See you in Gitmo, Waldo.

Posted by Dan Kachur on 2 December 02007 @ 2pm

So long as we reciprocate and permit other countries to kidnap our citizens (on our own soil or elsewhere), I really don’t see a problem with this.

Posted by Jeff Uphoff on 2 December 02007 @ 10pm

“So long as we reciprocate and permit other countries to kidnap our citizens (on our own soil or elsewhere), I really don’t see a problem with this.”

So what you’re saying here is:

1) It is fine for countries to trounce foreign nations’ sovereignty, as long as we offer the same to them. This says nothing about whether that country would do so or not, and gives no terms for them to pull out of said reciprocity.

Building from that clarification, you are saying that if Pakistan were to kidnap some American civilians and then torture them, that it would be acceptable, so long as they did not break their laws in the process? Even while you may find this okay, do you honestly expect even a reasonable (pun!) group of American citizens to agree with you?

2) Maybe I didn’t stress that this, if pushed far enough, destroys any idea of national sovereignty. Without that basic recognition, international law has no standing. With no confidence in the stability of an international system, countless treaties would dissolve. What you are effectively condoning, on a person to person basis, is that I can deem whatever rights you hold secondary to my own, no matter the extent. Before you nod in agreement to that one, let’s not forget that if the Constitution stands for anything, it is the defense of the unalienable rights of the individual. All else stems from this belief.

3) Even putting aside the rampant self-hypocrisy, do you honestly believe that attempting to capture whatever margin of known foreign criminals that we could not get government approval to nab is a larger boon to our collective security than the massive further loss in international support that will result? I’m not much a fan of capturing an enemy if we make two more in the process.

Posted by Joe on 2 December 02007 @ 11pm

“So long as we reciprocate and permit other countries to kidnap our citizens (on our own soil or elsewhere), I really don’t see a problem with this.”

Hee! Right! I’m with you. I hear that tongue in that cheek.

As in, ‘Oh, you mean, we’re not okay with the reciprocal? Hmm. Well then, I guess we’d better examine our country’s policy. Hmm. Upon second glance, maybe it doesn’t look so good after all.’ : )

This stuff would be head-shakingly stupid if it weren’t so goddamned scary. And we (in this country, in this society today) have the nerve to tsk-tsk our forebears for allowing Prohibition, McCarthyism, or anything else that seemed similarly ‘unthinkable’ in retrospect? Jeezus. We need to get louder and get more effective, those of us who are appropriately appalled at the state of this country right now. Holy crap.

Posted by ChrEliz on 3 December 02007 @ 1am

;.; Who feels both relieved and dumb? It is sad when I can’t tell a tongue and cheek comment from someone who might honestly believe what they’re saying. The absurdity is just too close to each other nowadays.

Posted by Joe on 3 December 02007 @ 6am

Every neighborhood needs a policeman, including Earth. A country who’ll ensure freedom of the seas. Or say if there’s, oh, I don’t know, a tsunami on the other side of the planet it’s good to have a nation that can re-route a carrier group and be on the ground handing out food, medicine, blankets, etc in about 24 hours (while the sleepytime gals at the UN get their shit together for 10-14 days before showing up.) Or say a strange new virus (SARS) shows up and no one knows how to deal it. The UN’s WHO issues a travel advisory leaving the heavy lifting of what the virus is and how best to contain it to the folks at the CDC in Atlanta.

My point is, as the most benign hegemon in history who thanklessly provides much of world’s critical infrastructure (Internet anyone?), might we be given the benefit of the doubt if we gotta break a few eggs to keep the omelette fluffy?

Posted by Judge Smails on 3 December 02007 @ 11am

Reminiscent of the 2001 Onion headline: “Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty.”

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28121

Placed side by side with a speech by Attorney General Ashcroft a short while later, it’s striking how closely life imitated art.

Posted by Jeff Uphoff on 3 December 02007 @ 11am

might we be given the benefit of the doubt if we gotta break a few eggs to keep the omelette fluffy

In short? No, absolutely not. Any goodwill or credibility we once had was squandered so quickly so long ago that at this point, 99% of the rest of the world hates our guts, and 70% of our own country is furius with our government. Oddly enough, it’s largely because of things like extraordinary rendition that this has become the case.

Posted by james on 3 December 02007 @ 11am

Actually, Jeff, I wouldn’t say that 99% of the rest of the world hates our guts. Maybe doesn’t trust the us, but certainly doesn’t hate us. You can find something approaching hate for the present Administration in a noticeable percentage, but hey, as you note, that’s something Americans share with non-Americans, these days.

I spent the first part of my life living outside of the US, and have traveled back abroad extensively and frequently since moving here. So foreign perception of Americans has been on my radar for a long time. First there is, of course, the distinction between the people and the gov’t. People here tend to confuse the two much much more than people there. And to the extent that there is criticism of the American people, it’s usually along the lines of “how can they be so dumb as to elect that idiot? Again!” (which is my own question). But as goes to the government, I’ve never seen it so bad. And, frankly, I’d say that it’s a self-inflicted wound (with the help of mental feebs like Smails). Too bad the rest of us have to suffer for it.

Posted by MB on 3 December 02007 @ 12pm

Err, James, I meant. Sorry about that.

As the second message shows, Jeff is *clearly* the America basher in this thread.

Hater.

Posted by MB on 3 December 02007 @ 12pm

The superpower is always going to be envied to a great extent by others and even hated by some. Big deal. What’s notable about the current chic anti-Americanism overseas is its convoluted construct. If America were a run-of-the-mill imperialistic power people would be shouting that we’re a threat to Argentina, the Congo, Thailand or some such. Since America is so obviously not that type of power a new bogeyman was needed. Now, you see, it’s America’s consumption that’s the problem. Our very way-of-life is a threat to the planet’s people that straightforward homocidal dictators like Stalin and Hitler could only dream of emulating. The construct of this fantasy is revealing about how unthreatening America really is.

Posted by Judge Smails on 3 December 02007 @ 1pm

Tell us how you come by this insight, please.

Posted by MB on 3 December 02007 @ 2pm

Not being a well-traveled intellectual man-of-letters like yourself, I’m sure I read it somewhere.

Posted by Judge Smails on 3 December 02007 @ 5pm

Which is to say, you pulled it out of your uninformed ass. Funny, how you always run away from a thread when there’s a clear question posed. One of the (too many, obviously) things that annoys me so much about you are your grand pronouncements on subjects you quite likely know nothing about.* Of course, ensconced in your basement, you’ll likely never have to suffer the consequences of the policies and views you spew. Which is precisely the kind of ignorant ugly Americanism that’s helped put us in this position. But screw the rest of the world, yeah?

*I will, however, defer to your expertise should the matter of shoveling horseshit ever come up.

Posted by MB on 3 December 02007 @ 6pm

MB,

I think you’re out of line with your latest response to Judge Snails. I’m just saying…

Posted by Harry Landers on 3 December 02007 @ 9pm

I appreciate that, Harry. Was it the bad words or am I missing something about our resident troll?

Posted by MB on 3 December 02007 @ 10pm

Here’s the thing… I love the way Waldo’s site fosters a good back and forth exchange. There’s some diversity of views and, like it or not, Judge Snails is an important contributor to that diversity. He’s almost alway speaking in opposition to my own perspective, but I really appreciate his challenge to that thinking. Without his presence, this would be a less valuable place to spend time. He’s articulate and represents a point of view that I don’t often encounter among my friends.

So, while I think that reasoned attacks on Judge Smails’ ideas (and the smart folks who contribute here offer many) are just the ticket, personal attacks are detrimental. “You pulled it out of your uninformed ass” struck me as a personal attack. That said, I have no doubt that others (Judge Smails? Myself?) have done the same thing. I’d even go so far as to cut Judge Smails (or any other reasonably intelligent right-winger) a bit more slack. Because we need him to feel welcome to comment here. He helps the rest of us to consider, shape and support our own views.

Posted by Harry Landers on 4 December 02007 @ 9am

He is a cute furry little troll…And only occasionally pees on the carpet. Bringing that new word, “homocidal” in was funny, and my homophobic buds are going to love tossing it around. However, mixing the crime of Extraordinary Rendition with Conspicuous Consumption is not what we should expect from a smarter-than-average furball. A stern rebuke will do.

You can’t simultaneously puff yourself up about our superpower status, carrier groups, and such, while dissing the very international agencies that you and your soulmates try so hard to starve to death. If you want to be Sheriff Dylan, then quit complaining that Festus, and Doc are fools.

This whole stupid talk about shades of Imperialism, sprinkled with swaggering yip-yap about “breaking eggs” requires some degree of disciplinary action. Just don’t run him off, he’s a window into the fantasy world of the neocon.

Posted by Bubby on 4 December 02007 @ 10am

I popped in after a few weeks away to find Smails, once again the pivot man in a Pimp Slap. Smails is his own inrony…but I digress.

I like to play a game when I read a post at Waldos. Before you click in an article, decide if Smails has either
a. Posted a comment.
b. Posted the first comment.
c. Not posted a comment.

Quite intriguing patterns quickly begin to emerge. Judge (accidental pun) for yourself the topics he avoids like a Motley Crue Reunion, topics he attempts to hijack like an Indonesian pirate with kitchen sink replys of non-related information, etc…

It’s great fun and with a few modifications could surely be turned into a drinking game.

Before I go, does anyone here truly believe that Smails wants a government that can snatch up any one, any where? Of course he does not, even though his internal bravado really thinks it does. Why? Because he thinks that he is safe, immune, one with the powers that currently be…it will never happen to him.

Hell hole prisons the world over are full of guys just like Smails….and guys just like us.

Posted by Tim on 4 December 02007 @ 6pm

Harry, I think you’re off the mark with Smails. Yes, he occasionally comes out with something useful, despite himself, but most of the time he serves as little more than a siphon for the most paranoid and reality-devoid rantings of the extreme right.

There is already a wealth of people with opposing viewpoints here who consistently present reasoned arguments. No need to waste your time with Smails.

Posted by Dan Kachur on 4 December 02007 @ 9pm

Thanks, Harry. Honestly, I don’t see much value in Smails posts in the same way I don’t see much value in repeatedly debating the flatness of the earth with someone. It’s amusing once or twice, but it gets old fast. I’d rather deal with a smart and thoughtful conservative than him, any day, and I stand by what I said. That said, I do respect what you’re saying about preserving the tone of the conversation here. The stupid liberal baiting is easy enough to ignore, but I’m not so good with leaving the regular bigotry unanswered.

Posted by MB on 5 December 02007 @ 4pm

About 80% of the time, Smails presents a reasoned argument. It’s the other 20% I can’t stand. If he’s going to keep that up, better off without.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 15 December 02007 @ 12am