April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Oh that memo | Main | Short term »

Feb 07, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Hammer slaps the label "confidential police files" on a record and thus it is so. Kinda lame as far as convincing arguments go.


Hammer: "Now it appears that nobody in the city is vetting public records requests."

Now that's just ignorant and unhelpful. Records requests still get mired in the city's legal department, all too easily and for too frequent obfuscation, in my opinion. Hammer's being lazy here and that's disappointing on an issue of this importance. We could use his informed contribution instead of his unfounded attacks on city staff.


The quoted remarks of John Hammer actually support the premise that closer police monitoring is warranted. Hence the question remains, "what is all the fuss about?"


I think that should be your campaign slogan if you ever run for office again.

Worst person on the internet

Roch, you and others have been amazingly quiet about some threads that back in the old days you would have jumped right in on. I wonder why.


Fun reads, Worst.

Not sure why Roch gets the interest he does, but I admit one can draw attention through contrast.


"Not sure why Roch gets the interest he does..."

Man crush?


My predilections are mine alone.


Because blatant hypocrisy really stands out.



You bring back some good times with those links.

Some choice comments that really deserve a follow up by those they implicate:

"This is style over substance. The order doesn't actually close the prison by any date, and it is clear that Obama doesn't have any better alternatives. But because the liberals screamed about Bush and Guantanamo, he has to act like he is doing something different even though he really isn't. This won't be the first time. What I look forward to is the angry reaction from the Left to avoid looking like hypocrites."

That was me. I'm still waiting for that reaction.

"Maybe you should read the damn thing before you criticize. I thought you were the guys who applied cold, hard reasoning and logic before taking a stance on an issue. Sheesh!"

- Thomas

I read it four years ago. Guess what? Gitmo is still open. Looks like my criticism was warranted. The lack of criticism from Thomas isn't.

"Seems like banning some interrogation techniques and appointing an AG who defines waterboarding as torture, along with closing CIA prisons, is pretty substantive. And closing the facility that symbolizes the old detainee policies seems like more than a style move.

If Obama really makes no substantive changes, then of course he'll be criticized. Torture is un-American, no matter who is in the White House."

- Ed Cone

So outright killing with drones isn't a substantive change and certainly isn't worse than waterboarding. Meanwhile, where is the criticism that was promised? I suppose killing suspected terrorists including Americans isn't un-American. Either that or it DOES matter who is in the White House, or more appropriately, what party/ideology that person in the White House affiliates with. But there I go with my "partisan lens" again.

"I offered it to counter the view that Bush administration policies were opposed not on their merits, but merely because they were Bush administration policies."

- Ed Cone.

No, actually it looks more it was "merely because they were Bush administration policies".

"Right, which of course we know they have thus sworn because, uh, er, how is it that we know that again?"

- Roch responding to CP's claim that those waterboarded were sworn terrorists.

So, we know that those killed by drones are sworn terrorists because, uh, er, how is it that we know that again?

"...but statements about torture being against American values are not just wifty slogans, they are grounded in specifics."

-Ed Cone

So America has a tradition of being for killing suspected terrorists? Where can I find that specifically? (Note: maybe under some Bush policy, but then that we require a full retreat and admission that Obama is no different than Bush and hence operates "against American values")

"In the US scheme of things it has usually been thought that criminals and killers are "known" by virtue of having been convicted by a jury of the crimes for which they are accused...It would seem that this is not a meaningful discussion for GW. By that I mean a discussion of the epistemology of guilt."


Then Obama is guilty! (but he's a Democrat).

"Any idea what % of detainees in Gitmo were arrested based on intelligence gathered by US/NATO forces, and what % were turned in by bounty hunters or based on evidence given the US by Iraqis/Afghanis?

I find it strange that such basic information is not given to us by the media, much less the Administration."


Scratch "detainees in Gitmo were arrested" and replace with "suspected terrorists were killed" and make same point about lack of basic information.

"Write President Obama. He has promised openness and transparency, I'm sure he will get you that information promptly."

- Me

Did anyone ever get that information from the open and transparent Administration currently in office? Didn't think so.

" If it will help reign in the infinitessimal benefit of the doubt that you so loyally extend to any terrorist that leaves you not one drop for George Bush’s decisions and motives..."

- CP

Now you have to rephrase that to reign in the comprehensive and unquestioned benefit of the doubt given to Obama's decisions (because he's a liberal Democrat) that now leaves no question that anyone identified as a terrorist is a terrorist. Obama said so.

"Funny how things change when there is a "D" next to your name instead of an "R", even for non-partisan, objective observers like Ed Cone."

- Me

Still very funny. The best jokes are the ones closest to the truth.

"Was he a terrorist? Why wasn't he tried and jailed? Maybe he wasn't a terrorist but his stay at Gitmo turned him into one. I don't know. I know that you seem willing to make a lot of assumptions about people's guilt based on... what is it again, I'm still not clear. The wisdom of the Bush administration? No, that can't be it because it was they who turned this guy lose. So what is it again that allows you to know what you assert about people's guilt? Sean Hannity?"

- Roch

Yes Roch, Obama's drone policy including killing Americans came from Sean Hannity. But Obama didn't kill anyone until after they were convicted in a court of law because that would be making an assumption about their guilt.

"Again, the assumption that because they are in Gitmo is proof enough for some that they ARE terrorists: The government has them imprisoned, ergo, they belong in prison. Pinochet would be proud."

- Roch

If Pinochet were alive, he'd have a big Obama poster in his room. The government killed them with a drone, ergo, they must have been terrorists.

"There's no question that some of them are guilty of crimes and should be prosectued. That isn't the question. The question is who?

And if you can't answer that question, then there is no due process."

- Greg

So what you're saying is that Obama doesn't believe in due process, right?

"Is Obama sure that there weren't any non-combatants in the group? What was our legal justification?

Don't we think that basic information like the names of the dead, the number, and the nationality should be know before we start assuming this was necessary?"

- Greensboro Transplant

No, we don't. It's OBAMA after all!

"Actually moving them to somewhere in the U.S. is a tremendous improvement on a number of levels."

- Ged

So how is that working out? Wait. It didn't. They weren't moved.

"CP, you say when asked that it's possible for well-informed and reasonable people to disagree on these issues, but by invoking the names of people associated with the costs of terrorism, you seem to be implying that those with whom you disagree have not thought about these costs and taken them seriously."

- Ed Cone

It's obvious that the costs aren't being taken seriously.

"If they are guilty, great. Try, convict and lock them up in a maximum security facility for life. If they are not guilty (as over 200 others were found to be) then release them. Let the law and the facts decide the cases and let's return to the moral high ground we've lost."

- Ged

No, no, no. Just Kill 'Em All... that's the current "moral high ground", isn't it?

"Instead of setting up straw men or ascribing opinions and motives to those who disagree with you, can you just answer the question put to you with a straight answer? You refer to the people held in Gitmo as terrorists. How do you know they are terrorists?"

- Roch

This one is beautiful. Maybe Roch can answer the same question when it comes to drone killings. A straw man would be preferable to crickets at this point.

"I am asking YOU how YOU know that they are terrorists. An answer would begin with something like: "I know they are terrorists because..."

- Roch

So Roch will know provide his answer, right? It should begin with something like "I know they are terrorists because..." (Obama said so).

I could go on and on, but this comment has already been too long. That's not really my fault though. So much absolute and now undeniable bullshit was spread on this topic that the volume speaks for itself.

It should be clear to any thinking person that the driving force behind the questions of morality and justice was nothing more than partisan politics. Ergo, these people don't believe in the morality or justice that they claimed so ardently and self-righteously at the time. That was just a guise to advance partisan politics just as I said it was at the time. It's time to admit it because there is no credible way out unless these same people purge their hypocrisy by declaring their outrage and all of the associated themes (war crimes, impeachment, etc) against Obama.

Or they could double down on "false equivalence" and continue to chirp.


Ah, but THEY get to set the "standards", and they get to change the "standarde' as the situation warrants, without notice, and without explanation.

"That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them"

The comments to this entry are closed.