US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by MKSheppard »

Link

Including the withdrawal from Afghanistan. But what the real money shot is...
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He pledged during his first week in office to close the prison within a year. But he has not done so.

Even the party base appears willing to forgive that failure.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns.

The president only recently acknowledged the drone program, which some human rights advocates say operates without a clear legal framework and in violation of the U.S. prohibition against assassination.

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.
Raw Numbers

Greg Sargent condenses it
The Post has just released some new polling that demonstrates very strong support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies, including 83 percent of Americans approving of his use of drone strikes against terror suspects overseas.

This finding, however, is particularly startling:

What if those suspected terrorists are American citizens living in other countries? In that case do you approve or disapprove of the use of drones?

Approve: 65
Disapprove: 26

The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.

It’s hard to imagine that Dems and liberals would approve of such policies in quite these numbers if they had been authored by George W. Bush.
Of course, Greenwald is upset over this. Link
Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process.

...

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it.

...

Indeed: is there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me.

...

The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Speaking for myself, I have not defended Obama doing any of those things, as far as I can remember. And the only reason I even consider Obama slightly tolerable now is that a Republican who replaced him would do all the same bad things Obama does, plus another totally different set of bad things on top of them.

If I could push a button and make Obama go away and be replaced by someone who would pay some damn attention to human rights and due process, even if they were significantly worse on other issues, I would.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by madd0ct0r »

coff ron raul cofff.


i jest. Obama is clearly in the centrist position. too bad the entire fucking country has drifted so far right.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
TheHammer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1472
Joined: 2011-02-15 04:16pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by TheHammer »

Simon_Jester wrote:Speaking for myself, I have not defended Obama doing any of those things, as far as I can remember. And the only reason I even consider Obama slightly tolerable now is that a Republican who replaced him would do all the same bad things Obama does, plus another totally different set of bad things on top of them.

If I could push a button and make Obama go away and be replaced by someone who would pay some damn attention to human rights and due process, even if they were significantly worse on other issues, I would.
I would imagine the view is very different from the President's chair. As President, obviously he's privy to information that you and I are not. Its not that he is ignorant to the cause of human rights and due process. But as President, he has to make the tough choices in a situation where he has to decide the lesser of two evils. I know many people don't accept that premise, but they can afford to be idealistic where the President can not. I think he's doing what he can given the circumstances, and eventually he'll get the prison closed, but its clearly a complicated situation.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Darth Wong »

I don't see what the controversy is. Obama floated the idea of moving Gitmo prisoners to American soil for proper trials, and there was an immediate and deafening uproar. So he backpedaled, and that's where we are now.

Similarly, regarding the idea of killing people overseas who happen to be American citizens, is that really so shocking? It's not as if they would willingly surrender for a proper jury trial; the only way these people are coming in is on a slab. This "oh nooooo, it's American citizens now" hand-wringing is just noise, quite frankly. Are they saying it's OK when they assassinate foreigners illegally, but a horrible crime when they do it to an American who's gone rogue?

Did liberals rant that George W. Bush had overstepped his authority? Sure. But that wasn't really why the Republicans lost the 2008 election. They lost the election because the financial system collapsed under their watch, the war in Iraq was costing ridiculous amounts of American money and lives, and most Americans had finally accepted that the WMD thing was bullshit.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10427
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Solauren »

Here is a G.Bay related question for everyone;

What if half of the prisoners were identified and confirmed as Al-Qadia members prior to capture? And I mean the smart and dangerous ones. The ones that if they went to trial publically, would just encourage more attacks on American Interests.

Would you close G.Bay under those circumstances?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Darth Wong »

Solauren wrote:Here is a G.Bay related question for everyone;

What if half of the prisoners were identified and confirmed as Al-Qadia members prior to capture? And I mean the smart and dangerous ones. The ones that if they went to trial publically, would just encourage more attacks on American Interests.

Would you close G.Bay under those circumstances?
Yes. And "encourage more attacks on American interests" is a pretty weak justification for anything.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Zinegata »

It's also worth noting that they've begun releasing prisoners in Gitmo who were clearly just at the wrong place and time under Obama's tenure.
User avatar
evilsoup
Jedi Knight
Posts: 793
Joined: 2011-04-01 11:41am
Location: G-D SAVE THE QUEEN

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by evilsoup »

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
What the fuck? 53% of liberal Democrats? What a bunch of fuckheads. Christ, if it weren't for the effect on the rest of the world, I'd say you lot deserve the shitty politicians you have.
TheHammer wrote:I would imagine the view is very different from the President's chair. As President, obviously he's privy to information that you and I are not. Its not that he is ignorant to the cause of human rights and due process. But as President, he has to make the tough choices in a situation where he has to decide the lesser of two evils. I know many people don't accept that premise, but they can afford to be idealistic where the President can not. I think he's doing what he can given the circumstances, and eventually he'll get the prison closed, but its clearly a complicated situation.
Oh fuck you, and fuck everyone who spouts this realpolitik 'Ooo look at me I'm so cynical' nation-as-sociopath horsefuckery. What possible justification is there for torturing and detaining 14-year-olds in Guantanamo? You realise that, as a citizen of a democratic nation, you are responsible for what your government does? Every bomb dropped, every child dismembered, every unlucky bastard beaten and sleep-deprived and fucked with a baton by agents of the USA: that blood is on your hands. It is in your name (the same goes for me and the many crimes of my government, that's why I'll happily dance on Tony Blair's grave).

In the early years of WWII, when Britain was under bombardment and lots of people - even the top guys like Churchill - thought that we might be conquered by the nazis, we did not torture captured German spies (or other high-up officials). How are the Guantanamo detainees more dangerous than agents of the Third Reich?

Also, didn't Obama promise to close down Guantanamo? So he's breaking his promise. He lied to the electorate. Without honesty, democracy is meaningless; so he is an enemy of democracy, and an enemy of the people.
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.

My Little Warhammer: Friendship is Heresy - Latest Chapter: 7 - Rainbow Crash
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16381
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Gandalf »

Solauren wrote:Here is a G.Bay related question for everyone;

What if half of the prisoners were identified and confirmed as Al-Qadia members prior to capture? And I mean the smart and dangerous ones. The ones that if they went to trial publically, would just encourage more attacks on American Interests.

Would you close G.Bay under those circumstances?
How would a public trial of an AQ member lead to attacks on American Interests? (Why is that capitalised?)

Do AQ look on CNN and go "Holy shit, they got Phil!" and then decide to make a revenge attack?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Mr Bean »

Zinegata wrote:It's also worth noting that they've begun releasing prisoners in Gitmo who were clearly just at the wrong place and time under Obama's tenure.
It's also worth noting that there is no real argument for keeping people in Gitmo for securities sake. It's not exactly a prison with landmines, cyberdogs and twenty foot high laser fences. It's a bunch of cages and lots of military personnel backed up by a few solitary confinement buildings. The only thing Gitmo offers is the ability to order prisoner rights. Something we can do in America, thus Gitmo is no longer needed.

Change!

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Zinegata »

Mr Bean wrote: It's also worth noting that there is no real argument for keeping people in Gitmo for securities sake.
See Darth Wong's comment above; Re: trying to move Gitmo to America :).
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10427
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Solauren »

First, that should have been "American Interests" in quotes.

I'm simply trying to illustrate how Obama has to look at the facility now, and what he could be facing.

And to clarify, I'm personally in favor of closing G.Bay and any other facilities like it. Either put those men in a proper prison and publically try them, or send them home.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Darth Wong »

evilsoup wrote:Oh fuck you, and fuck everyone who spouts this realpolitik 'Ooo look at me I'm so cynical' nation-as-sociopath horsefuckery. What possible justification is there for torturing and detaining 14-year-olds in Guantanamo? You realise that, as a citizen of a democratic nation, you are responsible for what your government does? Every bomb dropped, every child dismembered, every unlucky bastard beaten and sleep-deprived and fucked with a baton by agents of the USA: that blood is on your hands. It is in your name (the same goes for me and the many crimes of my government, that's why I'll happily dance on Tony Blair's grave).

In the early years of WWII, when Britain was under bombardment and lots of people - even the top guys like Churchill - thought that we might be conquered by the nazis, we did not torture captured German spies (or other high-up officials). How are the Guantanamo detainees more dangerous than agents of the Third Reich?

Also, didn't Obama promise to close down Guantanamo? So he's breaking his promise. He lied to the electorate. Without honesty, democracy is meaningless; so he is an enemy of democracy, and an enemy of the people.
Please re-phrase this in direct factual language, not raving spittle-flecked political ideologue rhetoric.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
evilsoup
Jedi Knight
Posts: 793
Joined: 2011-04-01 11:41am
Location: G-D SAVE THE QUEEN

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by evilsoup »

Um, what? I think my meaning was very clear.
1. as a citizen of a democratic country, you are partly responsible (maybe the wrong word? That point is that the government is acting in your name) for the government's actions. So instead of just going 'hurr hurr obama must know something I don't know, I know my place' people like thehammer should be at the very least condemning this horsefuckery.

2. It was somehow magically possible to not torture enemy spies (who were definitely spies, not just random people sold out by their greedy vindictive neighbours), even though they were working for possibly the worst regime of the twentieth century, and actively bombarding cities, and (in the minds of the decision-makers) maybe even able to mount a full-scale invasion. This makes the current situation with the US keeping these guys in horrible conditions even more grotesque by comparison.

3. If I'm remembering right about his promise to close down gitmo, Obama is an anti-democratic asshole (but then so are all the alternatives, so I guess that makes it ok?)
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.

My Little Warhammer: Friendship is Heresy - Latest Chapter: 7 - Rainbow Crash
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by madd0ct0r »

and yet a clear majority of the population want to keep gitmo - making him a democratic asshole.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Simon_Jester »

What I'd like to see is more breakdown of that. Imagine a conversation like:

"Do you approve of Guantanamo staying open?"

"Uh, what's the alternative? Let everyone inside go?"

"How about instituting a public review process so that if Ahmed the rug merchant got swept up by US troops in 2002 and falsely accused of terrorism, we could figure out who he was and let him go?"

"Well, that sounds OK."

I wonder what fraction of the Guantanamo 'supporters' think more along those lines- they want a facility for imprisoning terrorists, but aren't in favor of the way it's being run, or the part where they just randomly incarcerate people without having to worry about figuring out whether they're actually terrorists or not.

Questions like "do you approve?" obscure that, when it has a huge effect on whether or not a given action can really be considered "popular."
TheHammer wrote:I would imagine the view is very different from the President's chair. As President, obviously he's privy to information that you and I are not. Its not that he is ignorant to the cause of human rights and due process. But as President, he has to make the tough choices in a situation where he has to decide the lesser of two evils. I know many people don't accept that premise, but they can afford to be idealistic where the President can not. I think he's doing what he can given the circumstances, and eventually he'll get the prison closed, but its clearly a complicated situation.
I don't buy it. If there was any "eventually he'll close it," he'd be making progress. He'd, say, hold trials by which people who were thrown in there for no damn reason could prove their innocence. Just making that possible would turn Gitmo into far, far less of a human rights violation.

See, that's the trouble with you. You look at Obama, and what he does, and assume whatever he did must have been the lesser evil. That's backwards.
Darth Wong wrote:I don't see what the controversy is. Obama floated the idea of moving Gitmo prisoners to American soil for proper trials, and there was an immediate and deafening uproar. So he backpedaled, and that's where we are now.

Similarly, regarding the idea of killing people overseas who happen to be American citizens, is that really so shocking? It's not as if they would willingly surrender for a proper jury trial; the only way these people are coming in is on a slab. This "oh nooooo, it's American citizens now" hand-wringing is just noise, quite frankly. Are they saying it's OK when they assassinate foreigners illegally, but a horrible crime when they do it to an American who's gone rogue.
It's not OK when the US assassinates foreigners illegally- but there's a precedent here. The US theoretically renounces assassination according to an act of Congress. Not randomly killing our own citizens without due process is a basic constitutional thing, and if Obama declares his own power to ignore it for really good reasons that he doesn't have to tell us... what doesn't he think he has the power to do?

With assassinations of foreigners, you can at least say "this is being done to an external enemy, the legalities would still be observed if there was a domestic political crisis." When Obama's willing to kill his own country's citizens because they have been dubbed "terrorists," that comes into doubt and the worrying gets kicked up a notch.

Should it be no cause for worry at all when it's foreigners, and a big cause for worry when it's American citizens? No. But it does escalate things, with Obama violating new, important rules, rules neither he nor Bush had violated before.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
evilsoup
Jedi Knight
Posts: 793
Joined: 2011-04-01 11:41am
Location: G-D SAVE THE QUEEN

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by evilsoup »

Simon_Jester wrote:Not randomly killing our own citizens without due process is a basic constitutional thing
Okay, I'm curious: where does it say this, exactly, and does it actually specify 'citizens'? Do US constitutional protections not apply to foreigners in America?

Citizens citizens citizens.
Uch. As if it's any worse when it happens to a US citizen than to anyone else.
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.

My Little Warhammer: Friendship is Heresy - Latest Chapter: 7 - Rainbow Crash
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Okay. Short form, the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The large-C Constitution does not distinguish.

What causes this to get mentioned over and over (including by me when I'm speaking carelessly) is that it's most recent, and that from the point of view of what powers Obama claims it represents a subtle escalation. From the point of view of legal theory, there's nothing about the process by which Awlaki was declared persona non grata and killed that couldn't be applied to any American citizen, including, say, Obama's political opponents. There was a difference as long as Obama didn't claim the right to do that to fellow citizens, at least in theory, even if it's not a moral difference and even though the life of an American citizen isn't inherently worth more than the life of a Yemeni citizen.

Come to think of it- the moral question. We normally accept that governments have a special responsibility for their own citizens, more so than for others. The government of (say) France is responsible for French citizens, not for (say) Italian citizens. That doesn't mean it's free to abuse Italian citizens, but it does mean that there's an extra betrayal of trust and responsibility if it starts abusing Frenchmen.

So from that angle you might argue that if government X does something to citizens of X, it is worse than if government X does the same thing to citizens of Y. The citizens of X have no one else to turn to, and are more vulnerable to tyranny by government X. At least citizens of Y who can take refuge in foreign lands or have the government of Y intercede on their behalf.

And for that purpose, I don't think it matters who X and Y are- this is not "Americans are worth more than Yemenis." It's "The US government has a special extra responsibility to Americans that it does not have to Yemenis."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6259
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by madd0ct0r »

origional poll here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 20412.html

Code: Select all

13. Changing topics, thinking about the following decisions of the Obama administration, please tell me whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

2/4/12 - Summary Table

                                           --- Approve ----   -- Disapprove --   No
                                           NET  Str.  Smwt.   NET  Smwt.  Str.   op.
a. Keeping open the prison at Guantanamo                             
   Bay for terrorist suspects              70    42    28     24    12     13     5
b. The drawdown of U.S. troops from                      
   Afghanistan                             78    56    23     19    10      9     2
c. The use of unmanned, “drone” aircraft               
   against terrorist suspects overseas     83    59    23     11     7      4     6


14. (IF APPROVE OF DRONE AIRCRAFT) What if those suspected terrorists are American citizens living in other countries? In that case do you approve or disapprove of the use of drones?

  
         Approve   Disapprove   No opinion
2/4/12     79          17            4

13c/14 NET:

                   ----- Disapprove ------     No
         Approve   NET   At first   Now do   opinion
2/4/12     65      26        12       14        9

"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
User avatar
Jade Owl
Padawan Learner
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-05-22 10:24pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Jade Owl »

evilsoup wrote:In the early years of WWII, when Britain was under bombardment and lots of people - even the top guys like Churchill - thought that we might be conquered by the nazis, we did not torture captured German spies (or other high-up officials). How are the Guantanamo detainees more dangerous than agents of the Third Reich?
That's because the British captured every single fucking one of them without the Nazis ever finding out. Many of them were turned. They didn't need to kill them becase they were more useful alive and locked up or turned than dead.

As for the torture, these are spies we're talking about. Are you are aware of the meaning of the word, right? They were in Britain to gather information to pass on to the Nazis, they weren't entrusted with any information themselves. They weren't tortured because they didn't knew anything. 

Spies and terrorists are apples and potatos, and trying to compare the two is beyond idiotic.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Salvor Hardin, Isaac Asimov "Bridle and Saddle" (aka "The Mayors", in Foundation), 1942.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Thanas »

Jade Owl wrote:As for the torture, these are spies we're talking about. Are you are aware of the meaning of the word, right? They were in Britain to gather information to pass on to the Nazis, they weren't entrusted with any information themselves. They weren't tortured because they didn't knew anything. 
You mean, other than the information about code, information methods, training, collaborators, network building, money stream etc...can't possibly see why any nation would neet to know about that. :roll:
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Thanas »

I think these poll numbers say all that needs to be said about the US populace.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Simon_Jester »

madd0ct0r wrote:origional poll here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 20412.html
Yeah, I read it. It doesn't give me as much information as I'd like- of course, I'd practically have to hold the poll myself to get that much information, and I'd probably contaminate the results by arguing with the people I was polling.

Maybe it's just me- I often have this reaction to a poll question. I see people's opinions broken down into two or four neat categories, and I start wondering what the distribution would look like if there were eight categories, or sixteen, and depending on which categories were made available.

"I want to keep Guantanamo open" is not the same as "I want people held indefinitely in Guantanamo without trial no matter what." It would interest me to see how much support each of those has, instead of just seeing how many "strongly" approve of keeping Guantanamo open and how many "weakly" approve.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

Post by Thanas »

That is hair-splitting to the extreme and has no bearing on reality. If you ask a person "do you approve of Obama's handling of the Global war on terror", then obviously none of the "yes" people think the civil rights abuses are strong enough.

Also, note that the questions were pretty detailed - like "suspected terrorists are us citizens, do you approve of killing them via drones?"
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply