There’s a hunger strike going on at Guantanamo. Here are two news stories on the matter, one from CBS News, the other from Russian Times. Since each is a propaganda outlet for its respective government, the truth is not “somewhere in between.” It is scattered about or completely left out. We can never know what is true, and the prudent person who refuses to speculate without concrete evidence merely chooses to take comfort in ignorance. We are forbidden access, but are not relieved of the burdens of citizenship. Where is accountability?
On the CBS News side, the report is headed by pictures of smiling inmates, and the matter is called a “dispute,” as the objective underlying reality is not a concern American journalism. Lawyers for detainees are cited who offer specific information on their clients, and on the Pentagon’s side there are blanket denials. The result? He said, she said, and move on.
What’s the answer? We need an investigation, but it is absurd to assume that power will investigate itself, even more so to assume that the stenographers will do any real reporting. This is a perfect example of the media as a tool of the state, going through perfunctory motions without real exercise of responsibility. CBS is a tool.
Not to keep beating a dead horse about this, but I must. This again comes from Polish Wolf, and is a repetition of the same dripping condescension which he uses to disguise his cognitive dissonance at the whole of the behaviors of the Obama Administration. The current executive is identical to or worse than its predecessor except in some matters of style, Bushies being blunt and threatening, Obama obfusatory but equally thuggish.
Obama apologists cannot confront the obvious conclusions: Electoral referendums have not changed government policy an iota, indicating that real power does not reside in elective office.
… I was curious about your sources and their reputability [sic]. My curiosity is satisfied and the results unsurprising.
“when we, as a nation, bomb and kill people in other countries we are not officially at war with”
As in, every time we’ve killed somebody since 1945?
” I doubt a nation like Israel would feel the same way if Iran dropped a few hellfire missiles on IDF soldiers within its borders.”
Of course, Iranian funded [sic] and supplied ordinance [sic] actually does fall on Israel, pretty much on the regular. While both Israel and Iran will protest that their sovereignty is being violated whenever the UN tells them that they should obey international law within their borders, neither country has demonstrated any actual concern for sovereignty when it doesn’t suite [sic] them.
The fact is that the situation remains largely unchanged since 1945 – a great deal of lip service to national sovereignty, and the use of the concept as an excuse for inaction or non-conformance with international dictates, but no real respect for it.[sic] Rather, every country is constrained merely by its own power and the force that other states and non-state actors are able and willing to exert on it. [sic!, or at least Huh?]
That’s not to say I support what is being done with drones. I don’t know the significance of the individuals and groups being targeted by drone strikes, but based on previous US strategic and diplomatic policies, the tactical benefit of killing them is probably not worth the long term damage caused by killing the people who happen to be within their [sic] blast radius.
But the narrative that Democrats accept this tactic only because it is Obama who is utilizing it is deeply flawed – when George Bush was president, I specifically called for him to use more targeted tactics to apprehend or kill specific Al Qaeda targets, rather than, you know, invading whole countries.
(Use of [sic]‘s is meant to repay condescension with condescension. The grammar from this teacher is atrocious.)
The logical gymnastics here are legend: False equivalency, saying that every aggressive act by Israel, for example, can be offset by acts by Iran (false on its face), and in general that the actions of powerful states are justified by (reactions?) of smaller players; sweeping generalization, saying that because there has been aggression among states since 1945, that the US is excused because it is merely another actor in a large play. Dr. Kailey would approve of this line of reasoning, as embedded therein is a syllogism that employs the generality to conclude that Obama is not accountable. PW didn’t do that when there was another titular executive. His newly-found wisdom is no longer an infant, and is going on five-years old.
PW dodges the question: Are the actions of the Obama Administration justified? Do they stand as moral and civil? If the Bushies committed crimes on a large scale, does the (supposedly) smaller scale of atrocities committed by Obama get a free pass?
This is pretzel logic, absurd twisting by a Democrat to make the world conform to his perceptions. The condescension is merely the salt on the tasty snack.