swishnicholson wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

I thought my days of being left of pacino were long gone (if this can be cast as a left/right issue) but I think Wiz is right on the money here. You either have faith in your justice system or you don't, and if you start casting it out when things are really, really important then you're headed down a slippery slope. If you think the suspect has too many rights, well, revisit the issue and cast it into law. Equal protection means equal protection, it's pretty clear. And whether or not you "Mirandize" someone shouldn't mean a hoot, you have these rights or you don't, or they aren't actually rights. I hope every citizen knows them and can invoke them- I trust most do and knows they don't have to be called into being by pronouncing magic words or can disappear as long as the imp's name remains a secret.That's not to say THIS suspect was mistreated in any way, and the assertions of extra-judicial interrogation may have been in fact more political appeasement then any necessary or even out of the ordinary measures. But the fact that this appeasement works and that it's almost unanimous that some sort of treatment outside the law was necessary in this case is frightening in itself, since it speaks to a basic distrust of our legal institutions. And if it becomes accepted (or more accepted, since it already is by many) it will certainly result in innocent people being caught up, as well as engendering a disrespect for constitutional procedures that will inevitably corrupt a case and let the guilty go free.

the idea of him being charged with musings about an alleged plot in NYC is very worrisome.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

And on the other side of the coin: Report: Dzhokhar Stopped Talking to Investigators Right After Being Read His Miranda Rights.

We'll see if the sources are bs'ing, But the AP says they're bipartisan sources so not trying to make anyone look like an asshat necessarily, and the suspect was talking, and then was read his rights, and then he stopped talking. In this case, it's not a huge deal since it doesn't appear like he's a part of a cell, but in future cases, the more they talk to us the better. And if Mirandizing them stops them from talking, as it seems it might, then don't read them their rights until they've told you everything important. Please.

there was nothing else immediate, so they wrapped it up. that is the exception, properly applied. that he stopped talking is fine to me. that's his right.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In future cases, having something like this when it does appear the suspect is part of an active cell or ongoing plot is extremely important.

I'm not seeing the extreme in this. Verbal Kint is who I'm concerned about, not some dipshit 19 year old. And Kint is likely to fuck you up no matter what your legal niceties, so why not read whomever his rights.

In other words, the assertion is that this questioning gimmick returns real value. Lay out the real value, not the hypothetical value or anecdotes, to make the strongest case.

Who are you talking to? If me, can you speak in English and not riddles?

pacino wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

I thought my days of being left of pacino were long gone (if this can be cast as a left/right issue) but I think Wiz is right on the money here. You either have faith in your justice system or you don't, and if you start casting it out when things are really, really important then you're headed down a slippery slope. If you think the suspect has too many rights, well, revisit the issue and cast it into law. Equal protection means equal protection, it's pretty clear. And whether or not you "Mirandize" someone shouldn't mean a hoot, you have these rights or you don't, or they aren't actually rights. I hope every citizen knows them and can invoke them- I trust most do and knows they don't have to be called into being by pronouncing magic words or can disappear as long as the imp's name remains a secret.That's not to say THIS suspect was mistreated in any way, and the assertions of extra-judicial interrogation may have been in fact more political appeasement then any necessary or even out of the ordinary measures. But the fact that this appeasement works and that it's almost unanimous that some sort of treatment outside the law was necessary in this case is frightening in itself, since it speaks to a basic distrust of our legal institutions. And if it becomes accepted (or more accepted, since it already is by many) it will certainly result in innocent people being caught up, as well as engendering a disrespect for constitutional procedures that will inevitably corrupt a case and let the guilty go free.

the idea of him being charged with musings about an alleged plot in NYC is very worrisome.

Did this happen?

If a court decides he made the statement voluntarily, then his confession will be admissible. If they think he was coerced or otherwise questioned inappropriately, it won't be since he had not yet been Mirandized.

I've always wondered around that topic...at what point does your *intent* to commit a crime become an actual infraction?

I always think of the story of the guy who was pulled over because he had his right turn signal on approaching a no-right-turn intersection. The cop tried to cite him, but he pointed out that he never actually did turn, because the cop stopped him first.

Is that what a "conspiracy to commit" charge is all about??

jerseyhoya wrote:Did this happen?

If a court decides he made the statement voluntarily, then his confession will be admissible. If they think he was coerced or otherwise questioned inappropriately, it won't be since he had not yet been Mirandized.

My understanding (based on an article about the public safety exception I read last week, having never heard of it before) is that anything learned via interrogation prior to Mirandization (is that a word?) when the public safety exception is invoked may not be used to build a case against the suspect.

Roger Dorn wrote:I know it's not a popular opinion but maybe it's time we reevaluate our position on the world stage and actually delve into and have a discussion on why individuals feel the need to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on our soil. The suspect in custody said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a prime motivation in being radicalized. OBL cited America stationing troops in their Holy Land. The witness from Yemen testified on Capitol Hill that the indiscriminate drone strikes are terrifying people and causing resentment in the region. The arrogance we portray to the rest of the world is heinous, and there's nothing wrong with listening to the reasons of why these people are becoming so militant. Instead, we scream and chant USA and act like our shit don't stink.

this is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but does not work in theory. if we turtled up and became an isolationist nation, we'd be inviting unrest all around the world. the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble. israel, if left without US support, would be bombarded and attacked from all corners of the middle east. when you allow this type of violent escalation, you start giving these militaristic nations ideas that they don't have to stop with israel, they can flex their muscles elsewhere. the US uses its wealth and opportunity to keep the rest of the world largely peaceful. if you openly attack a nation that is allied with the US, you understand that you are indirectly attacking the united states. if north korea declares war on south korea, you can bet the US will immediately jump in and help south korea, which means north korea loses the war in about 12 seconds. its why countries (like iran) mouth off and make lots of threats, but do nothing. the US, for its faults, is still the biggest gorilla in the zoo.

there is a lot to gain from a peaceful world. the US has to sometimes sacrifice to make this happen, but we are the only nation in the world capable of making it happen. fundamentalists and extremists do not like it. they feel we dont belong in israel (or that israel should even exist) or saudi arabia, and us being there pisses all over their religion. and trust me, the US does a lot of shit in secret that no one will ever know about, that creates disharmony and discord all over the world. we do it to try and weed out people we can't control, and the reason we do this is because we want everyone to behave and be peaceful, because peace costs a lot less than war. you dont have to like it, but its not going to change any time soon.

the area where the US needs to do more is in the PR campaign. poor PR helps recruitment for al qaeda and other fundamentalist groups. its the reason we are portrayed negatively around the world. our presence will always be felt, its just a matter of how we are perceived.

FTN wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:I know it's not a popular opinion but maybe it's time we reevaluate our position on the world stage and actually delve into and have a discussion on why individuals feel the need to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on our soil. The suspect in custody said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a prime motivation in being radicalized. OBL cited America stationing troops in their Holy Land. The witness from Yemen testified on Capitol Hill that the indiscriminate drone strikes are terrifying people and causing resentment in the region. The arrogance we portray to the rest of the world is heinous, and there's nothing wrong with listening to the reasons of why these people are becoming so militant. Instead, we scream and chant USA and act like our shit don't stink.

this is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but does not work in theory. if we turtled up and became an isolationist nation, we'd be inviting unrest all around the world. the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble. israel, if left without US support, would be bombarded and attacked from all corners of the middle east. when you allow this type of violent escalation, you start giving these militaristic nations ideas that they don't have to stop with israel, they can flex their muscles elsewhere. the US uses its wealth and opportunity to keep the rest of the world largely peaceful. if you openly attack a nation that is allied with the US, you understand that you are indirectly attacking the united states. if north korea declares war on south korea, you can bet the US will immediately jump in and help south korea, which means north korea loses the war in about 12 seconds. its why countries (like iran) mouth off and make lots of threats, but do nothing. the US, for its faults, is still the biggest gorilla in the zoo.

there is a lot to gain from a peaceful world. the US has to sometimes sacrifice to make this happen, but we are the only nation in the world capable of making it happen. fundamentalists and extremists do not like it. they feel we dont belong in israel (or that israel should even exist) or saudi arabia, and us being there pisses all over their religion. and trust me, the US does a lot of shit in secret that no one will ever know about, that creates disharmony and discord all over the world. we do it to try and weed out people we can't control, and the reason we do this is because we want everyone to behave and be peaceful, because peace costs a lot less than war. you dont have to like it, but its not going to change any time soon.

the area where the US needs to do more is in the PR campaign. poor PR helps recruitment for al qaeda and other fundamentalist groups. its the reason we are portrayed negatively around the world. our presence will always be felt, its just a matter of how we are perceived.

Did not have you down as such a neocon on foreign policy. And displaying the worst kind of exceptionalism and arrogance. Nice.

i didnt say it was "right" or that i supported it. i said that is the way it is.

obviously it would be much better if we didnt have to police the world and we diverted that money to important domestic issues, but its not going to happen, not now and not in the near future.

pacino wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

Wizlah wrote:

pacino wrote:I get what you, and he, are saying, but that didn't happen here. they asked about others still out there or bombs still out there. they didnt use it as a momen to get into the general 'war' on terror. taking this to bring up something completely different is fine, i guess, but it seems like trying to fit square into round just to drum the beat on GG's pet issue.

I can only judge his position from the column I read in the Guardian, but it seems to me that his point is not that this questioning was Obama/DOJ were using the situation to roll back civil liberties Rather he seems to be saying that what happened is now SOP, and has been since 2010.

It's easy to shrug it off and say this isn't an issue since this guy is clearly the bomber. But the bottom line is that the guy was questioned by a specialised interrogation team before being read his rights, and according to that memo, that info can (and was) used in court against him (in so far as in addition to the bombing, he's also been charged with a plot to do more damage in new york).

On the basis of what I've seen so far, there's little doubt that this guy is the bomber. But if the wrong person is in the frame, then they're going to be hit hard with interrogation and likely fess up to something they didn't do. Then get charged with it in court. And I'm not hypothesising here, because this happened with at least 17 people in similar situations in the UK (that's the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, and the Maguire Seven for reference). It will happen. It's not good. Greenwald and the ALCU are right to make noise about it, not least because history has shown that these increased powers do not prevent terrorist activity. The UK ran the whole gamut of this in the 70s: detention without charge, Diplock courts (losing the right to trial by jury), internment on the basis of being SUSPECTED of being a member of a terrorist organisation. And yet the IRA were still operationally capable enough to nearly kill Thatcher in the Brighton Hotel Bombing of 1984. And that's just the UK and Northern Ireland. Ask Putin how his problems with the Chechens are getting on after over what, 15 years of throwing the kitchen sink at them?

I thought my days of being left of pacino were long gone (if this can be cast as a left/right issue) but I think Wiz is right on the money here. You either have faith in your justice system or you don't, and if you start casting it out when things are really, really important then you're headed down a slippery slope. If you think the suspect has too many rights, well, revisit the issue and cast it into law. Equal protection means equal protection, it's pretty clear. And whether or not you "Mirandize" someone shouldn't mean a hoot, you have these rights or you don't, or they aren't actually rights. I hope every citizen knows them and can invoke them- I trust most do and knows they don't have to be called into being by pronouncing magic words or can disappear as long as the imp's name remains a secret.That's not to say THIS suspect was mistreated in any way, and the assertions of extra-judicial interrogation may have been in fact more political appeasement then any necessary or even out of the ordinary measures. But the fact that this appeasement works and that it's almost unanimous that some sort of treatment outside the law was necessary in this case is frightening in itself, since it speaks to a basic distrust of our legal institutions. And if it becomes accepted (or more accepted, since it already is by many) it will certainly result in innocent people being caught up, as well as engendering a disrespect for constitutional procedures that will inevitably corrupt a case and let the guilty go free.

the idea of him being charged with musings about an alleged plot in NYC is very worrisome.

Well, that's a distinction I want to make. I don't have any problem with this case, per se. I mean, who the hell cares if they charge him with an alleged plot in NYC, and why would you bother? These guys are as near to certainly guilty as one can be certain without having stuffed the pressure cookers in their living room with them, and guilty of an absolutely horrendous act deserving of the greatest punishment allowable. And there may very well have existed possible continuing threats even after the death and arrest of these suspects, though I still don't see that the "special exception" brought into play can or should have resulted in unearthing information regarding this. But each time this treatment is used it becomes more a part of common practice and wears down any resistance or need to justify it. It's honestly a useless argument in these circumstances (or this thread for that matter)since it's impossible to view these practices objectively under the appearance of imminent danger. However, under calmer circumstances they of course won't be revisited.

also, i want to thank wiz for calling me a neocon. thats certainly a first for me, and my poli sci adviser would probably die if she heard that.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In future cases, having something like this when it does appear the suspect is part of an active cell or ongoing plot is extremely important.

I'm not seeing the extreme in this. Verbal Kint is who I'm concerned about, not some dipshit 19 year old. And Kint is likely to fuck you up no matter what your legal niceties, so why not read whomever his rights.

In other words, the assertion is that this questioning gimmick returns real value. Lay out the real value, not the hypothetical value or anecdotes, to make the strongest case.

Who are you talking to? If me, can you speak in English and not riddles?

Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze - the bad guy in a movie titled The Usual Suspects (portrayed deftly by Kevin Spacey). The baddest of all bad guys. My mistake; I thought all you youngsters shared these contemporary cultural references.

Anyways, in the flick the cops have him all along, and are questioning him about a big crime, but they don't know it's him, so he spins a line of bullshit that they fall for, and ultimately he wriggles out of their custody, presumably to continue his life of crime.

Verbal Kint was not a dipshit 19 year old.

Does you eagerness to squelch constitutional rights actually protect us from Verbal Kint-type bad guys, or merely from having an open hearing on a dipshit 19 year old's culpability in a horrific event?

If you're not merely imagining that this 'strategy' does have value, provide a bunch of good relevant cases, rather than two or three anecdotes.

I guess what I'm saying - what I said before - is that I'm not convinced of the extremity of the importance of pinching off rights even in this circumstance, much less circumstances where it might merely give hyperventilating authorities something to do.

FTN wrote:this is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but does not work in theory. if we turtled up and became an isolationist nation, we'd be inviting unrest all around the world. the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble.

I don't really get this sentence at all. Maybe we do ally ourselves with peaceful nations, but that isn't making the world more peaceful. And if it were, I doubt it'd be because of our current efforts to make it so.

FTN wrote:
the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble.

tell that to the people of a number of latin american and middle eastern countries who suffered 'leadership' by gents who happened to put our interests above theirs.

the US uses its wealth and opportunity to keep the rest of the world largely peaceful.

this is, um, overbroad. It lacks nuance. It would lack nuance if asserted by a 10th grader.

the US has to sometimes sacrifice to make this happen, but we are the only nation in the world capable of making it happen.

Consider that we share the sacrifice; our war dead were too numerous in Iran, but count up the numbers of Iranian dead and get back to me about sacrifice.

EDIT: Iraq, Iran, it's all just vast expanses of sand to a senile old grouch like me

....trust me, the US does a lot of shit in secret that no one will ever know about, that creates disharmony and discord all over the world. we do it to try and weed out people we can't control, and the reason we do this is because we want everyone to behave and be peaceful, because peace costs a lot less than war.

hoo boy

the area where the US needs to do more is in the PR campaign. poor PR helps recruitment for al qaeda and other fundamentalist groups. its the reason we are portrayed negatively around the world. our presence will always be felt, its just a matter of how we are perceived.

Any halfway competent pr hack will tell you the 1st thing you have to do in a "good" PR campaign is walk the walk. You can't just finesse the verbiage. You have to do things differently - perhaps especially in the 21st century.

FTN wrote:i didnt say it was "right" or that i supported it. i said that is the way it is.

obviously it would be much better if we didnt have to police the world and we diverted that money to important domestic issues, but its not going to happen, not now and not in the near future.

America polices the parts of the world of strategic interest to America. Please tell me the last time you stuck your nose in Africa to keep the peace there.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:In future cases, having something like this when it does appear the suspect is part of an active cell or ongoing plot is extremely important.

I'm not seeing the extreme in this. Verbal Kint is who I'm concerned about, not some dipshit 19 year old. And Kint is likely to fuck you up no matter what your legal niceties, so why not read whomever his rights.

In other words, the assertion is that this questioning gimmick returns real value. Lay out the real value, not the hypothetical value or anecdotes, to make the strongest case.

Who are you talking to? If me, can you speak in English and not riddles?

Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze - the bad guy in a movie titled The Usual Suspects (portrayed deftly by Kevin Spacey). The baddest of all bad guys. My mistake; I thought all you youngsters shared these contemporary cultural references.

Anyways, in the flick the cops have him all along, and are questioning him about a big crime, but they don't know it's him, so he spins a line of bullshit that they fall for, and ultimately he wriggles out of their custody, presumably to continue his life of crime.

Verbal Kint was not a dipshit 19 year old.

Does you eagerness to squelch constitutional rights actually protect us from Verbal Kint-type bad guys, or merely from having an open hearing on a dipshit 19 year old's culpability in a horrific event?

If you're not merely imagining that this 'strategy' does have value, provide a bunch of good relevant cases, rather than two or three anecdotes.

I guess what I'm saying - what I said before - is that I'm not convinced of the extremity of the importance of pinching off rights even in this circumstance, much less circumstances where it might merely give hyperventilating authorities something to do.

most of these douchebags are young idiots and not criminal masterminds

FTN wrote:also, i want to thank wiz for calling me a neocon. thats certainly a first for me, and my poli sci adviser would probably die if she heard that.

You're saying that it's some kind of burden to preserve the peace, thrust on you because of your wealth and power, which is in turn a product of your particular brand of capitalism. Which part of that discourse is different from the shite peddled by Wolfowitz et al?

jerseyhoya wrote:most of these douchebags are young idiots and not criminal masterminds

I think that's what I was saying

though what I think may be legitimately be in doubt if I can't keep Iran & Iraq straight. Can't believe you didn't call me on my brainfart there

Barry Jive wrote:

FTN wrote:this is one of those things that sounds good on paper, but does not work in theory. if we turtled up and became an isolationist nation, we'd be inviting unrest all around the world. the world is, for the most part, peaceful because we ally ourselves with most nations who aren't trying to cause trouble.

I don't really get this sentence at all. Maybe we do ally ourselves with peaceful nations, but that isn't making the world more peaceful. And if it were, I doubt it'd be because of our current efforts to make it so.

if we did not get involved internationally in the affairs of other nations and let countries do whatever they wanted, the world would be far less civil. the threat of action by the US, either militarily or economically, is a big deterrent for most countries. most. you can argue that china has as big of an influence as the US, but theres is more economic, because of their buying power (of debt)

i find it really difficult to imagine a scenario in which the US becomes non-interventional around the world. the US tried to be a non-interventional entity after World War I, and you saw how well that worked out. now i think we feel obligated to be completely and totally involved, for better or worse.

drsmooth wrote:tell that to the people of a number of latin american and middle eastern countries who suffered 'leadership' by gents who happened to put our interests above theirs.

i never said it is always "right" and its pretty obvious to anyone with an understanding of the history of the CIA that we meddle in foreign affairs when we worry that the regime in charge, or the regime trying to take charge, builds their platform on ideals that go against what the US is striving for. thats why I said

the US does a lot of shit in secret that no one will ever know about, that creates disharmony and discord all over the world. we do it to try and weed out people we can't control, and the reason we do this is because we want everyone to behave and be peaceful

we want people to behave and not cause trouble, because trouble costs more to police. is that catering to our own self interests too? yes. is it wrong? yes. is it reality? yes.

drsmooth wrote:this is, um, overbroad. It lacks nuance. It would lack nuance if asserted by a 10th grader.

its simplistic and isn't nuanced, because the nuanced response is 100,000 words in length, and something i dont have time to write.

drsmooth wrote:Consider that we share the sacrifice; our war dead were too numerous in Iran, but count up the numbers of Iranian dead and get back to me about sacrifice.

i never said our sacrifice was greater than anyone else's. i said that we sacrifice. we've sacrificed innocent men and women, and we've sacrificed potential alliances because of our stances around the world. obviously a lot of innocent people have died at the hands of the US government too. i never denied any of that.

drsmooth wrote:Any halfway competent pr hack will tell you the 1st thing you have to do in a "good" PR campaign is walk the walk. You can't just finesse the verbiage. You have to do things differently - perhaps especially in the 21st century.

sure. but i think even when we do "the right thing" we often do not know how to present it as such.

Wizlah wrote:America polices the parts of the world of strategic interest to America. Please tell me the last time you stuck your nose in Africa to keep the peace there.

id argue we tried, we saw the consequences, and we've backed away. and obviously part of that is economically driven.

everyone can attack me, as if im presenting my own personal views and endorsing how we act abroad. im just explaining why i think we act the way we do. we obviously depend on the rest of the world to build stuff for us to buy, and to buy the stuff that we build and export. for the US economy to function properly, we need other countries to behave and do business with us. if they don't, it closes potential markets. our actions around the world benefit our own self-interest, but often times, those self-interests dovetail with many other peaceful nations as well. im not saying its perfect, or right even, im just saying it is how it is.

Wizlah wrote:... Please tell me the last time you stuck your nose in Africa to keep the peace there.

US military involvement/activity (troop deployments, combat, humanitarian, evacuations, etc.)?

18 times since 1990.

Edit: Sorry. The congressional report I read was dated 2008, so that's 18 times between 1990-2008.