tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10927300.post114922540922139796..comments2023-08-01T08:29:19.880-05:00Comments on Atlanta ROFTERS: Dixie Chicks Bounce BackThe Sanity Inspectorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10927300.post-1149798591668985952006-06-08T15:29:00.000-05:002006-06-08T15:29:00.000-05:00They did hit gold with their new cd, but I see tha...They did hit gold with their new cd, but I see that <A HREF="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=peopleNews&storyID=2006-06-07T230800Z_01_N07224908_RTRIDST_0_PEOPLE-DIXIE-DC.XML" REL="nofollow">their tour is running into rough sledding.</A> Maybe a few European dates would put things in the black... <BR/><BR/>So long as the Bushitler meme is extant in the transnational Left, the obvious unfortunately needs to be forcefully and regularly repeated: The United States is indeed better than Saddam Hussein.<BR/><BR/>Torture may finally amount to an "I know it when I see it" definition. It may not be possible to have clear rules. But, we have to try, rather than just telling the intel services "Go get 'em".The Sanity Inspectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10927300.post-1149583126778633012006-06-06T03:38:00.000-05:002006-06-06T03:38:00.000-05:00"Better than Saddam Hussein," is not a moral stand..."Better than Saddam Hussein," is not a moral standard I'd be proud to hold.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I did mean POWs. The government is making a dual argument--they <I>are</I> POWs, and so can't have their cases judicially reviewed (POWs don't have the right to Article III trials), but aren't legal combatants for purposed of the Geneva Conventions.<BR/><BR/>I'm actually not claiming that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were torture (mostly because I don't have the relevant evidence). I'm asking you a broader question--why go through that elaborate exercise <I>at all?</I> Why on earth would you want to construct an argument that would <I>in principle</I> allow torture? <BR/><BR/>Would you extend your argument to Clint Black? "Iraq and Roll," is explicitly political, after all!<BR/><BR/>Since the consequences appear to include a gold album and a lot of money, I can't imagine that they're too upset.The Polite Liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12951285821981308688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10927300.post-1149539686574658862006-06-05T15:34:00.000-05:002006-06-05T15:34:00.000-05:00...the entire argument that people captured overse...<I>...the entire argument that people captured overseas are POWs,...</I><BR/><BR/>I assume you mean "are <B>not</B> POWs".<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that humiliation, sleep deprivation, and being barked at by a german shepherd are the same things as torture. I won't profane your eyes with a direct link, but you can find photos online of Saddam's torturers at work--including at Abu Ghraib. What our troops did may well have been wrong and actionable, but I reject the "torture" label. <BR/><BR/>k. d. lang used country music as a rocket ride to stardom, the better to flog her various political causes. If the Dixie Chicks are treading the same path, that'll keep them out of the core "family" of country acts, though not off the music charts. The Chicks of course have the right to spout off whatever to whomever they wish. They needn't act shocked and saddened, though, when the consequences duly come upon them.The Sanity Inspectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04808433661634318393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10927300.post-1149471350785841592006-06-04T20:35:00.000-05:002006-06-04T20:35:00.000-05:00Or, possibly, they were genuinely embarrassed that...Or, possibly, they were genuinely embarrassed that the President came from their state, and said so. Frankly, given the lengths to which he's gone to justify allowing the US to torture POWs, I'd be embarrassed too.<BR/><BR/>C'mon, now. Can you really go through the entire argument that people captured overseas are POWs, and so not subject to Article III, but illegal combatants, and so not subject to the Geneva Conventions, and are being held for purposes of national security, and so immune to restrictions passed under Article I (the text that the Congress has the power, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," notwithstanding), without feeling the slightest shred of embarrassment that you're constructing an enormous edifice to grant the President (and, indeed, any future President) a loophole for the sole purpose of allowing torture?<BR/><BR/>The President isn't the nation or the flag. There's nothing unpatriotic about criticizing him anywhere to anyone.The Polite Liberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12951285821981308688noreply@blogger.com