Cheney And Kristol are Greasy Propagandists

[Oleg Bach]

...that you can't keep your eyes away from. Dick Cheney's "greasy" bump and grind helps you get through the winter.

You are going to blow your rep.

[Sir Bandelot]

Actually bush_cheney is not lying whatsoever. He speaks about reality. Only difference is that, in his mind he has come to terms with it.

US policies have nothing to do with honour.

Bloodyminded, you just got "B_C'd". Hope you didn't get any on ya.

[bloodyminded]

Actually bush_cheney is not lying whatsoever. He speaks about reality. Only difference is that, in his mind he has come to terms with it.

Bloodyminded, you just got "B_C'd". Hope you didn't get any on ya.

Oh, no, I'm used to it. It's a relatively tolerable form of trolling.

[Gabriel]

???

Can't I concede that you are looking at the matter through your "moral conscience" while I am shutting mine down for the sake of legal protocol?

Good Christ, no.

That's not what I said. I conceded that your position is principled, but rejected your assertion that mainstream opinion (that I largely share) is unprincipled. You seemed to imply that mainstream opinion regarding reservation/s/resentment towards certain defense attorneys in certain legal cases is reactionary/emotional/unprincipled. You also obfuscated my clear statements by suggesting that somehow I was condemning all defense attorneys or the entire defense component of the legal system. I made it quite clear that I understand and sympathize with the public sentiment that the ad in question is trying to connect with - again, resentment of attorneys who defends animals. You can call these terrorists "suspects" if you wish, but reasonable people know that certain suspects are indeed guilty of their crimes. Reasonable people also do not feel some sort of obsession towards legal processes which results in us referring to persons like Major Nidal Hassan as a "suspect". This is a discussion forum, we can free ourselves from legalities such as that terminology. Here we can speak candidly about the truth.

Unlike yourself, I will not assume you are avoiding moral issues for the saqke of legal niceties.

Instead, I will happily report that we are both concerned with the moral aspects, but reach differing conclusions.

My observation, which I think is accurate, is that your morals/principles lead you to support the process as the highest of our values. My morals/principles, more simply, lead me to be concerned with the ends. Here we can agree to disagree. Put another way, I am more concerned with seeing despicable people punished for their crimes (which I imagine is the opinion of the mainstream) than I am with seeing maximum adherence to the protocols of our legal system (obviously with limitations). Many people have a sense that the justice system often operates in the best interests of the criminals, at the expense of broader values like justice and security. The ad in question taps into these feeling, by connecting the resentment that many folks feel towards the defense lawyers of evil persons. Let's be clear, I am talking about those extreme circumstances where guilt is obvious (OJ Simpson, Major Nidal Hassan, Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo, etc). In no way am I trying to denigrate all defense attorneys or the defense component of our legal systems.

Again, it copmes down, in the end, to the difference between suspects and the guilty. You name a name, and expand your argument out infinitely from that one example.

so are you saying that "we all know" that all these suspects are "suspects" in legal name only...and that they're actually guilty?

Because if so, it's a remarkable claim.

My claim is that we don't know; while your claim is that...we do know? Seriously?

Your ambivalence towards the certain guilt of certain individuals is surprising. I do not wish to engage in a discussion about why many individuals (such as the animals I listed above) are guilty of their crimes. I'm not sure if you're trying to misrepresent my words, or not.... are you trying to imply that I'm suggesting that all accused persons of all crimes are guilty? If so, please discern between extremely awful and obvious cases and those cases which aren't as obvious or brutal.

Again, I wish to underline the fact that moral consideraitons are all I'm concerned about here.

As for your point about lawyers who knowingly represent the guilty, I've got a couple of remarks:

First, there have been a lot of people exonerated from prison--even from death row, in the U.S.--who were "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" to be guilty. Often with multiple, disinterested eyewitnesses.

Those defense attorneys were no doubt much hated for their "despicable" actions.

You're obfuscating again. The cases being referenced by the ad are of an extreme and personal nature to Americans. The defense attorneys labelled the "Al-Qaeda 7" are those who defended and/or advocated on behalf of Gitmo terrorists. You may wish to constantly refer to them as "suspects" to satisfy your left-wing sensibilities, but most of us are extremely comfortable labelling them as terrorists. By natural extension, many of us have reservations about these attorneys being put into positions at DoJ on the public dollar. Cheney and Kristol are wise to exploit this completely legitimate sentiment among much of the American public - a sentiment I share. I would not want Omar Khadr's attorney(s) or advocates securing public service positions in the Canadian government, for example. Nobody cares about more obscure cases where innocent people were wrongfully incarcerated. You're extrapolating WAY too much and running off into tangents. I think you're in small company by interpreting the ad to be a condemnation of all defense attorneys or of the defense component of our legal systems.

Even though it turns out they were on the side of jsutice...and the prosecutoirs...well, that's not so clear, is it?

So even the most obvious cases can be open to less outraged judgement.

But more to the point, why are these defense lawyers the ones who are despicable and shouldn't serve the public's trust?

what about people who sit on the Board of Directors for WalMart...a company that was PROVEN to be profiting handsomely from sweatshop labour so egregious that it's a small step up from slavery...how come they aren't bad for the public trust?

That's Hillary Clinton, by the way.

Well, I'm a huge fan of Wal-Mart, and it's one of the most ethically-conducted businesses in history - no company has gone to further lengths to improve the working conditions of persons in the factories of the manufacturers with which it was business relationships. Still, your little jab at Wal-Mart is irrelevant and ill-informed. Keep watching those Greenwald documentaries. You're starting to paint a picture of yourself as a left-wing reactionary. From your outrage over a non-offensive ad (one you seemed to describe as the most offensive in a decade!) to the anti-Wal-Mart knee-jerk leftist arguments, I'm starting to form an impression of your politics....

You're again going off on a huge tangent, though. I'd strongly advise you to narrow your focus and not derail this thread, otherwise the discussion becomes a disaster.

How about the Bush dynasty's various dealings with unsavoury types, from the Nazis to the Saudis, for business purposes. (Never mind the undoubted immoral excesses of their other business dealings.)

Is morality important for lawyers...but is to be derided as "leftist" or "shrill" (the typical platitudes) when talking about the businessmen who practically run North American politics? Why?

Are former prosecutors suspect? I doubt there's a single long-term prosecutor who has never at least suspected he might have incarcerated an innocent man or woman.

Are you seriously starting to talk about the Bush family's business dealings in a thread about a conservative ad criticizing Eric Holder's selections of employees at the DoJ? Give your head a shake, you're running into irrelevant tangents left and right.

This conversation has become boring.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, no, I'm used to it. It's a relatively tolerable form of trolling.

...and much preferred to smug whining about "Truth, Justice, and The American Way".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAROcbv4gco

Edited March 4, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

That's not what I said. I conceded that your position is principled, but rejected your assertion that mainstream opinion (that I largely share) is unprincipled. You seemed to imply that mainstream opinion regarding reservation/s/resentment towards certain defense attorneys in certain legal cases is reactionary/emotional/unprincipled.

No. Not unprincipled. Reactioanry and emotional, yes. The second is a normal part of human frustration at sometimes inefficient social/political machinery; but the first is not quite so easy to empathize with.

You also obfuscated my clear statements by suggesting that somehow I was condemning all defense attorneys or the entire defense component of the legal system. I made it quite clear that I understand and sympathize with the public sentiment that the ad in question is trying to connect with - again, resentment of attorneys who defends animals. You can call these terrorists "suspects" if you wish, but reasonable people know that certain suspects are indeed guilty of their crimes.

But are ALL the suspects--in this precise case, which we're talking about--guilty of their crimes?

Do you not suppose that "reasonable people" (a category from which you have chosen to eject me) know that certain suspects are indeed NOT guilty of their crimes?

If you think so--or feel so, which seems to be your unsatisfying response--why?

Reasonable people also do not feel some sort of obsession towards legal processes which results in us referring to persons like Major Nidal Hassan as a "suspect". This is a discussion forum, we can free ourselves from legalities such as that terminology. Here we can speak candidly about the truth.

I agree; and barring some unheard of conspiracy of which I'm unaware, Hassan is certainly guilty of murder.

But we don't know this about all the suspects in question (from the "al-queda 7") in the same way. We just do not. You think we do, for...some reason, unstated.

We DO know that a lot of detainees--who are, by definition, "suspects," were sold to coalition forces for bounty. We know that some have been innocent. We know that some have been TRIED and found innocent. We know that some innocent detainees have been killed while detainees.

These are not controversial statements. They are flatly true.

This doesn't mean there are no real criminals--of course there are.

But neither you, nor "mainstream America" knows that each of the subjects under discussion is guilty.

It doesn't matter one whit if you insist on repeating it; you DO NOT know.

And to say you do is NOT a "principled" stance. At all.

My observation, which I think is accurate, is that your morals/principles lead you to support the process as the highest of our values. My morals/principles, more simply, lead me to be concerned with the ends

Here we can agree to disagree. Put another way, I am more concerned with seeing despicable people punished for their crimes (which I imagine is the opinion of the mainstream) than I am with seeing maximum adherence to the protocols of our legal system (obviously with limitations).

Without those principles of the legal system, we simply will not know if justice has been served. Your "ends" are a total fantasy without those protocols. Leave Hassan aside...because I agree with you. I'm talking about the cases (ie the majority of cases) where the guilt is not nearly a given.

Your "Ends" without the protocols means innocent people will be indicted. Period. And that's a travesty; it's monstrous.

And whether or not this entity called "mainstream America" feels that detainees equals guilty terrorists...well, that is simply not principled. It is unprincipled.

You keep saying "this is not only a legal matter; this is a discussion where we can speak the truth."

But to say that we know all these men are guilty terrorists IS NOT THE TRUTH. I"m not talking about legal niceties; I'm talking about objective reality, with people's futures in the balance.

Many people have a sense that the justice system often operates in the best interests of the criminals, at the expense of broader values like justice and security.

Arguably, at the expense of security. But it operates as such for all our protection. That's why it is like this.

Yes, justice doesn't always get served. Of course that's true.

But if it worked the other way, it would be repressive and unfair and tending to indict more innocent people. That does not serve justice either...and in fact, I would consider it worse.

The ad in question taps into these feeling, by connecting the resentment that many folks feel towards the defense lawyers of evil persons. Let's be clear, I am talking about those extreme circumstances where guilt is obvious (OJ Simpson, Major Nidal Hassan, Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo, etc). In no way am I trying to denigrate all defense attorneys or the defense component of our legal systems.

I get what you're saying...but you are also saying that the defense lawywers in question--the ones brought up in the ad--are defense lawyers of evil persons.

You've already indicted these particular suspects. They're not all Hassan.

You're obfuscating again. The cases being referenced by the ad are of an extreme and personal nature to Americans. The defense attorneys labelled the "Al-Qaeda 7" are those who defended and/or advocated on behalf of Gitmo terrorists.

You see? There you go again.

You may wish to constantly refer to them as "suspects" to satisfy your left-wing sensibilities, but most of us are extremely comfortable labelling them as terrorists.

Why? Explain to me why. What do you know about each of these fellowes that makes you so confident?

Nobody cares about more obscure cases where innocent people were wrongfully incarcerated. You're extrapolating WAY too much and running off into tangents. I think you're in small company by interpreting the ad to be a condemnation of all defense attorneys or of the defense component of our legal systems.

Then what is the difference--exactly the difference--between the military defense lawyers and these ones? Are we afraid to upset the politically correct "mainstream America" bandwagon by criticizing the sacred names of soldiers?

And what is the difference between these lawyers and Giuliani's firm?

Kristol/Cheney's ad is wholly partisan--it selectively plays off of mainstream concern over defense lawyer reputations...ignoring that which shatters their argument to its core.

That IS acumen, you are correct. Successful deceit-propaganda often does show acumen.

Well, I'm a huge fan of Wal-Mart, and it's one of the most ethically-conducted businesses in history - no company has gone to further lengths to improve the working conditions of persons in the factories of the manufacturers with which it was business relationships. Still, your little jab at Wal-Mart is irrelevant and ill-informed. Keep watching those Greenwald documentaries. You're starting to paint a picture of yourself as a left-wing reactionary. From your outrage over a non-offensive ad (one you seemed to describe as the most offensive in a decade!) to the anti-Wal-Mart knee-jerk leftist arguments, I'm starting to form an impression of your politics....

I don't care what you think of my politics...not since you've chosen to be aggressively irritated and insulting.

As to Wal-Mart...oh yes, you're certainly right they've improved the working conditions in their low-wage factories. Perfectly true. Yet it had to BE improved FROM something, didn't it?

And the reason they improved was not--this will be difficult for you to believe--was not because they had a sudden moral revelation about their squalid behavior.

No...it was because of people complaining and protesting, and writing things about them much like I just did...THAT'S why they changed.

So, you commend their changes...but you despise the people responsible.

Awesome.

As for your adulation of the behemoth...let me disabuse you of some adoration of powerful entities: I worked at WalMart. I was a WalMart employee.

And so I can tell you objectively that your benign heroes are assholes. I mean by policy, by design, they are flaming assholes. I was lucky to have been working under a decent manager, and a decent supervisor. (so decent that they were sheepish and embarassed at the draconian, uncaring nature of the company...as any decent, moral person would be). So, perhaps Walmart is quite talented at hiring good people for management and supervisory positions.

But on the whole, they are not nice.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded