Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Don't you know, Brandon 9000. They, as people oppressed by the hegemony of the materialistic and intolerant Superpower USA, are only defending themselves and their land against the minions of the evil oil companies.

If they cut off heads, blow up children, kill innocent civilians, it is becaused they were forced to by the brutality of the US Marines.

In reality, Brandon 9000, the people in our own country who oppose our attempts to bring Democracy and peace to Iraq are either

disappointed Communists and Socialists( No one listens to them anymore)

Democrats who would betray out country because they can' t stand the pain of losing political control.

or gas bags who think they know EVERYTHING about Politics because they took a couple of courses from Noam Chomsky.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

Brandon, easy on the hyperbole. "..almost everyone except the US treats...."

Couple of points. It's dangerous to want to compare a liberal democracy such as the US with a bunch of murderous, vicious, feudal, mediaeval, bestial assassins such as AQ and its associates. There is - or should not be - any reason for comparison.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the people that carry out these barbarous acts are in the minority. You have perpetrated a calumny on the rest of the civilised world by lumping "almost everyone" in with them.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

You have perpetrated a calumny on the rest of the civilised world by lumping "almost everyone" in with them.

No, you have. I never said that "almost everyone" uses prisoners for blackmail and then cuts of their heads.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

You have perpetrated a calumny on the rest of the civilised world by lumping "almost everyone" in with them.

No, you have. I never said that "almost everyone" uses prisoners for blackmail and then cuts of their heads.

Then what did you mean? Confused

0 Replies

He means almost everyone except the US treats prisoners worse and that some of them misuse them by cutting heads off etc.

I think he clearly implied what you thought he meant, but he is technically able to say he didn't.

Kind of calumniating with withdrawal rights.

Not sure what he means by almost everyone.

or quite what evidence he has re the matter.

I would have thought off hand that western Europe treats its prisoners at least as well, if not better, and the UK (at least such degrees of mistreatment and torture have not come to light recently) and Oz and Canada.

I guess such countries don't count...well, he will say almost everyone embraces them, but hey, implication with withdrawal rights again.

0 Replies

Dagmar would be able to comment re the recent new democracies of Eastern Europe......

Actually, it is a very odd comment of Brandon's indeed, really, in term sof justifying it.

Few countries which claim decent human rights have had prisoners in the way the US has had in recent years, so it is all very moot.

The UK has certainly had some allegations of mistreatment of prisoners against it in Iraq, and has prosecuted some folk.

I do not think, also, that they had a good record with alleged IRA prisoners. I think the problems there more related to legal process than allegations of terrible mistreatment that have been levelled at the US, along with the deliberate avoidance of legal behaviour in relation to prisoners.

0 Replies

dlowan and goodfielder -- statements like those by Brandon are typical of the specious arguments that the extreme right continues to make. In essence, what they're sayinf is, "It's okay because everyone else is even worse." They continuously compare unacceptable behavior by the current administration, for example, to behavior by previous heads of state. Thus, if Clinton lied under oath, it's quite acceptable for any Bushite to do the same. The logic escapes me. If Al Quaeda commits acts of attrocity, it's all right for our troops to do the same. The logic continues to escape me.

0 Replies

Good point MA - is this ethical relativism? (Usual disclaimer here: this is a serious and not rhetorical/smartie question Very Happy

).

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Good point MA - is this ethical relativism? (Usual disclaimer here: this is a serious and not rhetorical/smartie question ).

It's ethical relativism in a sense, I suppose. But it's very poor debating technique. If we are speaking of the sins of the present administration, how does bringing in the sins of past administrations exonerate the current culprits? The aim, I thought, was to correct past mistakes. But the Bush crowd, on the one hand, deplores the Clinton presidency; on the other, it uses Clinton as an example of why it's perfectly all right to lie under oath. You really can't have it both ways. I will admit that most of the time Brandon is a bit more circumspect about this than some of his fellow-travelers, e.g. mortkat and McGentrix.

0 Replies

Historically Congressional oversight, as evidenced by special hearings by the established committeesd and special committees chartered to pursue named issues, tends to lapse when the Executive and Legislative branches are led by the same political parties. It was true under Roosevelt, and it is true under Bush.

I can't imagine why this mysterious phenomenon occurs, but I know we have seen it all before.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

This is a good question - and I haven't yet seen a meaningful answer. A few evasive rejoinders to be sure, but no answers.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

This is a good question - and I haven't yet seen a meaningful answer. A few evasive rejoinders to be sure, but no answers.

The moral outrage is there. (It is for me, anyway.) But there isn't very much any of us, as individuals, can do about the practices of other nations except express an outrage. After a while you get tired of beating a dead horse. But when it happens in one's own backyard, the cry of ourage is bound to be louder and a measure of redress is expected.

0 Replies

You have offered an EXPLANATION for the behavior of frustrated but immature people. This, however is not an answer to the question concerning the logical appropriateness and moral consistency of the behavior. Brandon's question remains unanswered.

0 Replies

It is unanswered because it isn't a question. It's best treated as a rhetorical flourish.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

dlowan and goodfielder -- statements like those by Brandon are typical of the specious arguments that the extreme right continues to make. In essence, what they're sayinf is, "It's okay because everyone else is even worse." They continuously compare unacceptable behavior by the current administration, for example, to behavior by previous heads of state. Thus, if Clinton lied under oath, it's quite acceptable for any Bushite to do the same. The logic escapes me. If Al Quaeda commits acts of attrocity, it's all right for our troops to do the same. The logic continues to escape me.

Please show me a post or thread in which I said it's okay because "everyone else is worse." I said nothing of the kind, liar. I asked where blatham's outrage for those events was.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

It is unanswered because it isn't a question. It's best treated as a rhetorical flourish.

No it is a pointed question that threatens to expose a logical and moral inconsistency.

0 Replies

This thread went south.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

This is a good question - and I haven't yet seen a meaningful answer. A few evasive rejoinders to be sure, but no answers.

Brandon, the city mayor, beats his wife to a bloody pulp once a week. Two neighbors, ex-convicts, beat their wives to bloody pulp every night.

Therefore: it is illogical and a clear instance of rabid anti-Brandonism to express moral outrage towards Brandon's act of wife-beating. To focus attention on Brandon in this instance represents a greater moral failing than Brandon's wife-beating itself, which is excuseable or didn't really happen.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Or else it simply means that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few military personnel and not requiring so much testimony. One wonders where blatham's moral outrage is when almost everyone except the US treats prioners worse than the US does, e.g. using them for blackmail and then cutting off their heads.

This simply does not constitute a serious argument in any of its components.

0 Replies

Was it meant to?

or just another version of "But you can never criticise anything we do because Clinton lied"

0 Replies

Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know