?

Log in

Jun. 26th, 2009 @ 09:49 pm there's one in every crowd
How's the kool aid..

...civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.

Sure, SOME. "Generally" speaking (and I am making air quotes right now) civil liberties groups oppose long-term detention without charges, although they have to "argue" this, which tells you pretty clearly it's not true or nobody would have to argue, now would they. You have to hand it to the WP -- I am really fucking sick of how it is always assumed that all civil liberties groups walk in lockstep on the divisive subject of indefinite unreviewable detention. Embrace the broad spectrum of opinion that makes America so great.

In summary, I stand with Civil Libertarians for Harsher and Lengthier Detainment as well as the Society for the Preservation of Torture and Civil Stuff on this issue.
About this Entry
[User Picture Icon]
From:qwrrty
Date:June 27th, 2009 12:43 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I really don't understand posts like this. If someone has to argue something, that means that it must not be true? Are you being serious about that or was it sarcastic?

I don't feel like I have any better understanding of what you think than I did before you wrote this.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:June 27th, 2009 01:40 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I'm just going to squeeze my eyes shut and hope that when I open them, you're joking.
[User Picture Icon]
From:adb_foldem
Date:June 27th, 2009 04:43 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I agree that you did not express yourself very well in this post. I have no idea what you're for or against just based on the OP.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:June 27th, 2009 08:16 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
If you guys are trying for performance art where you illustrate the absurdity of the current state of affairs by pretending there could be any ambiguity in my post, then you are totally succeeding.
From:thewaterlooline
Date:July 3rd, 2009 12:50 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well add another even though I recgonise your position. I'm sure there are a silent crowd, seeking clarification - subsituting 'reason' for 'argue' fails to enlighten either.
[User Picture Icon]
From:emagnetism
Date:June 27th, 2009 03:25 pm (UTC)

The value of extremism

(Permanent Link)
This is what having prominent nutjobs does to a debate. By having to discuss the topic at a level we thought we had put away in the 1700s, suddenly you make people who believe in things like "rule of law" seem like extremists, when they should be Basic American citizens.

I honestly can't believe we are having to debate this. It's like the civil liberties equivalent of holocaust denial or flat-earthers. In a normal life, I would roll my eyes and wait for the guy to harrass someone else at the train station so I could give the cop a nod. But, somehow, the sixth amendment has become up for debate, and even a change in power hasn't gotten people over it. Usually the "what if Hillary had this power" line would detox the Kool-aid, but that hasn't worked, either.

I really thought electing Obama would fix this, more because the right wing would re-discover it's constitutional "principles" than because I felt Obama was special. But, somehow, here we still are.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:June 27th, 2009 03:35 pm (UTC)

Re: The value of extremism

(Permanent Link)
the civil liberties equivalent of holocaust denial or flat-earthers.

Too, too apt.

We're already adapted to this level of discourse in other spheres, as the creationists outnumber the "evolutionists" (and have successfully corrupted the language itself if anyone can say "evolutionist" or "darwinist" without laughing) and... it's too depressing to enumerate more examples.

Of course it goes without saying that these aren't exactly independent variables.
From:adspar
Date:June 27th, 2009 05:26 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
thing is, there probably actually are groups who consider themselves civil liberties groups and who refuse to oppose obama...
(Deleted comment)
From:adspar
Date:June 28th, 2009 03:46 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
presumably the same groups that, according to anonymous adminstration officials cited in the same WP story, "have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order." so they must exist.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:adb_jaeger
Date:June 29th, 2009 01:41 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Which is awfully close to Bobby Knight's advice about rape.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:June 29th, 2009 01:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Heh, I was thinking something very similar.

I'm sure all the brave "civil liberties lobbyists" in washington will draw a line in the sand any day now.
[User Picture Icon]
From:shandrew
Date:July 4th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
At least the Civil Libertarians for Harsher and Lengthier Detainment stand for what they believe in (ok, sort of) and don't have a deliberately misleading name.
From:howardtreesong
Date:July 8th, 2009 03:26 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Thanks to you, I read Greenwald routinely. And I often disagree with him. But his piece this morning is spot on. Keeping a detainee in permanent custody after being exonerated at trial is as revolting as it is Kafkaesque. WTF?
From:mdblakers
Date:July 31st, 2009 10:51 pm (UTC)

OT

(Permanent Link)
Paul are you on Twitter?
From:salixquercusii
Date:September 5th, 2009 08:39 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Sometimes you have to unload.
From:blapask
Date:September 29th, 2009 08:08 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Dissenting views make a timid blogger, or is this a matter of principle?