tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post8386863412621753875..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: In other news, water is still wettetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-91477116982424201112009-01-27T13:09:00.000-05:002009-01-27T13:09:00.000-05:00I agree with you that the GOP has been hijacked by...I agree with you that the GOP has been hijacked by the Forces of Evil; that's why I no longer support the GOP. Unfortunately, the Dems were there first, so I can't really support them either. I'm hoping the opposition is more than reflexive, the Random Forces of Nature know there are plenty of principled reasons for voting against the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Debt for Generations plan.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with the no legal recourse part. POWs under the Geneva Conventions have no legal recourse to indefinite detention, and non-uniformed fighters captured on the field of battle do not even qualify as POWs. Even so, I agree that we should have some plan for handling these cases; I suggest military tribunals. Of course, this applies only to combatants seized on the field of battle (or in very close proximity and possessing military arms). Want civilian-style protections, be a civilian.<BR/><BR/>About tax cuts, AIUI, the ORP Debt for Generations plan will cost, order of magnitude, about $20K per family. Suppose, instead of spending that money on Friends of Barney and infrastructure projects starting in 2010 or later, we gave every family in the US a check for $20K and told them to spend it in 2009. Which plan (ORP or Jv2) will result in greater stimulus to Get America Working again? Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-47649021044345575762009-01-27T12:40:00.000-05:002009-01-27T12:40:00.000-05:00OK, so that's a lotta comment.First of all, of co...OK, so that's a lotta comment.<BR/><BR/>First of all, of <I> course </I> there is a benefit to a principled opposition. See my post about Susan Collins above. One of the failures of the current GOP is that it's been hijacked by an anti-intellectual, jingoistic, fundamentalist faction that's more interested in opposition for its own sake.<BR/><BR/>The arguments about Gitmo that I referenced are ridiculous on their face. I certainly understand the objections to using the civil court system for terrorism suspects, though it's been used successfully for many of them. Regardless, prolonged detention with no legal action is not the correct answer.<BR/><BR/>And I don't believe that deeper tax cuts are the way out of our current recession. There's probably some place for them, but holding up the economic package in pursuit of ever lower taxes is not helpful.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-58599136320737223132009-01-27T09:51:00.000-05:002009-01-27T09:51:00.000-05:00Isn't pointing out flaws the job of the opposition...Isn't pointing out flaws the job of the opposition party? If Repubs believe that spending $1T of our children's money on pork and Barney Frank's friends might not be a Good Thing, then they have an obligation to loudly proclaim the folly of it and vote against it.<BR/><BR/>On the issue of national defense, the Dems (in the role of opposition) loudly proclaimed that Mr. Bush's policies made us all less safe. Without question the Dems would have held Mr. Bush responsible if the US had been attacked again on his watch. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and if the Repubs believe Mr. Obama's policies make us less safe, they have an obligation to say so. Dissent is patriotic! Mr. Obama and his policies ought to be held to account for both success and for failure on this front.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I have never seen such a rapid evolution of thought as Mr. Obama seems to have undergone since gaining access to the security briefings. One would almost think his policies are Bushian (we'll close GITMO eventually, the military handbook needs a revision on interrogation techniques, we need a surge for Afghanistan, we'll blow up innocent civilians if terror masterminds hide among them). The thing that worries me is Mr. Obama has advocated invading Pakistan well before he was elected. Even a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Jacksonian such as myself doesn't think invading a nuclear power is a smart course of action. I fervently hope Mr. Obama has become more Bushian in this regard. Aside over.<BR/><BR/>I believe, and I don't think I am alone in this, that it would be a grievous error to treat terrorists captured in battle against the US military in a civil justice system. A military tribunal, while not without problems, seems like a more appropriate venue for deciding these cases. I'm with you in that the location of the prison is not an important issue; GITMO is fine, and Leavenworth fine as well, as far as holding the prisoners. I'm concerned, however, that once on US soil, we'll hear a non-ending bleat to use the US civil courts to decide these cases. That's the problem with closing GITMO, IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com