- Bieber and Frank, Obama and that AG: Neither in particularly good taste but I feel like I'm missing something when I survey the outraged coverage
- This Moqbel op-ed in the New York Times: Does anybody have any clue what his story really is? I have no idea personally. There doesn't seem to be any information easily accessible online to nail it down one way or the other. Both the government's story and his story sound plausible to me. Clearly some people are in Guantanamo that shouldn't be, particularly Yemenis, and that is an injustice - but when I read Moqbel I honestly don't know whether to sympathize deeply or say "tough luck buddy - enjoy your hunger strike". Lots of people seem to think they know exactly how to react and I have no clue why they feel that way
- Kermit Gosnell: I agree completely with The Atlantic article that it's a grisly story that needs to be told more prominently, but my feeling is that the reasons why it hasn't been are far more mundane and reasonable than anyone is suggesting. I imagine as this trial wraps up we'd hear more anyway. We're certainly going to hear more now that Friedersdorf article is up, so that's good. But I don't get this rush to wag fingers at the media
I feel like I missed some other news item. I feel like I've had this "why are you foaming at the mouth/super exercised over this???" reaction a lot in the last week or two.
I would say that in contrast people have underreacted to North Korea by making jokes. But the regime really is a joke so it's probably best to maintain the policy of considering it a very serious issue and mocking the hell out of Kim Jong Un on facebook.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
With regards to Moqbel and Guantanamo, I think the case for outrage is pretty straightforward. More than the hunger strike, the outrage is directed at Guantanamo in general. What is the justification for imprisoning prisoners of war in offshore prisons? And, are the benefits off offshore imprisonment greater than the costs -- indefinite detention without trial and other possible extralegal stuff that goes on in these installations. People who are outraged don't think the benefits outweigh the costs, and I think they have a case.
ReplyDeleteI agree on a lot of this (I only really disagree in that I don't see a problem with the "offshore" stuff - I strongly agree that their detention needs to be vetted by a judge, and that any extralegal [why don't we just say "illegal"?] stuff needs to end), but then this isn't "with regards to Moqbel" anymore, is it :)
DeleteYou very quickly moved off of Moqbel and it's his case that I'm not sure what to think about!
"Clearly some people are in Guantanamo that shouldn't be, particularly Yemenis, and that is an injustice - but when I read Moqbel I honestly don't know whether to sympathize deeply or say "tough luck buddy - enjoy your hunger strike"
ReplyDeleteWhat thoughts and/or emotions would incline you more to the latter?
If he were guilty of what he is allegedly guilty of and the hunger strike is either a martyrdom technique or an attempt to get released.
DeleteOkay, and then the problem is that we don't know what he is allegedly guilty of - let alone whether he is actually guilty of this - because he's never been charged with any crime.
DeleteSo I guess where we would differ is in how credible we think the US government's claims are when these are not investigated in a court of law, and/or in how much weight we give to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' when making our own personal assessments of the justice of what is being done to people.
I am much more inclined to think that it is wrong to do these kinds of things to people if they are not convicted of a crime, and you are less (than I am) inclined to think so, likely because you think that there may be good reasons to strongly suspect somebody was guilty without it being feasible or advisable to present the evidence that would lead to his conviction for that crime and/or because releasing said person may mean that he will go on to commit more serious crimes.
And you probably think that the likelihood that having the power to do this to people without a trial and guilty-verdict leads to abuse and corruption and injustice is lower than I think it is.
---
Anyway, I'm just trying to process this.
You're processing it very badly. I'd think you'd stop trying to do this given how bad you've been at ascribing positions to me in the past.
DeleteRemember, Guantanamo is not the county jail in purpose or in law and that point has been the major fault line between us. If you think I'm somehow shiftier on "innocent until proven guilty" than you are, then you are seriously missing the source of disagreement here and the suggestion makes me leery of going any further.
interesting response, because I exactly thought I was being respectful and sincerely trying to understand and do justice to your position.
DeleteWell I wasn't attacking you or anything, but if you wander into "how much weight we give to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'" and "I am much more inclined to think that it is wrong to do these kinds of things to people if they are not convicted of a crime, and you are less (than I am) inclined to think so" it doesn't really put me in a mood to humor you by leading you on at all to think you've done anything like a good job. How exactly did you expect me to respond to those things?!?
DeleteSorry, but I honestly don't understand.
ReplyDeleteIn what way can it be the case that we are giving equal (or you more than I) weight to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' and/or being equally (or you more than I) inclined to think that it is wrong to do these kinds of things to people if they are not convicted of a crime, if when you read Moqbel you honestly don't know whether to sympathize deeply or say "tough luck buddy - enjoy your hunger strike".
Okay, now that I write it down like this I can sort of sense but not quite articulate how you may be right and that your not knowing how to feel about Mogbel's situation need not imply the two things above.
Also, I understand your point about Gitmo not being like the county jail in terms of purpose or law, and how that could make a difference: in a war and on a battlefield there are different goals and different legal procedures re detaining etc enemy soldiers etc than there are re detaining etc suspected criminals in normal society.
But I think this point becomes problematic when the political leaders state that the war on terror encompasses the entire globe and is perpetual, because the whole world becomes a battlefield in perpetuity, and this seems to represent a strong increase of power of the state vs. ordinary people.
This guy was arrested in Pakistan but so far I have little reason to think that this guy was arrested on a real battlefield, engaging in war activities or whatever, that there was any substantial difference in this respect between him and some guy in Kansas, other than that this guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And as long as I don't have any information to the contrary or information that makes me be confident that the US government cannot present the evidence it has against him without risking some extremely serious negative consequences, I am inclined to be just as outraged about this guy's indefinite detention as I would be about the Kansas guy's indefinite detention.
So yes, I think you;re right that the fault line between us revolves around the question as to whether this is a war issue or a regular-society-issue, and then it may be correct to interpret you as being more inclined to see it as the former than I am. and a lot of the stuff I mentioned earlier follows from that and/.or should be re-interpreted in that light