The Talking Lion

Friday, June 24, 2005

Why aren't you dead yet?

You're such a Dick:

Mr. Cheney dismissed calls to close the facility, which holds terrorism suspects. "They got a brand new facility down at Guantánamo," Mr. Cheney said in an interview with CNN. "We spent a lot of money to build it. They're very well treated down there."

"They're living in the tropics," he added. "They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want. There isn't any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we're treating these people."


I mean, he's a fucking liar. In a nutshell, they're not being treated well (theyre being tortured), they most assuredly don't have anything they could possibly want, you fucking asshole, and the vast majority of them don't deserve to be incarcerated in the first place. So Cheney, you're a fucking Dick (<-- may not be clever, but truer things are seldom said).

2 Comments:

  • One advantage the blogosphere has over the "MSM" (Main-Stream Media) is the integrity garnered from a studious attention to verifiability (and its contingent transparency, accountability etc etc). Perhaps your blog would be strengthened if you were to provide such verifiability (and its resultant integrity), especially when making bold (but presumably provable?) statements such as:

    -"he's a fucking liar"
    -"theyre being tortured"
    -"the vast majority of them don't deserve to be incarcerated in the first place"

    In the interest of creating meaningful discourse (unless this is not your goal, despite that it is the goal more or less manifest in much of the "blogosphere"), any nascent readership you currently have could conceivably benefit from clarification on any of those points.

    For instance, while the "liar" accusation could be excused as colorful editorializing (though that may be unfair to presume, given the powerful humanitarian nature of the issue area you seem to want to address), the implications that Cheney is lying and thusly covering up/obfuscating ongoing practices either comparable or equivalent to torture, for instance, should be something that (I would presume) would compel someone to expound upon, ad nauseam, until this wrong is fully fleshed out and fully communicated etc. Furthermore, given the ease with which one can, with the simple use of a hyperlink, elevate an article from an amateur rant to an argument backed up (and maybe even empowered) by something other than "taking your word for it", I do not think it too much to ask that you clarify discrete and powerfully persuasive terms such as "majority" (given the implied numerical nature) with something that the reader could click upon and deduce for him or herself the very same conclusion you've noteably arrived at. This is a standard convention practiced by the better blogs out there and does wonders for creating a viable alternative media (again, this does not apply if you just want to vent, rant and talk to your friends).

    Also, it seems as if you raise several apt questions that while relevant to what is going on in the War on Terror, are only being addressed (at best) in bits and pieces of soundbytes and quotations from the leadership being the WOT. It’d behoove you to pay more attention to your craft by being more clear in articulating these questions. I deduce you are trying to resolve the following, no?

    -Should “unlawful combatants” (mercenaries, “members of militias not under the command of the armed forces who do not fit into the categories specified by the third Geneva convention […], and those who have breached other laws or customs of war (for example by fighting under a white flag, who may have valuable intelligence, i.e. information that could save lives/improve general security, (such as “infiltration routes and methods” used by al-Qaida to traverse border control etc), be officially tried by a “competent military tribunal” so as to seal them in their fate (historically, this tends to be execution), and thus run the risk of squandering a valuable intelligence source?

    -What differentiates torture and interrogation? What methodology in particular do you consider to be “torture”? Hypothetically, lets say I don’t consider interrogation methods (outstretching arms for hours, forced nudity, psychological stress (or even duress, for that matter) etc) used “torture”, and if they save lives, hey that’s sorta cool, no? What is wrong with that? I certainly wouldn’t want to be condoning torture. However, I would not want to use ineffective interrogation methods (provided, again, they exist and are not torture), if effective interrogation methods meant I had a better chance of getting life-saving information. Convince me otherwise, maybe?

    -Given, this synopsis of Gitmo activity (especially that concerning a seemingly ongoing attention to some sort of process of release), can one accurately presume that the “majority” of those detained shouldn’t have been there “in the first place”, and are not unlawful combatants whose fates are precarious due to their being someplace in between death row and an arguably life-saving resource for those concerned with security (provided you can acquire presumed info.)?

    -Also, what does one do when you capture one of these unlawful combatants? Are you acting responsibly for the safety of the public, which you are (for the sake of argument) vested in preserving/maintaining/pursuing etc, when you release them and some still argue that they are still compelled to try and hurt said public, even if it costs them his or her own lives? I understand the aire of tragedy that surrounds their fate, but what can you responsibly do with them when they are captured on the battlefield not displaying arms openly, effectively acting as mercenaries and presumably part of an organization intent on bringing harm to those you’re sworn to protect?

    In closing, I hope you would treat these questions seriously as they are very relevant and I am hard-pressed to see the issues behind your invective. This is by no means any personal criticism; I’m willing to presume I am entirely wrong and have been a victim of a PR industry paper bag that I cannot find my way out of. I think (especially given the ramifications of what you are saying) if you are indeed on to something, it would behoove you to make an effort to communicate that. If, as an American, I am complicit in wrongdoing, I’d prefer to know that. Good luck etc.

    By Anonymous Philip Boyle, at Saturday, 25 June, 2005  

  • Thanks for the great comment, Phil!

    Your criticisms are apt of at least this post. Unfortunatley, I was overcome with anger and didnt do the appropriate homework.

    I'll answer your questions in a future post. Have no fear.

    By Blogger Arun, at Saturday, 25 June, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home