Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
When I heard that Obama was reversing course on the torture photographs, initially I was extremely disappointed. I thought that he may be bowing to conservative pressure - or was possibly protecting some Democrats who were in too deep.
Then I remembered who I was talking about. This wasn't some shady politician (sure - Republicans say what you will - but you are a laughing stock so no one cares) - this was Barack Obama. He inspired me to give my time and money (more than I could afford) to his campaign. I did so because I truly believed that he was the best person for the job. I made that decision after reading his writing, and the listening to him speak. What struck me most was not his eloquence and ability to give you chills when he gave a speech. It wasn't even something he spoke directly about. What made me sure he was the best candidate to get us through the enormity of challenges we now face (Thank you so much Bush/Cheney, etc.) is simply the way he thinks through a problem.
A perfect example of this came when the decision was made to release the Torture memos. Below is an excerpt from a story run in the Washington Post April 24, 2009:
"Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day."
The story goes into great detail about the positions on both sides, but it is clear that Obama gave both sides a chance to present their argument, then he made his decision after a weighing of all of the facts. Combine this with his other fantastic traits, and he's the perfect person to help us clean the stain of blood and shame that George and Dick et. al left us with.
I then looked at my initial reaction and asked myself some tough questions. Was the reason I wanted those pictures out so bad because like most people look when I drive by a car crash? Was it based on my need to have even more reasons to tell Dick Cheney to STFU and go to his rat-hole and die? Did the release of those photo's have an effect on my daily life? I'll keep the answers to those questions to myself - but I will share the question that made me realize Obama is absolutely the right decision, at least the right decision for now.
What would I do if I were a young man in Pakistan - my country being taken over by the Taliban. What if the Taliban asked me to join them? What if I shared their faith - although never to that extreme - but was searching for meaning in my life (as do so many young people regardless of their birthplace). Would I join?
Before the release of these additional photos, when it is just words conveying the message of what we did to various suspected terrorists, I might not have.
Show me picture after picture of Islamic brothers being sexually abused, anally raped with objects and forced to endure unimaginably horrifying torture and I'd grab a scimitar and try to cut the fucking heads off any white person I could find. That might just be my breaking point. Words are one thing. A picture like that never leaves you. It is used for motivation, and it can be used to convince you that you are doing the right thing, no matter how heinous that thing is. It might convince you that the kidnapped 18 year old human rights worker in front of you sitting in a puddle of his own urine REALLY does deserve to be tortured then brutally murdered. It might convince you that your God, (in your mind the only real God, sound familiar Christians) wants - no - commands you to do this.
We have people in this Country who will blow up abortion clinics and beat or kill gay people just for being gay. They do this because they believe their God supports them. Imagine if those same Christian Extremists were pushed even farther. What if a group started torturing pregnant Christian Women? How many extremists would be created then? How many mild mannered good family men who are moderate would instantly do whatever it took to stop this?
Pakistan is a dangerous place right now. They have nuclear weapons. The Taliban right now probably isn't strong enough to obtain nuclear fuel let alone weapons. But what if - overnight - their recruitment percentages went up 4000%? What would happen to our brave men and women fighting (whether we agree with the war or not) over there? Would that not embolden the Taliban and convince them they are right? And would it not be the trigger event that convinces even moderate Pakistani youth that they must stand up for their God.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean ignorantly blamed the devil for trying to convince her to take the easy way out and lie about her bigoted feelings about gay people. I mention this absurdity to contrast with what would be a real moral test. Imagine the decision that would face many youths in the Muslim Countries if these photos are released?
The fact that we tortured is inexcusable. The wrongdoers should be punished. The people supporting these evils are lacking a moral compass - or it's pointing in the wrong direction. The World must know that we are no longer the Country of "do what we want, when we want, damn the consequences and whoever might get hurt, and just be glad to bask in the glow that is Christian America". I believe we will get there - eventually
One last thing. I know some of you (not all) get so outraged and outspoken partly because you are looking for a reaction. But really - if these photos are not released right now is it going to effect your daily life? Most of us have not been asked to bear the burden of this conflict. Most of us have never served our Country at all. Maybe this is one thing we can all do to give a little bit back to those who do serve. Maybe we can trust that Obama considered all options, and decided this was the best choice we had. Maybe we can rally behind our leader, and give him the support he will need to fight off attacks by the Right and allow him to continue the great work he has started. He's only been in office for a few months, yet he has faced challenges few people on this Earth have or will ever have to face. Maybe, just maybe, we can act like the Americans of yesteryear and sacrifice - just a little. A very little.
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
Question: Were CIA operatives, who destroyed video evidence of torture, likewise serving national interests?
Follow-up: Did Obama endanger national interests by releasing the torture memos?
Obama wants to hide the 2000 plus pictures because they LOOK bad.
Obama wants you to trust him that they are not THAT bad.
Uncle TOM or Uncle Sam?
"Just a few bad apples"
Just a suggestion: Uncle Tom might not be the most appropriate reference.
I'm torn on this. While I see your point, Kala, Obama's rationale is a little too reminiscent of what we heard from Bush for 8 years:
I remain torn on how to address the fact that we tortured, but I still think that all of the information should see the light of day.
And by the way, on Monday Ted Koppel and a couple other guests were on NPR's Talk of the Nation, talking about the past, present, and future of torture in and by the United States. It was a great discussion and you can get the podcast at npr.org.
Sorry, that should read, "While I see your point, Rev..." You keep changing your avatar. I'm very easily confused.
Also, I just read more about it. If it's true that United States citizens raped children in order to force "confessions" from their parents, with the knowledge and approval of the White House...
I can't even finish that sentence. I can't get my mind around it. But I definitely don't want to see pictures of it.
If that's what really happened and we don't respond, then many people, both here and abroad, will have good reason to believe that the rule of law is meaningless in America. Pictures or no.
I really dig the Kopp. It's usually a good listen when he's on.
Hmm, your nome de plume is a bit cumbersome. I'm going to call you "also-ran".
I come at this differently, from the perspective of someone who did not trust Obama would stand up for the principles he campaiged on when faced with tough criticism. And in this case, he is cosigning on the argument GWB made for years. You are not agreeing with Obama, you are agreeing with Bush and Cheney and Rove etc etc etc . This is not about protecting the troops. It's about not embarrassing our country by having those images released to the world. Candidate Obama knew that and campaigned on it. President Obama caved to criticism from the right.
From President Obama's Memorandum on FOIA:
I come at this from a third direction, from the perspective of someone who supported Obama from the beginning, but who has also always recognized the political animal in him (he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has without it).
There are valid reasons not to release the torture photos, such as respect for those who were tortured. I'm skeptical as to whether the reasons being used are valid, but I am willing to give the shadow of the doubt as long as the truly important part, prosecuting those guilty up to the highest levels, is followed through on. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that will happen.
Like Orlando, I've been waffling, but this comment helps clear the fog for me. Thanks, Nebton. In my opinion, government transparency is not an end in itself and not even necessarily a good thing. Public outcry over shocking revelations makes me squirm. But it serves an important purpose in checking government excess. Without the risk of the outcry or proscecution, the government would be even less restrained.
So as Nebton suggests, if there is prosecution, the end is served, regardless of publishing the photos. But if that does not happen, either because of self-protection or because there is simply not a good legal case, then I say, role the presses.
If even half of what I've read is true, then I have a hard time believing that it's possible for there not to be a good legal case, but I'd love to hear from you, A-man, or others with or without legal expertise who could argue for why that might be.
The new revelations that I've heard about seem more related to ethics than law. That is to say, torturing someone to get information that justifies an invasion of Iraq is more reprehensible than torturing someone to get information that prevents an attack, and it could warrant the maximum penalty, but it's not more illegal. If it's illegal torture, it's illegal torture.
Those who directed and conducted the interrogations will argue that the they did not believe the methods constituted torture. It seems likely to me that a court will rule that water-boarding is torture, but for criminal culpability, it will also have to rule that the defendants interpretation of the law was unreasonable. I've no idea how hard that is, but it doesn't seem easy, especially since they had legal advice to that effect.
Here's a link that argues for a legal case: http://washingtonindependent.com/465/using-law-to-justify-torture