Is Lord Jim Really An Idiot? I Don't Think So.

[Andrew D]

I think that he hopes that the rest of us are idiots. After all, in a world of stupidity, the mediocre intelligence shines.

In a typical display of substance-free rhetoric, Lord Jim suggests that people who support closing the Guantanamo detention facility "participate in a lottery to be able to take one of the inmates home to come live with them". That bears, of course, no rational relationship to the issue presented by the actual facts.

The issue presented by the actual facts is whether people who support closing the Guantanamo detention facility would be willing to have the Guantanamo detainees housed in the nearest US federal maximum-security prison. And for me, the answer is "yes".

Why not? No international terrorist has escaped from a US federal maximum-security prison. So why should I be worried?

But Lord Jim is not interested in why I or anyone else should be worried about detaining actual or supposed terrorists in US federal maximum-security prisons. He wants merely to deflect our attention from that possibility.

He likes having people detained indefinitely, without charge, without trial, and without any evidence that they are terrorists. It gets his rocks off.

And those of you who are inclined to accuse me of trolling -- i.e., of trolling the trollingest poster on this board -- save your fingertips.

Lord Jim has chosen to concede, in advance, every point that I might make. He has put me on "ignore," because when it comes to sustained, logical argument, he just does not have what it takes. (Hence his silly little take-a-terrorist-home-with-you spewing.) Why should I not rub his nose in his own cowardice? It supposedly works with dogs ....

[rubato]

The international community, right and left, have said that Gitmo should be closed. Only the moron right in the US refuse to accept the obvious.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Give it a rest, Andrew. You're proving that Jim is right.

You're trolling for him.

I don't blame him for ignoring you.

[Gob]

I don't know if Andrew is actually trolling, or if he's just had one of his sense of humour failures, and not seen that Jim was making a joke.

[Andrew D]

Okay, Gob, assuming that the take-a-terrorist-home-with-you thing was a joke, what is his serious suggestion for what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo? As far as I can tell, he has nothing to offer but "keep them there, without charges, without evidence, and without trial, until they die."

What purpose could a joke -- in a posting that purports to be a serious "examin[ation]" of Obama's speech -- serve other than to deflect our attention from what he evidently wants?

Seriously.

Should we let them go? Or should we keep them there?

Some people would have us believe that those are the only reasonably available options.

In fact, however, there is another reasonably available option: Put them in US federal maximum-security prisons on US soil. The opposition to that alternative appears to be entirely political.

So what am I to make of the take-a-terrorist-home-with-you "joke" other than that the jokester wants us not to consider the maximum-security-prison alternative? And if the jokester wants us not to consider that option, what should I conclude other than that he is afraid that we will choose it?

[Andrew D]

I don't "blame" him either, Joe Guy. What other recourse does he have?

[Joe Guy]

I don't know if Andrew is actually trolling, or if he's just had one of his sense of humour failures, and not seen that Jim was making a joke.

No, it's trolling. If Andrew really wanted to discuss Guantanamo he wouldn't need to start a thread about Jim, and in it point out that Jim has conceded "in advance, every point that I might make...."

If you look up trolling in the dictionary of internet terminology, it has a picture of Andrew writing precisely those words.

Definition of Troll

Noun

1: One who trolls

e.g. AndrewD - see below:



Let's see, how about.... Lord Jim has chosen to concede, in advance, every point that I might make...... Yes, I like that...and... he has put me....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Of course the place should be closed. Bring 'em to secure prisons in the USA, give 'em their day in court and then live with the consequences. Isn't the rule of law what democracy is supposed to be about (one thing anyway)?

Meade

[TPFKA@W]

Is someone itching for a fight? I think so.

[Andrew D]

You're trolling for him.

No, it's trolling.

Where is this whinging when Lord Jim relentlessly trolls rubato?

[Andrew D]

Is someone itching for a fight? I think so.

Lord Jim is not going to "fight" me. He has to maintain, for his own reasons, the illusion that he is ignoring me.

My motivation is simple: Faux intellectualism irritates me.

[Sue U]

Of course the place should be closed. Bring 'em to secure prisons in the USA, give 'em their day in court and then live with the consequences. Isn't the rule of law what democracy is supposed to be about (one thing anyway)?

Meade

This, exactly.

[Rick]

My motivation is simple: Faux intellectualism irritates me.

One can only wonder how the weather is up there...

[Sean]

So have we decided? Is Jim an idiot or not?

Enquiring minds need to know...

[Rick]

Andrew answered that in the title, but evidently he is an (according to Andrew) intellectual fake...

[Joe Guy]

You're trolling for him.

No, it's trolling.

Where is this whinging when Lord Jim relentlessly trolls rubato?

,Andrew trollingly inquired.

[Andrew D]

You're trolling for him.

No, it's trolling.

Where is this whinging when Lord Jim relentlessly trolls rubato?

,Andrew trollingly inquired.

Joe Guy trollingly responded.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm always tres suspicious of using "faux intellectualism" in any sentence other than cette one. It sounds just a petit peux as if it belongs in



OTOH it also smacks of tourists d'Angleterre in French restaurants (en France) helping the garcon understand what they mean by saying loudly "Deux steak and chips, you git".

Or peut-etre it's just moi

Moide

[dgs49]

Nevertheless, the existence of GITMO, the reasons for its existence, and the alternatives to its existence are interesting points to ponder and argue.

To Andrew's point, LJ's suggestion - even though offered tongue-in-cheek - supposes that those who want to close GITMO are mainly of the opinion that the people incarcerated could be freed without causing any material harm to the U.S. or its interests, or alternatively, that "we" have no legitimate right to hold them any longer - thus they should be freed.

But for me, GITMO represents the two conflicting paradigms of international terrorism, and the fact that terrorists don't really fit into either one.

Those on the Left tend to think of terrorists and those we are fighting in the Godforsaken islamic countries as "criminals," who are entitled to a trial under (figuratively speaking) the Marquis of Queensbury rules. These people are embarrassed (as Americans) and actually horrified that we are holding these people for years without having proven them guilty of any crime. To them, GITMO is a symbol of everything that was wrong about the Bush43 Administration - lawlessness in an ersatz defense of "freedom" and the American Way.

We on the Right rather think of these incarcerated terrorists and enemy combatants as the modern-day equivalent of POW's. They are not incarcerated for what they have DONE, but rather for what they ARE - enemy combatants. Indeed, we don't particularly give a crap what they have done; it is sufficient that they were (mainly) captured while engaged in a "war" against the U.S. or its interests. POW's are not entitled to a trial, under "Constitutional" rules or otherwise. They must be incarcerated until the "war" is over. Otherwise - as has been demonstrated - they are likely to again join forces with our enemies and continue taking potshots at our soldiers. Why should we release them?

But neither paradigm is actually correct. There is only a "war" in the figurative sense, since there is no country we are fighting, no uniforms, and so on.

I personally would close GITMO because it is ungodly expensive, particularly when you look at it on a per-inmate basis. Release the inmates to Cuba and let them hitchhike home. Give them a couple bucks to tide them over. WGAS?

[Rick]

We on the Right rather think of these incarcerated terrorists and enemy combatants as the modern-day equivalent of POW's. They are not incarcerated for what they have DONE, but rather for what they ARE - enemy combatants. Indeed, we don't particularly give a crap what they have done; it is sufficient that they were (mainly) captured while engaged in a "war" against the U.S. or its interests. POW's are not entitled to a trial, under "Constitutional" rules or otherwise. They must be incarcerated until the "war" is over. Otherwise - as has been demonstrated - they are likely to again join forces with our enemies and continue taking potshots at our soldiers. Why should we release them?

Just for the sake of arguement: For all intents and purposes the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan is over. Should they be released?

What about those from Yemen (or what other country they may be from)? that was actually a theatre of war. What's their status?

Just askin? I don't feel any sympathy for them btw since I really don't know of any US POWs that have been returned. There may be some I just don't know about them.

The old we're becoming just like them is carp, we're throwing the baby out with the wash water...