Reparations paid to Guantanamo detainees...

[salm]

It´s funny because Americans generalize themselves all the time as The Brave and then throw a hissy fit about generalizing.
If you are honest you are not generally against generalisations. It is obvious that Americans love generalisations. At least as long as they are favorable towards themselves.

Every country likes generalizations that are favorable to themselves. Don't pretend that this is some special American trait.

I´m not pretending that it´s a special American trait.
It is, however, rather hypocritical to complain about generalizations when the person who generalized simply took an existing generalization and turned it into a different one while being perfectly happy with the first one.
If you want to complain about being called something negative, that ´s fine. If you want to complain about generalizations, that´s fine as well. But it is logically inconsistent to complain about being generalized while being perfectly happy with another generalization.

[Grumman]

Can we for example blame Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to close Guantanamo when the people themselves want it kept opened and has clearly not suffered any political consequences as he has been re-elected?

But can you truly tie one single issue to his re-election?

That depends on the issue. If Hannibal Lector ran for President, it should not matter how good his plans for health care reforms are, because murdering and eating people clearly makes him morally unfit to hold the position. While not as flashy, siding with rapists and torturers as the Obama Administration has - explicitly protecting them from prosecution while throwing the whistleblower in jail - should be viewed the same way.

[Soontir C'boath]

Can we for example blame Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to close Guantanamo when the people themselves want it kept opened and has clearly not suffered any political consequences as he has been re-elected?

But can you truly tie one single issue to his re-election? So much of representative democracy is about voting for the least objectionable candidate that it in my view makes it difficult to attribute any one singular issue. I can see that one can say that people who do not attend primaries or actively join political campaigns deserve to be called cowards when they have failed to meaningfully do all they can to oppose/support a particular moral issue but then we must now ask ourselves if ending torture is a key issue and why the only countries that regularly censure the US are basically hypocrites. ( China, Russia ) and other western nations pay at best lip service to censoring their ally.

This is still missing the point that the majority of Americans support Guantanamo even among Democratic voters themselves and in a democracy, it is they who represent us as a whole and in which elected officials are bound to listen and represent. Although of course, we do hope and expect they would do the morally right thing when it comes otherwise. Still, this isn't an issue that American voters are willing to ignore to elect their most favorable candidate. They want it.

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 President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

[Soontir C'boath]

70% of the population approve the use of Guantanamo Bay prison to keep people accused of aiding the enemy and held without trial locked up for several years through various reasons such as, even if they were innocent they will just come back to haunt us in the future for holding them for so long, that they even have the temerity to be possibly found innocent in court and get away scot free for their supposed crimes, etc. Having heard those given years ago when it was a huge issue, they certainly sound craven to me then and still do now.

[Knife]

70% of the population approve the use of Guantanamo Bay prison to keep people accused of aiding the enemy and held without trial locked up for several years through various reasons such as, even if they were innocent they will just come back to haunt us in the future for holding them for so long, that they even have the temerity to be possibly found innocent in court and get away scot free for their supposed crimes, etc. Having heard those given years ago when it was a huge issue, they certainly sound craven to me then and still do now.

Is that the actual question from the poll?

[Dark Hellion]

Sontir, your representations of that poll are incredibly disingenuous. First, the poll is from Feb of 2012, so it is three years out of date. Next, the question about Guantanamo is far more vaguely worded than that, and you have lumped both the strongly agrees and somewhat agrees to get the 70% number.

Frankly, this is exactly what I've been talking about in this thread. There are plenty of legitimate grievances to be made about Guantanamo that you don't have to massively misrepresent an outdated poll to make it. But the poll gives a nice rhetorically powerful number of 70% so fuck the torpedoes lets use it til someone actually looks at it.

[Simon_Jester]

But moral responsibility, in the sense of "you deserve to be punished for your leaders' war crimes because you didn't oppose them hard enough" is another matter.

Except as mentioned before, polls have gleaned that a majority of people either agree or are apathetic about the situation of detainment and torture. So how can we only blame the elected when their constituents want it and therefore adhere to their wishes?

Well, I would have thought my answer follows predictably from what I said before, but here it is:

You divide the nation into three groups: those who understand what is happening and approve, those who understand and disapprove, and those who do not understand. Judge those groups separately and you can achieve at least a measure of justice. Judge them collectively and you will predictably make unjust decisions.

Can we for example blame Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to close Guantanamo when the people themselves want it kept opened and has clearly not suffered any political consequences as he has been re-elected?

But can you truly tie one single issue to his re-election? So much of representative democracy is about voting for the least objectionable candidate that it in my view makes it difficult to attribute any one singular issue. I can see that one can say that people who do not attend primaries or actively join political campaigns deserve to be called cowards when they have failed to meaningfully do all they can to oppose/support a particular moral issue but then we must now ask ourselves if ending torture is a key issue and why the only countries that regularly censure the US are basically hypocrites. ( China, Russia ) and other western nations pay at best lip service to censoring their ally.

Because they don't care either, because when you set an unrealistic standard of what constitutes 'normal' human moral courage, everyone is a coward.

One of the side effects of letting oneself get out of touch with reality- one tends to find normal human behavior worthy of insult, and assuming abnormal behavior is normative.

[Soontir C'boath]

Sontir, your representations of that poll are incredibly disingenuous. First, the poll is from Feb of 2012, so it is three years out of date. Next, the question about Guantanamo is far more vaguely worded than that, and you have lumped both the strongly agrees and somewhat agrees to get the 70% number.

Frankly, this is exactly what I've been talking about in this thread. There are plenty of legitimate grievances to be made about Guantanamo that you don't have to massively misrepresent an outdated poll to make it. But the poll gives a nice rhetorically powerful number of 70% so fuck the torpedoes lets use it til someone actually looks at it.

Given we have not heard much change in sentiment or for that matter as much news about Guantanamo for awhile, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if it stayed the same all these years. However to satisfy your requirements, as of the June 2014 Gallup poll after the Berghdal exchange, the percentage of people wanting Guantanamo closed is still relatively the same. Thus, I still stand by my assertion.

But moral responsibility, in the sense of "you deserve to be punished for your leaders' war crimes because you didn't oppose them hard enough" is another matter.

Except as mentioned before, polls have gleaned that a majority of people either agree or are apathetic about the situation of detainment and torture. So how can we only blame the elected when their constituents want it and therefore adhere to their wishes?

Well, I would have thought my answer follows predictably from what I said before, but here it is:

You divide the nation into three groups: those who understand what is happening and approve, those who understand and disapprove, and those who do not understand. Judge those groups separately and you can achieve at least a measure of justice. Judge them collectively and you will predictably make unjust decisions.

Which is not possible for the power we hold. We all share the responsibility of what occurs together whether we approve or oppose. Either each of our votes matter equally or as you would put it, each has a differing value where a yes, no, and an abstain are unequal.

Can we for example blame Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to close Guantanamo when the people themselves want it kept opened and has clearly not suffered any political consequences as he has been re-elected?

But can you truly tie one single issue to his re-election? So much of representative democracy is about voting for the least objectionable candidate that it in my view makes it difficult to attribute any one singular issue. I can see that one can say that people who do not attend primaries or actively join political campaigns deserve to be called cowards when they have failed to meaningfully do all they can to oppose/support a particular moral issue but then we must now ask ourselves if ending torture is a key issue and why the only countries that regularly censure the US are basically hypocrites. ( China, Russia ) and other western nations pay at best lip service to censoring their ally.

Because they don't care either, because when you set an unrealistic standard of what constitutes 'normal' human moral courage, everyone is a coward.

I think you may have made the case for people to go vegetarian. After all, the majority of us probably would not be able to stomach the ability to kill what we eat at the dinner table these days.

[Simon_Jester]

Which is not possible for the power we hold. We all share the responsibility of what occurs together whether we approve or oppose. Either each of our votes matter equally or as you would put it, each has a differing value where a yes, no, and an abstain are unequal.

So... one is just as responsible, and just as liable to insults, for an action one opposed as for an action one supported?

If not, I have misunderstood you.

If so, you're not operating under any definition of 'responsibility' I can see being applicable to normal situations. I mean, courts of law and such routinely put a lot of effort into determining answers to questions like: "did this person act in a way that makes them legally responsible for the event they're being sued for?"

It would greatly simplify things if we could just say "everyone is equally responsible even if they're on record opposing it." But that wouldn't be a good simplification...

But can you truly tie one single issue to his re-election? So much of representative democracy is about voting for the least objectionable candidate that it in my view makes it difficult to attribute any one singular issue. I can see that one can say that people who do not attend primaries or actively join political campaigns deserve to be called cowards when they have failed to meaningfully do all they can to oppose/support a particular moral issue but then we must now ask ourselves if ending torture is a key issue and why the only countries that regularly censure the US are basically hypocrites. ( China, Russia ) and other western nations pay at best lip service to censoring their ally.

Because they don't care either, because when you set an unrealistic standard of what constitutes 'normal' human moral courage, everyone is a coward.

I think you may have made the case for people to go vegetarian. After all, the majority of us probably would not be able to stomach the ability to kill what we eat at the dinner table these days.[/quote]That... how do you even derive that from what I said?

My point is simple: that problems arise if you set unrealistic standards for what you expect people living in a large society to do before they become cowards/traitors/war criminals for 'complicity' in their government's abuses.

[Soontir C'boath]

Which is not possible for the power we hold. We all share the responsibility of what occurs together whether we approve or oppose. Either each of our votes matter equally or as you would put it, each has a differing value where a yes, no, and an abstain are unequal.

So... one is just as responsible, and just as liable to insults, for an action one opposed as for an action one supported?

If not, I have misunderstood you.

Yes.

If so, you're not operating under any definition of 'responsibility' I can see being applicable to normal situations. I mean, courts of law and such routinely put a lot of effort into determining answers to questions like: "did this person act in a way that makes them legally responsible for the event they're being sued for?"

It would greatly simplify things if we could just say "everyone is equally responsible even if they're on record opposing it." But that wouldn't be a good simplification...

Do you actually mean singular situations in regards to that court of law? Voting, however, involves all citizens.

I think you may have made the case for people to go vegetarian. After all, the majority of us probably would not be able to stomach the ability to kill what we eat at the dinner table these days.

That... how do you even derive that from what I said?

My point is simple: that problems arise if you set unrealistic standards for what you expect people living in a large society to do before they become cowards/traitors/war criminals for 'complicity' in their government's abuses.

I could have worded that better, I admit. So let me put it in another way.

We are not a dictatorship, an autocracy, or any other form where the people's ability to control government is practically nil. We all share that power and the insults that comes with it. If you do not want to be insulted and called a coward, please move to Zimbabwe or any other country that seem to have rigged elections on a regular basis to make yourself feel absolved.

We went to the war in Iraq, we went to war in Afghanistan, etc. There is no, I didn't vote for this shit and I did try everything I could, count me the fuck out.

[Soontir C'boath]

Let me also put it in another way. When we have states that continue to ban gay marriage, a normal reaction nowadays would probably be to call the state's citizens homophobic, backwards, whatever. Now of course, there are likely LGBT members in that state so calling a homosexual homophobic from that state is idiotic (unless it's a self hating homosexual, but I digress), but it does not change what the state and its general populace represent at that point in time.

[White Haven]

Given the state of gerrymandering in the US, that doesn't even follow.

[Soontir C'boath]

Given the state of gerrymandering in the US, that doesn't even follow.

No, it still does. Republican voters want it that way to diminish the power of those pesky muling "liberals", but it is still a vote by the people none-the-less to go in that direction.

You might as well say the USA's statement as a democracy and republic is invalid because at one point we didn't allow slaves or women to have a full vote.

[White Haven]

To take your example, when women did not have the power to vote, women could not in any way be held responsible for the actions of elected officials even if said officials were elected with 100% of eligible voters.

Now, let's scroll forward to the current state of affairs. I live in Virginia's 3rd Congressional district, which makes my representative in the House one Bobby Scott. Yes, it's a Wikipedia link, because it's just there to serve as a general summary. Now, the Virginia 3rd is gerrymandered all to hell and gone, such that it's an incredibly safe democratic district, primarily set up that way by packing an enormous number of Richmond-area democratic-leaning blacks into one district so they can't influence races outside the 3rd. In 2014, the Republicans didn't even bother running a candidate at all, because Scott generally wins races with high seventies to low eighties and has only once won with less than 70% of the vote. Now, with all that setup, if Scott did something noxiously vile in office (not betting on it, he's generally fairly chill, but whatever, it's a hypothetical), I would not view as in any way responsible anyone who voted against him or, and this is key, anyone who didn't bother to vote against him but would have if they'd bothered. If it were a competitive district, this would not be the case, because their collective apathy might well have had a measurable effect on Scott's victory. In the conditions that actually exist, however, I can't blame someone for say 'fuck it, why should I bother' when the results of the district's elections are a foregone conclusion.

The same is even true for a Democrat who might be offended by shit he'd hypothetically done. In 2014 he was unopposed, so even if he HAD done some incredibly vile shit, what are you going to do if nobody's running against the man? Kindly don't spout some Mister Smith Goes To Washington crap about 'run against him yourself' or some such. You and I both know that that shit doesn't fly in the US, and even if it did, most actual real-world people don't have the time or money to do it even if they wanted to.

Now, I'm lucky on a personal level that Scott is generally a fairly decent Representative, but on the flip side I do rather wish that some of the huge mass of black, democratic voters could have bled over into the Virginia 7th, which isn't quite as badly gerrymandered, but bad enough that a full-on Tea Party lunatic was able streak in from the far right and take the election with room to spare. Sadly, I'd moved out of the 7th several months before, so I couldn't vote against him myself. Not that it would have mattered much, given that Dave Brat won with nearly a 14-point spread.

So, in summary, my own vote wouldn't have mattered because of gerrymandering had I been in the 7th (drowned out by pro-Republican districting) and didn't matter where I actually lived in the 3rd (Scott could have beaten the sum total of all write-in candidates with less than a twentieth of his actual votes). Accordingly, no, you're not somehow 'responsible' just because you live in a democracy.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yes, women had no say at the time but they do now so...

So you use the apparent apathy that exists to justify your own. This is like how students or young people justify not voting because other students and young don't. A bit circular no?

I live in NYC. I know very well the heavy Democratic presence here, but that doesn't mean I give up.

P.s. I am not a Republican.

[Knife]

Given we have not heard much change in sentiment or for that matter as much news about Guantanamo for awhile, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if it stayed the same all these years. However to satisfy your requirements, as of the June 2014 Gallup poll after the Berghdal exchange, the percentage of people wanting Guantanamo closed is still relatively the same. Thus, I still stand by my assertion.

Reading what you linked, it actual says the poll question:

As you may know, since 2001, the United States has held people from other countries who are suspected of being terrorists in a prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Do you think the United States should--or should not--close this prison and move some of the prisoners to U.S. prisons?

I would think the idea of moving prisoners to the US affects the question more than closing the Gitmo facility. Granted, I'm not one who thinks terrorist prisoners on main land America is some sort of sacrilege, but a lot of people do and would skew that question rather than if it was just 'Do you think the United States should--or should not--close the prison at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba' that was asked in 2007.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yes, much of it likely still because we do not want to offer better legal avenues that would not be afforded by a military tribune.