus on our war crimes, and to advocate for the punishment of people who are causing us to kill civilians. Happy's the wrong word -- I think it's appropriate? We're doing terrible things, and it's a travesty that our criminals almost certainly won't be punished. But that doesn't get me anywhere close to thinking that it's unreasonable to expect people to view killing civilian Americans as wrong however criminal our government.
Totally agree with LB in this thread. The guy is being charged as a criminal. What's so odd about asking whether or not he regrets his actions? That's what we do with criminals, whatever motivated their crime.
Also, and this may be somewhat more controversial here, I do not at all accept the moral equivalence of US bombs in Afghanistan/Faisal attempted bomb in Times Square. I don't think it was particularly well advised, and somewhat hubristic, for the United States to get involved in what is basically a civil war in Afghanistan. However, on balance, I'd prefer that the side that we're now backing wins. Moreover, the US is waging a war in a way that incidentally kills civilians, not simply targeting innocent civilians as a means of inflicting terror -- which I do think is a meaningful difference. So I'm not really on board at all with the notion we should just accept it as totally understandable when someone who supports seriously evil aims decides to engage in killing civilians as an act of political terrorism in the United States.
If you want the machinery of law (judges, juries, due process), you have to expect some of the sentiment that greases the machine (pleas, victim impact statements, the crocodilian tears of advocates and pundits).
the US is waging a war in a way that incidentally kills civilians
"incidentally" s/b "indiscriminately"
91: Silly because the answer is obvious -- they wouldn't have planted the bombs unless they meant to, so they're unlikely to regret the decision -- or silly because given the British government's war crimes, British law enforcement has a lot of gall expecting anyone to regret killing British civilians?
If what you mean is the first, sure, but lots of things are silly on that level. The second sounds more like what Heebie's arguing, and I think it's very misguided.
I don't think that makes any significant moral difference -- he was genuinely trying to kill people, and was just lucky that he didn't.
This is slightly difference between:
1) there's no moral difference between successfully killing people and attempting to kill people
and
2) There's no moral difference in whether one should regret successfully killing people vs. regretting attempting to kill people.
I think there's a big difference in whether one ought to feel regret. If you fail to kill people and realize the error of your ways, I'd expect relief. Still not regret, except incidentally over other related damage.
I think there's a big difference in whether one ought to feel regret. If you fail to kill people and realize the error of your ways, I'd expect relief. Still not regret, except incidentally over other related damage.
Okay, if this is the core of why it's silly to expect him to regret his crime -- the difference between attempted and successful murder -- I'm not with you, but it's not misguided in the way I thought it was.
94.2: I can't endorse your second paragraph -- I think the way we're waging war in Afghanistan is much more irresponsible and criminal than you suggest. But I'm with you on the first paragraph.
"incidentally" s/b "indiscriminately"
I don't actually agree with that at all. I'm not going to argue that the war is not a mistake or that civilians die in war and that it's awful that civilians are dying -- and that's why I'm generally on the far-isolationsist wing of the US foreign policy debate. But, by any standard of modern warfare, it's hard to accuse the US Army of "indiscriminate" killing of civilians in Afghanistan; there's an enormous, and increasing, amout of effort being given to target selection with the goal of minimizing civilian casualties. The problem with war is that even with such attempts at discriminate killing a lot of innocent people die.
Okay, if this is the core of why it's silly to expect him to regret his crime -- the difference between attempted and successful murder -- I'm not with you, but it's not misguided in the way I thought it was.
It's more than that. It's the unsuccessfulness of his, set against the successful, gigantically asymmetric fact of ours.
I'm happy to focus on our war crimes, and to advocate for the punishment of people who are causing us to kill civilians. Happy's the wrong word -- I think it's appropriate? We're doing terrible things, and it's a travesty that our criminals almost certainly won't be punished. But that doesn't get me anywhere close to thinking that it's unreasonable to expect people to view killing civilian Americans as wrong however criminal our government.
I have no problem with your logic; I just think mental compartmentalization of these things is a mistake. It is proper for there to be a miasma effect in which our country's deeds make us feel guilty about inquiring into a bomber's regrets, even though the inquiry in itself is objectively justified.
Would heebie regret this thread if someone blew her up? Jesus.
So I'm not really on board at all with the notion we should just accept it as totally understandable when someone who supports seriously evil aims decides to engage in killing civilians as an act of political terrorism in the United States.
I think we need to treat it as understandable not in the sense of "justified" but in the sense of "predictable" or "expected" or "a natural consequence", and we clearly don't.
But, by any standard of modern warfare, it's hard to accuse the US Army of "indiscriminate" killing of civilians in Afghanistan; there's an enormous, and increasing, amout of effort being given to target selection with the goal of minimizing civilian casualties. The problem with war is that even with such attempts at discriminate killing a lot of innocent people die.
The thing is, you're not supposed to get to the minimum possible number of civilian casualties and then order the strike. You're supposed to get to the minimum number of civilian casualties and if it's not low enough in light of the value of the military objective, not order the strike. I'm not at all convinced we're doing the latter.
You're supposed to get to the minimum number of civilian casualties and if it's not low enough in light of the value of the military objective, not order the strike. I'm not at all convinced we're doing the latter.
That's right.
103: If you're going to be hostile, do it under a permanent pseudonym. Anonymous sniping is unpleasant.
When the US has demonstrably done this: targeting innocent civilians as a means of inflicting terror, there was no meaningful response-- the killers got off on a technicality.
Given how unclear a warzone is, so this is the best case as far as evidence-gathering goes, why believe that the US military is careful with foreign civilians?
Whoops, link fail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings
I'm sure someone here knows more about this than I do -- and I may be wrong and would be happy to get more information -- but according to this article there were literally zero civilian casualties in 2006 and 2007 from planned airstrikes, with the only civilian casualties arising from situations in which troops were engaged in combat and called in support fire.
Not to mention that the current counter-insurgency strategy, as I understand it, basically relies on putting more troops on the ground in an effort to avoid doing warfare by airstrike with the attendant civilian casualties.
As I say, I'm not an expert on this, and all of the above could be wrong or subject to modification. But one thing the US is clearly not doing is planning to blow up civilians in the most crowded square in Kabul simply for the sake of terrorizing the population.
Sorry, I regret my previous comment.
It's okay. I regret going behind the site and looking up who you really are.
But one thing the US is clearly not doing is planning to blow up civilians in the most crowded square in Kabul simply for the sake of terrorizing the population.
With all due respect, fuck off.
literally zero civilian casualties in 2006 and 2007 from planned airstrikes
In May 2006, Afghan President Hamid Karzai summoned the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, to demand an explanation in the deaths of at least 16 Afghan civilians during airstrikes at Taliban militants in the south.
In December 2006, a tearful President Hamid Karzai lamented that Afghan children were being maimed and killed by NATO and U.S. bombs and by the terrorism brought on by the war. In a heartfelt speech that brought audience members to tears, Karzai said the cruelty imposed on his people "is too much" and that Afghanistan cannot stop "the coalition from killing our children."
In May 2007, after heavy aerial bombing by the American military had recently killed 40 to 60 Afghan civilians, including women and children, wounded about 50 more, and destroyed some 100 houses, President Hamid Karzai summoned top foreign generals and diplomats to his palace to reiterate years of complaints over blameless deaths. At a news conference afterward, he said that Afghan lives should be valued too, and the Afghan people could no longer tolerate such casualties.
In June 2007, after the deaths of more than 90 civilians in 10 days, President Hamid Karzai accused ISAF and the US-led military coalition in his country of "extreme" and "disproportionate" use of force. In his protestations, the Afghan president said that the foreign military forces in his country had to start working in accordance with his government's wishes.
On October 28, 2007, in an interview on 60 Minutes, Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated that he had explicitly asked U.S. President George W. Bush to roll back the use of airstrikes - which had killed more than 270 civilians in 17 air strikes to date in 2007 alone - in his country, saying that he had delivered the message privately to Bush using "clear words" in August.
apo, I would imagine those are TIC, not planned strikes.
I imagine that distinction is lost on the families. Which is why it's "on the other hand".
112: No one is claiming we are, and I'm not a big fan of the "as long as we're not beheading people like those really bad guys, we're okay" school of standards for warfare.
114: I'm not really seeing that as much of a difference. There's some -- if it were trivially easy to do everything we wanted in Afghanistan without killing civilians, I'm sure we would. I doubt we're intentionally aiming at people we expressly know to be civilians. But if we're intentionally acting in a manner that leads to the deaths of significant numbers of civilians, even if we'd prefer that it didn't, they're just as dead as if we'd aimed at them purposefully, and it's still the result of our actions.
Also from Halford's report, "civilian casualties increased by 62% in 2008, compared to figures from the first six months of 2007."
Yeah, I'm not really disputing anything in 113. War sucks, and we shouldn't be in it. However, I do think it's important to maintain a distinction between civilian deaths due to military targeting and attacks that target civilians for the purpose of instilling terror in a population. Again, I'm not an expert on this, but I believe there are significant legal and moral differences between the two situations.
And I don't really get what provoked the ire in 111.
110: Can we assume that's not a regular commenter?
I'm not a big fan of the "as long as we're not beheading people like those really bad guys, we're okay" school of standards for warfare.
Me neither. But the premise of the post (as I read it) is that setting off a bomb in Times Square with the goal of inflicting mass civilian casualties is basically just the same thing as what the US is doing in Afghanistan. It's that premise that I'm disagreeing with, not whether the US could or should be doing better.
122: Well, I'm distinguishing the crime from the regret of the crime. I'm just saying an expectation of regret is ludicrous when we're responsible for tons of civillian deaths, which we will not acknowledge any regret for.
I do understand what you're saying, Halford, and there has been a pointed and publicized effort to kill fewer civilians (indiscriminate was rhetorical flourish; nonetheless, we're doing a relatively poor job of discriminating). But it's nearly certain that whatever numbers we have are also sizable undercounts, just from the nature of Afghanistan's geography, infrastructure, and technology.
War sucks, and we shouldn't be in it.
Comity.
122: Got it. "Fuck off" hereby retracted.
Man, back in the day we had real flame wars, with long-held grudges and hurt feelings. Where's the escalation? Where's the unreasonableness?
I miss Ogged.
Virginia is for lovers. Comity is for fuckers.
Heebie, is part of your objection to the asking about regret that it feels like the justice system is saying, "we are not only going to punish you but, before we do, we want to hear you acknowledge the validity of this court and our judgment" which feels coercive and a bit like a show trial.
Do you imagine him thinking, "I did what I did knowing that it was illegal, and I did it was a conscious act of resistance. None of my beliefs about that have changed." or do you imagine him thinking, "heck, I'd kill everybody in this courtroom if I could."
Or do you think that it doesn't matter what he's thinking at all, do you just feel about the criminal justice system that it's being hypocritical and that is has no business asking about the stones that somebody else is throwing when it is part of an organization that is throwing boulders?
"Fuck off" hereby reinstated. I'm no Megan, but if we need grudges, I'm willing to hold one, particularly against a Laker fan.
I was really hoping for a different enemy. I desperately need your advice about wine.
130: Probably the third is closest. Although I'd change "has no business" to "is totally comical to". Because "has no business" is not language I'd use here - we're doing it; it just strikes me as absurd and ludicrous.
Assuming that apostropher is actually Chuck Nevitt, I hereby announce that I am continuing Manute Bol's grudge against him.
Man, back in the day we had real flame wars, with long-held grudges and hurt feelings. Where's the escalation? Where's the unreasonableness?
The lack of conflict is mostly due to the increasing feminization of Unfogged.
131: Excellent. Drama, estrangement, longed-for reconciliation -- that's the sort of plotting that distinguishes a quality comments section. Bonus checks are in the mail to both of you.
135: That's an odd way to describe the disappearance of bitchphd.
If we'd just let Read pursue her "I will relentlessly personally attack one commenter per day, until I have attacked all the commenters" strategy, we would have had all the drama we ever needed.
I am now banning myself.
Don't blow up heebie! She never has nothing to regret.
132: It kind of flies under the radar, but you may be interested in a little wine called Yellow Tail Merlot.
130: Probably the third is closest. Although I'd change "has no business" to "is totally comical to". Because "has no business" is not language I'd use here - we're doing it; it just strikes me as absurd and ludicrous.
Then I think I still disagree with you. I mean, I get why it's comical, but I go back to the idea that the state proverbially (that isn't the right word, what am I looking for there) has "a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" and that doesn't mean that every act of violence carried out by the state is legitimate, but it does mean that the standards are very different for judging when the state has surrendered that legitimicy.
The other thought I've had throughout this conversation is that I would imagine that many of the people involved in planning the war in Afghanistan regret what they're doing. They may feel like they're making the best choice from a tragically limited set of options, but I doubt many of them feel like the choices that they're making are anything to get excited about (except by contrast with alternatives). Even if you think there are analogies to be drawn between the behavior of the government and terrorists, why should that preclude regret?
That said, I don't disagree with 104.1
I desperately need your advice about wine.
You should definitely drink some.
137: Pfft. Now Lawyers, Guns, and Money, there's a blog that can credibly threaten a knife fight.
Anonymous sniping is unpleasant.
I'M ASHAMED OF YOU. THEY COULDN'T HIT AN ELEPHANT AT THIS DISTANCE.
but I go back to the idea that the state proverbially (that isn't the right word, what am I looking for there) has "a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" and that doesn't mean that every act of violence carried out by the state is legitimate, but it does mean that the standards are very different for judging when the state has surrendered that legitimicy.
Oh, I agree with this. I found 130 incredibly difficult to answer, so don't read too much into it.
It kind of flies under the radar, but you may be interested in a little wine called Yellow Tail Merlot
Is Yellow Tail the wine equivalent of U2? Or maybe there's some better analogy-ban-breaking analogy? Reviled among True Believers while commercially quite successful and not without its apologists?
I've heard my wine-making cob-logger pan YT on multiple occasions, and he's not one to be quick with the panning.
He makes a fine Nehi-esque concord grape beverage, which suggests that he can't be too closed minded.
I hear there are good wine recommStandpipeCheeseplate's Cheeseplate blog.
I have no idea what just happened.
Hey, man, you disrespect my empty threats, and suddenly you can't type straight. Do I really need to connect the dots for you?
Why is there blood on my keyboard?
I feel woozy.
I don't see it. The asshole in question wanted to go out and massacre a bunch of random civilians, the analogy to US government policy is deeply flawed for all the reasons discussed above. A closer one would be the massacres committed by Polish civilians against their ethnic German neighbours in early September 1939 following indiscriminate bombings at the start of the German invasion. Keep in mind that the big German atrocities would only begin later on that month.
47
Completely disagree. It's not all that unusual for criminals to later regret their crimes.
Depends on the crime. There are plenty of crimes and criminals about which we don't ask about regret, don't expect it, and while nothing's impossible of course it would be very surprising if it happened. Mob enforcers or hitmen, serial killers, pretty much any violent religious nut other than this Faisal guy... That guy who started shooting at the Holocaust Museum, say, or the guy who killed the ob-gyn in Kansas because he provided abortions. Did anyone ask if they were sorry? Paying more media attention to their regret or lack of it than to Faisal's is solipsistic. (In other words, heebie is right.)
119
However, I do think it's important to maintain a distinction between civilian deaths due to military targeting and attacks that target civilians for the purpose of instilling terror in a population. Again, I'm not an expert on this, but I believe there are significant legal and moral differences between the two situations.
Why is it important, exactly? I mean, sure, there are definitely differences, but I'm not sure how much they matter. The only moral difference seems to be the old "good intentions" vs. "good actions" thing, and I'm neither a philosopher nor a theologian so I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to prefer, but I lean towards the latter and I don't think it's a totally settled question. But if I'm right and actual body count is what matters (or body-and-injury count or body-and-injury-and-mental-trauma count or rat orgasms or whatever), then civilian deaths due to military targeting is definitely far worse than unsuccessful terrorism.
Indiscriminately killing civilians is easy. Comity is hard.
153: You don't see what? You think the asshole in question should make the distinction between excess civilian casualties and targeted civilian killings and thus realize that his action isn't commensurate? Yeah, I suppose that thousands of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are in some sense less bad than a dozen civilian murders in NYC.
So if I'm following the logic correctly:
1. We're all pissed off about civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
2. There's too much comity around here.
It therefore stands to reason that:
3. We pretty much have a moral duty to start shooting each other.
Or am I missing something?
You think the asshole in question should make the distinction between excess civilian casualties and targeted civilian killings and thus realize that his action isn't commensurate? Yeah, I suppose that thousands of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are in some sense less bad than a dozen civilian murders in NYC.
So basically you think that... what? There is no distinction between what this guy was planning and setting off a bomb next to a US convoy in Kabul or shooting at US troops from a house with civilians in it?
Every civilian life lost in regretted, blah blah. It's a war zone, and has been for a long time and civilians always get the worst of it. But there is no moral equivalence between soldiers and terrorists, which is one reason Faisal claims to be a soldier. We are trying and doing a pretty good job, all things considered. (NPR joke not included)
So basically you think that...
...people expecting him to regret his actions (like the NPR people) are very silly.
Somehow, I got the guy's first and last names crossed up -- I feel a bit odd about having first-named him throughout the thread. That wasn't my intention.
Timothy McVeigh saw himself as retaliating against the government's violent actions, also, and didn't particularly regret his actions. Is the major difference between McVeigh and Faisal that Faisal's bomb didn't go off?
Maybe the guy could borrow some sorry from General McChrystal.
The emphasis on regret, apologies, contrition, etc. stems from somewhere in the late Sixties onward.
It's related to cognitive dissonance, I think. As the real value of individuals in socieity decreases, there's more emphasis on ever more elaborate displays of faux valuation.
You can see this operating in victim's statements at the end of trials, governments apologizing for actions taken by officials long dead, the media outrage over Tony going sailing while turtles burn, and the agonizing over Obama possibly taking a nap during his term in office.
Silly stuff.
162: Is the major difference between McVeigh and Faisal that Faisal's bomb didn't go off?
Yes. Easy answers to simple questions.
And now some bonus crazy:|| I haven't seen the crazy this good for some weeks, probably because I haven't been looking too hard. But this is the thread it belongs in, what with the polite debate about a failed bomber's lack of regret.
Perhaps the analogy to FDR is apt as we watch apathetic Americans, and in particular American Jews, quietly sit back without attempting to prevent the possibility of another Holocaust. However, FDR did not actively take steps to ensure the death of millions of Jews as Obama is now doing. As Obama likes to say, "The buck stops here." And when Iran goes nuclear and aims its weapons first at Israel, next at Europe, and lastly at the United States, it will certainly be a new feeling for Americans to realize that they could have prevented the catastrophe but chose instead to support the novel president and his policies based on hope and change.
Yes, these are certainly novel times for the United States. But they are also catastrophic. And if the American people do not prevent these policies from implementation, The Novel Presidency may top the New York Times bestseller list at some point in the future. However, American citizens may find themselves reading Obama's third memoir while sitting in a jail cell facing accusations of breaching Sharia law, standing in an unemployment line waiting for the latest government handout, lying in an emergency room in the hopes of seeing a doctor before an illness becomes untreatable, or sitting in a nuclear bunker awaiting the next Iranian attack.Oh. Wow. Dude. That. Was. Some. Good. Stuff. Man. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. The comments are fabulous too!
m, aaa+++ would read for the crazy again!
|>
Heebie-jeebie, you sound like a Faisal sympathizer to me. The guy freaking tried to kill and/or maim a bunch of random, completely innocent people in Times Square. Regardless of my disdain for U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my immense pity for the people caught up in the middle of the mess we've created, I don't have a shred of sympathy for this guy. His acts were unjustified, and to allow his crime to serve as a forum for the espousal of his political views would be entirely inappropriate.
As a U.S. citizen, he had the right to protest U.S. foreign policy in a myriad of ways that many folks in Middle East and other parts of the world are denied. Instead, he tried to blow a bunch of innocent people to kingdom come. He is a maladjusted, spoiled, angry guy who threw away a decent life for nothing. Where honest activism might have actually furthered his supposed cause (I don't actually believe that he really cares that much about the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but more about making a martyr of himself), all he has done is promote more fear and and hatred of Muslims in America. Good work, Faisal! I'm just glad you didn't manage to blow up my kid, and Heebie wasn't on here writing about how a little four-year-old's death was justified retribution. Spare me.
10
... It's just ridiculous that we'd demand lip service of regret, when we'd never express regret for bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I believe the US government has expressed regret for killing civilians on numerous occasions.
167/8: I'll have you know I built that heebie out of straw myself! I hope you deeply regret huffing and puffing and collaterally damaging it all down.
