Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Many soldiers and veterans feel that that they have made huge sacrifices for which they were not adequately recognized or appreciated by the country.

Not that I have all that many veteran contacts, but I hear this a lot more from non-veterans that from those who actually served.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Many soldiers and veterans feel that that they have made huge sacrifices for which they were not adequately recognized or appreciated by the country. They also feel that they represented the country and lived a patriotism which other people have forgotten. Some of them take pride in the discipline and training they had, and contrast that to a civilian population which has gone soft and is incapable of rigor and commitment.

I find this to be non-responsive. But I think my post was misleading. I should have said:

I really wish someone would explain this mindset, because it applies to cops as well as soldiers. The willingness of people who are not cops or soldiers to completely overlook lots of awful, terrible shit done by certain cops or soldiers because cops and soldiers generally take these jobs knowing they are dangerous jobs just makes absolutely no sense to me.

It's like, because you took a dangerous job that is often underappreciated, civilians think you should excuse or overlook acts that amount to crimes for anyone else.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This is part of our national hangover from Vietnam. Soldiers were blamed for policies that they did not create and crimes they did not commit.

During and after that, "Support Our Troops" became the rallying cry for many -- but was also used as a surrogate for "how dare you criticize the war?" This is one of many ways in which dissent was treated as anti-patriotic.

Bush, Rove, and Cheney advanced this to an art form. Criticize the war, criticize one soldier, and you are attacking all soldiers because you are a terror-loving blah blah blah. And they have pushed that into the mindset of many.

I don't dispute what you say, but the attitude I see is (also) an organic one, coming from people who served. And it's less a reaction to criticism of policy, and more of a conviction that soldiers and vets are more righteous and deserving, and less appreciated.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I really wish someone would explain this mindset, because it applies to cops as well as soldiers. The willingness of people who are not cops or soldiers to completely overlook lots of awful, terrible shit done by certain cops or soldiers because cops and soldiers generally take these jobs knowing they are dangerous jobs just makes absolutely no sense to me.

2

Sometimes having your cousin get shot can change the way you look at things.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2

Sometimes having your cousin get shot can change the way you look at things.

Let's end the week on a more positive note. I got this from the same site as something you posted on facebook. And I like it.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...o-get-everyone

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Scalia: nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.

The Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Scalia: nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.

The Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil.

Of course, it's still a fucked up view, but it's a fucked up view that has prevailed for a long period of time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil.

On the federal/state issue, there is no real dispute that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Due Process Clause apply to the federal government.

Otherwise, perhaps Scalia was making your point, and it's a little hard to tell from the news story, but I doubt it. Over more than two hundred years, the Court has had many opportunities to create exceptions to the principle of the Due Process Clause, and I'm sure Scalia knows them far better than I do, but it beggars disbelief to think that the Founders, familiar as they were with the way people had been tortured by the King of England over the previous centuries, would think that they were giving that power to a chief executive who simply claimed a serious, exigent need.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Well, some of us are better.

No, no. You were right America is just awesome.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Beinart was pushing back on both "better than them" and "better than that."

Clearly we're not better than that, even if we're better than them.

What makes it so clear? Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment are either God-given rights or they are not. The Brown and Ferguson cases (actually, non-cases) are all the argument we need on racism and intolerance.

As it happens, I'm pretty convinced that we are better than them, because we still have the right to learn about this, be outraged about it, and, until Top Chef Amputee premieres, talk like some small number of us thinks something should be done. That's a pretty thin thread.

[taxwonk]

The quote below is from this article. It sums up one way in which we are better than al-Qaeda or IS

As human rights groups have put additional pressure on regimes around the world with regard to torture, regimes that are responsive to human rights pressure want to use torture that doesn’t leave scars. So they prefer methods like asphyxiation, isolation, cramming people in small boxes, white rooms with loud noises, because it just destroys people psychologically. Whereas regimes like Assad’s regime [in Syria] don’t really care if there are scars. So there is no role for medicine in that respect in an Assad-type regime or in North Korea’s regime.

Isn't that what you learn when you first start hazing people in school? Use a wet towel because they don't leave marks.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't dispute what you say, but the attitude I see is (also) an organic one, coming from people who served. And it's less a reaction to criticism of policy, and more of a conviction that soldiers and vets are more righteous and deserving, and less appreciated.

As Adder says, I haven't seen this attitude nearly so badly from soldiers and cops as from those who want to use the "more deserving" meme to prevent criticism of policy (i.e., of stupid wars), with respect to soldiers, and to prevent or push back on dealing with this country's ongoing history of racism (in the case of cops).

No one seems to raise the "but cops are different and much more important" defense when (prominent white) people complain about civil forfeiture. It's only when an unarmed black man -- or some other 'bad' person, like a protestor or homeless man -- get shot that we hear how important it is to always honor police.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think Scalia, and, to be fair, the court in general historically, would not find that to apply to action of the US government taken against foreign persons on foreign soil.

Of course, it's still a fucked up view, but it's a fucked up view that has prevailed for a long period of time.

Does Scalia have a different view about police beating confessions out of people?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

No, no. You were right America is just awesome.

Okay - so I've been roundly ridiculed for thinking America is better -- in its conduct, values, and aspirations -- than al Qaeda or ISIS. I get it.

So, for those who believe the opposite -- since we're just the same, why should we give a shit about torturing people suspected of participating in and supporting 9/11 and similar attacks? Why shouldn't morality be relative -- we can improve ourselves after those people are dead?

Sidd (a little tired of the sanctimony) Finch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Does Scalia have a different view about police beating confessions out of people?

Well, he wouldn't dismiss that offhand and would bloviate about it for many pages because, after all, he'd have to refute the bleeding heart liberals like Adams and Jefferson and Madison who raise due process and cruel and unusual punishment arguments.

But, no, of course not, that's permitted too.