Hard News: Reasons to be cheerful
356 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
The NYT doesn't stand on ceremony, does it: "This is William Kristol’s last column." Surely, the sweetest six words in the English language. But it doesn't say "for this publication". Are they going to make sure he doesn't work for anybody else after this?
Word is, they're looking at The Atlantic's Megan McArdle as a replacement for Kristol.
The timing's not great, given that McArdle's effort on the Guantanamo order was comprehensively undone this past week by Glenn Greenwald, who pointed out that she didn't have the first clue what she was talking about. See:
-
Good article by Greenwald, but I am a little stunned to learn that Reynolds is actually a law professor.
-
Not letting abject ignorance interfere with opining
Damn - I was planning to quote that story in another context, when the timing were right. Greenwald writes such solid columns, though the comments are pretty much identical for each story.
-
Good article by Greenwald, but I am a little stunned to learn that Reynolds is actually a law professor.
Yup. It's what makes his style so exquisitely intellectually dishonest. His posts defending the dispatch of Joe the Plumber (no, really) to Israel to "cover" the war on Gaza for Pajamas Media were particularly precious.
It's like the defining characteristic of the modern wingnut is a really titanic failure of self-awareness.
-
The NYT doesn't stand on ceremony, does it: "This is William Kristol’s last column." Surely, the sweetest six words in the English language.
There was something wrong with it? It seemed a perfectly sensible opinion-piece to me.
-
There was something wrong with it? It seemed a perfectly sensible opinion-piece to me.
Sometimes even Kristol makes sense, the law of averages and all. Are you familiar with your previous work? Never has a single person been so wrong so often and so egregiously about so many things.
-
Never has a single person been so wrong so often and so egregiously about so many things.
Krauthammer.
-
Krauthammer.
Was right abot Miers and didn't get his porcine fingers in contact with the Project for the New American Century. A close call, but Kristol wins on points.
-
Never has a single person been so wrong so often and so egregiously about so many things.
He's a smarmy git 'n' all.
-
Kristol wins on nepotism.
-
The NYT doesn't stand on ceremony, does it: "This is William Kristol’s last column." Surely, the sweetest six words in the English language. But it doesn't say "for this publication". Are they going to make sure he doesn't work for anybody else after this?
Giovanni: I really think the New York Times needs to focus on its own massive financial and credibility issues before fussing too much about Mr. Kristol. Not sorry he's gone, but there a lot more dead (and rotting) wood that can go from the op-ed roster. Why the hell does Maureen Dowd bring to the mix any more? Frank Rich? Bob Herbert? Thomas Friedman? Even on the right side David Brooks is tired, while George F. Will is on fire.
The NYT op-ed page isn't a lively bazaar of ideas and wit, but God's waiting room for clapped out pundits who just don't realise it is time to die.
-
at the bottom of page 8 of this thread, BenWilson wrote:
Shutting down CIA detention is great. Last torture loophole to close would be 'extraordinary rendition'.
near the top of page 9 of this thread, Emma Hart wrote:
It's coming, by the sounds of things
unfortunately, it looks like it's not:
The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.
But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.
"Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing legal reasoning behind the decision. "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
One provision in one of Obama's orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
-
stephen walker: that could be a bit of a beatup. (See also.) I certainly hope so.
-
Stephen Judd: i hope you are right. but i still don't completely dismiss the article cited above, yet. Hilzoy's comments are encouraging, but it doesn't look like the executive orders issued so far preclude extraordinary renditions, but aim to prevent torture resulting from them. and as for Mr. Greenwald's apparent views on justified kidnappings (a.k.a. extraordinary renditions), well, surely this is why most of the world views the US as a violent, lawless bully.
-
To be fair, Stephen Walker, Greenwald clearly distinguishes between ordinary rendition which has been going on for ages (and he proposes a hypothetical example of capturing Bin Laden inside Pakistan without that country's cooperation as opposed to doing nothing) and the extraordinary version that Cheney, Bush and their lil friends cooked up which involved illegal torture and lengthy imprisonment without trial.
I have long respected Greenwald's consistency of positions so perhaps worth a re-read.
-
Though the counter-hypothetical posed by one of his readers is a doozy:
Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that in 2007:
(a) Afghanistan learns exactly where George W. Bush is located in the U.S.;
(b) there is ample evidence that W. (i) illegally detained and tortured its citizens and (ii) is continuing these policies with the intention of doing so indefinitely; and
(c) the U.S. government (both Dems and Republicans) is either unwilling or unable to apprehend W. in order to extradite him to the the Netherlands for trial. Further suppose that efforts to compel the U.S. to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, the U.S. vetoes any actions).
What, if anything, is Afghanistan (under current facts) permitted to do about Bush, who -- we're assuming for purposes of these discussions -- clearly committed war crimes and is continuing to do so? As far as I can tell, the options would be:
(a) send a suicide bomber to the U.S.;
(b) enter the U.S., apprehend him, and bring him to the Netherlands for a trial (i.e., rendition); or
(c) do nothing, and just leave him be.
-
@Sacha:
i don't totally disagree with what Greenwald says about the LA Times article (which seems to have been ripped apart by several people) but his underlying tone regarding renditions/extraordinary renditions comes across as another American saying "we can do it because we are top dog so who's going to stop us, eh?". the counter-hypothetical is most justified imho. -
I'd say he's working at a level of legalistic abstraction that obscures the real human impact - and so I agree some disquiet is warranted.
-
Please pardon the shameless linkwhoring, but I'm rather cheerful that my debut at the Scoop Review of Books is now live: __The Puppy (With Apologies to Edgar Allen Poe)__:
I'm rather pleased with it, even though the scansion goes a bit skew-whiff in places. But I would say that, wouldn't I?
-
Onya, Craig - reminds me I have reviews to hurry up and get in to Jeremy...
And now, the moment just the other day when I realised I was definitely a massive nerd: a co-worker told me that the theme for her friend's engagement party was going to be "Cannes" - and the first thing that popped into my head was Star Trek.
-
And now, the moment just the other day when I realised I was definitely a massive nerd: a co-worker told me that the theme for her friend's engagement party was going to be "Cannes" - and the first thing that popped into my head was Star Trek.
But did you mourn the missed opportunity to dust off the fake man-boobs and chest toupee? That's the mark of a real nerd!:)
-
But did you mourn the missed opportunity to dust off the fake man-boobs and chest toupee? That's the mark of a real nerd!:)
That'd be soooo cool. Then every time you walked into a room everyone could drop to their knees and yell your name.
Loved the review, Craig.
-
Loved the review, Craig.
Thanks, Emma. It took a while to get the exercise beyond the "I don't care how closely related we are to monkeys -- they're creepy" stage.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Slumdog Millionare takes out the top award,...
I’ll bet you a Monteiths that (unfortunately) Benjamin Button takes out the Oscar for Best Pic.What'll it be, Matthew: Red, Pils...?
-
A man of honour.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.