Paul Phillips ([info]extempore) wrote,
@ 2009-06-26 21:49:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
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.

(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]qwrrty
2009-06-27 12:43 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]extempore
2009-06-27 01:40 pm UTC (link)
I'm just going to squeeze my eyes shut and hope that when I open them, you're joking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]adb_foldem
2009-06-27 04:43 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]extempore
2009-06-27 08:16 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thewaterlooline
2009-07-03 12:50 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mojolang
2009-07-07 10:15 pm UTC (link)
Knowing who you are and your position on this kind of thing via past postings, and the tone of your writing I got it...but I'll admit I had to read the sentence several times to understand the message you were trying to Convey and the depth of the sarcasm.

I assume your attribution to the degeneration of modern discourse is pretty much convergent with Postman and other media scholars?

(Reply to this) (Parent)
The value of extremism
[info]emagnetism
2009-06-27 03:25 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: The value of extremism
[info]extempore
2009-06-27 03:35 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]adspar
2009-06-27 05:26 pm UTC (link)
thing is, there probably actually are groups who consider themselves civil liberties groups and who refuse to oppose obama...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]calmkelp
2009-06-28 03:23 am UTC (link)
Do you have any examples? The ACLU strongly opposes Obama on this. As does the EFF on secrecy.

However I do get your main point. It's not ok for us to accept this because Obama does it. It's simply wrong, no matter who the president is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]adspar
2009-06-28 03:46 am UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]calmkelp
2009-06-28 04:04 am UTC (link)
That sounds more like they are saying that if "prolonged detention" is unavoidable, then do it with an executive order. I don't see that as an endorsement.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]calmkelp
2009-06-28 04:10 am UTC (link)
Also, while I can't cite my source here (due to being too lazy to dig it up) I've read that the Obama admin met with several civil liberties groups and basically said something like

- Sorry, this is going to happen, so you can either be at the table and help us do it right, or can sit on the sidelines while we do it. -

Which might explain why you have quotes like this...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]adb_jaeger
2009-06-29 01:41 pm UTC (link)
Which is awfully close to Bobby Knight's advice about rape.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]extempore
2009-06-29 01:56 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]shandrew
2009-07-04 09:36 pm UTC (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.

(Reply to this)


[info]howardtreesong
2009-07-08 03:26 pm UTC (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?

(Reply to this)

OT
[info]mdblakers
2009-07-31 10:51 pm UTC (link)
Paul are you on Twitter?

(Reply to this)


[info]salixquercusii
2009-09-05 08:39 pm UTC (link)
Sometimes you have to unload.

(Reply to this)


[info]blapask
2009-09-29 08:08 pm UTC (link)
Dissenting views make a timid blogger, or is this a matter of principle?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Paul
[info]mojolang
2009-11-03 04:38 am UTC (link)
You owe me five bucks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…