Tom Cotton Wants Terror Detainees To 'Rot In Hell,' But He'll Settle For Gitmo

Dayum! Get 'em, Tom Cotton!

I have a new choice for Secretary of State.

*sigh*

The thing is, that's fine when you're talking about actual "captured-in-arms" terrorists. Or, if not "fine," at least defensible.

The problem is - and we have known this for years - is that there are a certain number of detainees who are not terrorists, who never were terrorists, who were the victim of tribal politics. Coalition soldiers go knocking on doors asking if you've seen anything suspicious.

"Why, yes, my neighbor Bob. He's totally suspicious. You should arrest him."

Now, sometimes, Bob was, in fact, a member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda or otherwise just involved in the insurgencies.

Sometimes, Bob had a really sweet piece of land that his neighbor wanted, or had simply had a feud with his neighbor about whatever, and the neighbor threw him under the bus.

But politics aren't that different around the world. Once you go to Guantanamo, you get the label of "terrorist" because they wouldn't have sent you there if you weren't a terrorist. QED. Now what happens you've had Bob hanging out there for an indeterminate period of years, receiving the same treatment as people we knew were part of al Qaeda, and Bob's country doesn't want him back, because the people in-country would see that as their government bringing home a terrorist.

Domestic politicians freak out about the idea of repatriation, either because they've bought into the tautological fallacy that "Bob wouldn't have been sent to Guantanamo if Bob weren't a terrorist," or because they believe "Well, we've fucked Bob over pretty good, and if we send him home now, he'll be SUPER terroristy because he's mad."

So when you stop and think about that latter argument, what you're saying is "By our actions, we've made him into a terrorist, and if we let him go, he will attempt to do us harm, so we need to keep him in prison."

That's not that different from arresting somebody domestically, railroading him for murder, and then saying "well, he's been exposed to murderers and rapists in prison, so if we let him out, he's just gonna go a-killin' and a-rapin' so he can rot in hell."

It's a soundbite that plays great with people like Jon who support a police state, or people who are so terrified about their safety that they will willingly accede to anything the government wants to do as long as the government promises it will keep them "safe," but it sets a troubling precedent.

That's the issue with the idea of closing Guantanamo. Nobody has suggested that we just release people for whom we have evidence of having committed acts of terrorism. The argument that has been made has been "if there's a case, take the accused to trial, get your conviction, and carry out sentencing. The prisoners who never should have been there in the first place should be let go."

If you're concerned that the sentence would be insufficiently light, the proper solution is to change the law. Indefinite detention in an offshore prison probably costs more than it would to throw them into Supermax, and it doesn't actually do anything to reduce the risk of domestic terror attacks. About the only act Guantanamo protects against is an assault on domestic prisons with an eye towards jailbreak. Nobody in ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other proscribed group is going to say "well, we WOULD try to attack New York City to punish the US for the detention of our people, but since they're detained in Guantanamo, we'll just take a pass on that."

Hey, I got no desire to leave Gitmo open. If we've gotten all the info possible, kill the f'n bastards & be done with them.

Once again, not everybody who has been imprisoned there was a terrorist, or even had information to share. That may yet be true of some who are still there - people who were arrested on the say-so of others with an axe to grind, who had no reason to be there in the first place, who had no value as prisoners.

The Republicans have spent the last six years trying to block the President's efforts to transfer *anybody* out of the prison. Maybe it's institutional mindset that "if you're there you're a terrorist because if you weren't a terrorist you wouldn't be there." Maybe they believe that if they can prevent even Barack Obama from fulfilling just one campaign promise, it will finally expose him to the country as a lying liar who lies and nobody will ever vote Democrat again.

Maybe the right-wing is batshit insane and trying to analyze their reasons for doing anything is foolish.

I don't know. But "they can rot in Hell" and "kill the f'n bastards & be done with them" speaks far more (or less) about the character of the speakers than it does about the character of the imprisoned.

And I purposefully posted the main context of his speech and then "The Huffington Post's" version of his speech. Just to show the differences between what he said and how a liberal slant really pushes a different agenda of what he said to their readers. :)

I'm reasonably certain that Jon has said that if they ended up at Guantanamo they're reasonably guilty of someone and thus he'd be OK with the so-called "collateral damage" of killing them all.

I'll be plain, just in case there's any confusion:
that's not "damage", that's planetary improvement.

Its going to be a messy fight in Mosul and if the military commanders think its justified, Obama should go ahead with the recommendation.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/06/us/isi...ops/index.html

You know, if somehow you ever got reported by someone with an axe to grind and wound up there...I'd feel bad. A little. While I ate popcorn and waited to see how much green energy would be created from the holy backtrack, Batman.

Jon is giving up liberal sensibilities for math. If accidentally capturing 10 innocents...and then letting those 10 rot with the 300 terrorists....then we are better off than if we let all 310 go...because each terrorist is going to kill 10 innocents a piece. The lesson? Dont ever hang out with terrorists because the US Army might just confuse your dumbass with um...being a terrorist.

Nobody is talking about releasing everybody. The discussion is release some, put some on trial with military tribunals and put some in supermax. At least argue against what's actually being discussed.

No, the lesson is don't live in a country where there might be terrorists, next door to neighbors who might have a grudge against you. They might just sell your ass down the river. Omelettes, broken eggs and all that.

You realize your "terrorist math" also justifies bombing the shit out of a civilian hospital if you think terrorists might be using it as a shield, right? Sucks to be them, but the lesson isn't don't be sick or injured in a place where bad people might be.

I would have thought 13 1/2 years would have taught even the most ardent post-9/11 pants-pisser about why betraying principles for expedience is a mug's game in the long run, but apparently we've no shortage of right-wing mugs willing to spin the wheel.

Well, to be fair, we've already released all the one's we figured were safe to release...which is like half of these fuckers and the bad one's went back and started killing people. Let's face it, we can't figure out who's good and who's bad, but they were all picked up hanging with some real bad dudes who were fighting Americans. If anything, if any of them that are left aren't guilty of shit, they got a pretty good axe to grind once we let them go. So...I agree, "Fuck 'em all"...and then let President Hillary apologize for our "gruesome" actions and make us look like heroes, because in the end, that decision would save lives and lots of them. One thing I know we can agree on--nobody wants more good people dying because of these terrorists and their "innocent" associates.

{shrug}

I don't believe in the fiction that there's any such thing as "an innocent Muslim".
And I genuinely pity anyone naive enough to fall for that fantasy.

{shrug}

Have you ever considered that being illegally locked up and tortured for a number of years has probably set any of the ones which might have been 'good' into a mode where they might no longer be .... just saying that the whole setup is a total farce and I find it ludicrous that anyone can justify having an illegal detention camp where people were tortured as being 'right'.

Right. Because every single one of the billion Muslims on the planet secretly harbors in his or her heart the desire to KILL ALL THE PEOPLE and meanwhile Christians certainly never the better part of a thousand years persecuting Jews for "blood libel" and killing Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land. They are, in fact, every single one just peaceful people who wouldn't dream of shooting up a temple of the wrong faith entirely because their victims' manner of dress is similar to the intended targets, or set off bombs at a gay bar with the intent of injuring/killing both patrons and first responders.

No sir, there is no such thing as a Christian who would commit violent acts against people with whom they have theological differences and, why, if there were? That would surely mean that the acts of those don't-exist-and-never-did extremists were sufficient to proclaim that there's no such thing as an innocent Christian. And we all know THAT can't possibly be true.

Welcome to how fucked up America has become in the 21st Century, Marc.

It's not right, it's not good, it's not fun, it's not anything positive. All I'm saying is that you let those people go and they will kill, just like the one's we've already let go. That's not a "fucked up, America", that's the world currently live in. There is no "right" when it comes to Islamic Extremism. It's here not because we water boarded a couple of bad guys to find Bin Laden...it's because we don't follow the faith of Islam. You do at least acknowledge that, right?

It's un-fucking-believable that this kind of pure bigotry is permitted on FOFC. If someone posted that "there's no such thing as an honest jew" or "there's no such thing as a hard working black", they'd be banned immediately and permanently. Considering that I know we have Muslim members, this is simply disgusting.

Ball is in your court, mods. Either you take appropriate action or everyone here will realize that you sympathize with these bigoted views.

Jon, Sack, and Blackie clearly all need a break from the political stuff. 2 weeks each.

Bottom line: Jon has some views that are extremely unpopular. It's not trolling to have those views. At some level, both of the following things are true:

1. Those who disagree with him need to chill. We don't disallow extremely unpopular viewpoints.
2. Jon needs to temper posting those viewpoints when someone else is already clearly riled up. Having those viewpoints isn't trolling. Using them at opportune times to send people over the edge is, to some degree, a form of trolling.

I can't be *certain* that's what he was doing there, but it seems like the prudent thing to just let all three of them take a break. Clearly these types of discussions tend to go more smoothly when the kind of inflammatory stuff that we've seen lately isn't posted.

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch

The below FP link has survey results (including ranking the Sec of States). There were 13 -- Rice, Eagleburger, Kerry were the last 3 in order.
The Best International Relations Schools in the World | Foreign Policy

The survey also asked about the most important foreign policy issue the US will face in 10 years -- Global climate change, China's military power, armed conflict in ME in order.

If it was me, I would have China and ME as top 2.

So you're giving the bigot and the people who disagree with the bigot two weeks each? Yeah, Ben, not feelin this one. I defended you with the DT boxing even to DT, but in my opinion, you done fucked up bigtime on this one.

I'm not sure it was bigotry. There is no such thing as an innocent Muslim. There is no such thing as an innocent Christian. There is no such thing as an innocent Hindu. There is no such thing as an innocent Buddhist. There is no such thing as an innocent atheist or agnostic. There is such a thing as an innocent Jew, but there was one and only one of those. Part of me wonders if that is what he was doing there, but he just said the one piece of it to troll.

Beyond that--and I don't know if this is a place where I'm changing, or, as I suspect, a place where the online community in general is changing--a big issue here is that there is SO much that passes for "discussion" that is little more than name-calling and villifying the "other side" in general. I'm reacting to that from both sides of this particular flare-up. There are very few people out there--and, I suspect, virtually none on this board--who are simply intent on making things worse. The huge majority of people, be they right or wrong in their personal political belief system, truly believe that their ideas, if implemented, are for the best. Yet more and more, online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads way more than actual discussion. And this particular flare-up is a classic example of that.

Ben: If you're not sure Jon is bigoted, then either nothing I could say could convince you, or you're just plain not paying attention:

"....For as much as I lean toward the pretty black glass solution in much of the middle east"

(To Jon): It's unfortunate that some people think turban equals Muslim. Or that Muslim equals enemy.

(Jon) Well, at least you managed to hit .500. (Foz: He's referring to Muslim=enemy)

He then goes on to add the dictionary definition: Enemy: "1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe."

And if you wonder why online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads? It's because people are upfront about their racism, bigotry and whackaloon-ness very loudly and publicly, and you have to spend hours trying to tell people that no, vaccines don't cause Autism, that Obama isn't a secret Muslim sent to destroy America, etcetera etcetera.

Boxing the people calling him on his bigoted bullshit the same amount reminds me of the "two sides to every argument thing... so the truth has to be in the middle". And it's not. So you have two options in such situations.

A) Leave political threads and let the crazies on both sides have at it.
B) Comment and risk getting boxed because "there's two sides"

The "it" was *that statement*. Not the entirety of his work. I don't suspend or ban people for their beliefs. I suspend or ban people for their actions. At issue was the *statement*, not his belief system.

Again Ben: To try to take Jon's statement in a vacuum, without realizing that Jon has a history of making inflammatory, attacking, bigoted posts like the one that touched off the replies that you're boxing people for (call it trolling if you must) is being aware of Jon's history and doing mental gymnastics worthy of a DC Public Relations Firm to appear "even-handed".. or you just plain don't pay attention to the board unless posts are reported.

Not saying that there's anything wrong with that from a forum member, I know that FOF the forum and FOFC/Off-Topic have drifted apart a bit..

But as a mod, you need to be aware of such things, and I personally think either way, you've failed in that duty with your actions this mornign.

So we're doing a member purge right when there's potentially new attention on the board for the first time in forever?

I notice DT never came back. That's the risk of this kind of stuff. At what gain? What's the point? If these guys come back are they going to be less opinionated? And that's the goal? Why? It's a political thread. I'd put that outside the top 100 of aggressively opinionated exchanges here. Maybe just lock the thread if OT stuff is going to be looked at this way again.

SirFozzie, I think you are treading into problematic waters. If, in a political forum, you, from the left can demand someone from the right be banned, then the opposite will be true too. For instance, should we be able to ban people who openly wish for more socialism or even communism?

Ben didn't ban them for having an opinion, he banned them for attacking each other...or perceived trolling.

....or rather....given time-out...not banned...

Dutch: When someone descends to the same level of bigotry and attacks that Jon has repeatedly in the past? Then, and only then, talk to me and see what I think.

I would've gone for a week for Jon, and nothing for Blackadar or SackAttack

And Molson: I don't think DT's two weeks are even over yet.

How is the board or the rest of us harmed by people getting a little short with each other? The board is definitely hurt by driving off posters and limiting content

And this is nothing more than my opinion, based on the impression I get, that Honestly, Ben would be happier if he didn't have to deal with Off Topic, 98% of his posts or so lately are in the FOF7 forum, so when things get reported, his natural impulse is to come in, see who has "heat" (ie, posting hot), and box them for a couple weeks without understanding the situation.

Looking back, I think both of those suspensions ended Friday or yesterday, so, ya, it wasn't as long ago as I thought. I don't feel any safer from having those guys gone, I don't feel like the board has been any better (I think we can all agree that the Super Bowl thread was much worse for DT's absence). So what's the point? Does this all have something to do with Steam?

And you're right that the mods have actually expressed disdain for the OT section of the board. Which is such an odd mod dynamic, but it's been a while and that seems to have died down. But hold on, it's blowing up again!

If you want to extend "direct personal attacks" to also include "offensive to me ideology" then the politics here are about to get the axe. You best be aware of that!

The funny thing is, there's probably no 3 more posters that have annoyed me more here, in totally different contexts, than DT, JIMGA, and Blackie. But the great thing is, I'm a grown-up, so I don't need a mod to protect me from them. I can ignore them, I can respond to things I disagree with. They're all such unique personalities that have been here forever, and the board loses a lot with their absence. There's no winners and no point to any of this. Oh well.

Honestly, if theses boxings are representative of the way it will be modded, killing it is a far better option. As molson said, this isn't anywhere close to the level of heat of dozens of discussions in this thread.

Dutch: There's a difference between "offensive to me ideology" and "rampant bigotry" and Jon crossed that line long long ago. As Blackadar said, there are members of every faith and creed here. Let's, for the sake of reference (and not to provoke anyone into any further religious flame wars), say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarian) religion was serious, and had a percentage of FOFC equal to the major faiths and creeds (Catholic, Islamic, etcetera)..

You follow that (you've been touched by his noodly appendage). You don't even have to be particularly devout, but it is what you believe.

Then you have someone taking every opportunity to express loudly, publicly, and angrily, that "Pastafarians are nothing more than Noodle-Fuckers and should be exterminated. Any nation that follows it should be on the list to be glassed.".

And this kind of attack turns personal with the kind of comments that Jon's made in the past and made in this thread (up till recently without consequences)

You can understand being slightly (or not so slightly) perturbed can't you?

If they were banned for life, I'd agree wholeheartedly with you, but it's a 2-week cooling off-period to lower the emotions a notch.

As infuriating as Ben can seem sometimes, you have to remember that he's almost mechanical in how he deals with this stuff. "Talk politics, but personal attacks won't be tolerated" has been the mantra for what? 15 years now? This is nothing new. So when long-time veterans fail to remember that and call other members names or troll them, I blame the aggressor for that, not Ben.

I've had a member on PM "warn"/threaten me about discussing opposing view politics here (regarding Ferguson, MO)...but since that's just a personal attack, I should be cool with that? (I did in fact, ignore it...but I didn't agree with that sort of method for a message board.)

But Blackadar has called me a racist before, so according to your criteria, I too should be lifetime banned?

I just have one question. Is a mornign like a benign morning or something??

DT's two weeks were up yesterday morning.

Either that, or "foz is still awake at 10:30 am and needs sleep badly". (in my defense, I slept from 10 PM-2:30 AM and then couldn't fall back asleep :P)

Interestingly, the survey was rating the "effectiveness" of each SoS, which is somewhat different from how "good" they were.

Sure, I'd agree Kissinger was the most effective SoS. But was he the best? I'm reasonably certain that if you asked those academics that question, there's be plenty who called him "most effective" who wouldn't call him "best". There'd probably be plenty who called him "worst" and also "most effective".

The story author is playing fast-and-loose with words, Edward. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

To relate to the Brady/Manning debate. :) While Kissinger might be similar to Tom Brady (most effective), Kerry's no Manning (best).

I'm good with this, but I'll point out that this is a new paradigm, and has not always been applied consistently in the past.


I don't think bigot is the correct term for someone who hates so many. Yes, I'm sure there's bigotry in there somewhere, but I think it goes far further with Jon. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's said so in an exchange with me at some point.


Oh come on, Ben. That's clearly not how Jon meant it.


Yep.

In the context of the argument, which was about the legality and morality of locking up and even executing people without due process, there absolutely is such a thing as an "innocent Muslim".