ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, August 21, 2006

BDS from Ted Rall

Ted Rall demonstrates again that he has succumbed to Bush Derangement Syndrome:



We live in a fascist state where they:

  • monitor your emails & phone calls (if you happen to be talking to someone associated with Al Qaeda)
  • "steal" your toothpaste and shampoo (because terrorists are using liquids to make bombs)
  • impose police checkpoints (somewhere, although I haven't ever been stopped at a police checkpoint in my town, in NYC, in any airport, in the subway, in train stations, etc, etc.... but I'm sure they exist, because Ted says they do!)
  • have established concentration camps (that Rall actually believes this is proof that he has lost touch with reality - despite his claims to be part of the "reality based community")
It's just so weird how deranged this guy is.

Unless..... wait... wait one minute!

Is Ted Rall making fun of the idiotic arguments of the Left?

COMIC GENIUS!!!!

I get it, Ted... I get it!!! You are amazing!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (9)
Stupid Country said...

Yeah, well...I don't have the faintest clue where you get your serene confidence that the NSA monitors "your emails & phone calls (if you happen to be talking to someone associated with Al Qaeda)" -- how does anyone know who or what they monitor or why? There are no rules, standards or oversight.

As for concentration camps, until someone figures out some sort of process for determining the basis for holding each of those individuals we have rotting in Guantanamo -- AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING THERE AREN'T GOING TO TURN OUT TO BE ACTUAL TERRORISTS AMONG THEM -- a system that reasonable people can agree constitutes a kind of "due process," then Guantanamo is a concentration camp. I suspect, though, that Ted refers to the secret CIA prisons we used to have (maybe still have) in Eastern Europe, and I think he's got a point about that.

At any rate, I can't see where you get off dismissing him as "deranged."

Immoral Majority said...

Perhaps this is not the original point of the cartoon, but it seems to me that the central issue is that the Bush administration is attempting to eliminate all oversight. The only assurances that we have that surveillance is limited to Al Qaeda is simply that that's what they claim. The only assurances that all of the people taken to Guantanamo, or to the secret prisons in Europe, are terrorists is simply that that's what they claim.

Presumably you trust the current administration with these powers, but what about the next administration? What if the Democrats win in 2008? Would you trust Hillary Clinton, ect. with unchecked powers of surveillance and imprisonment.

Ayman said...

Bush SUCKS!

St Wendeler said...

Were you concerned about Echelon during the '90s?

Seriously.... And wrt oversight, Congress is briefed on the topic - and those that have been are all in support of the program, recognizing that it is critical to the war on terror. (there's that word again!)

And finally, if the NSA has enough time and resources to monitor my conversation with gma about her recipe for snicker-doodles, that's just dandy. However, something tells me that they have more important things on their mind.

Concentration camps? There is a process that is used to give the detainees "due process" (aka military tribunals). Ironing out the details of those military tribunals is in process, but it's not like they were just summarily thrown in Gitmo. And given the fact that some have been released suggests that it is the furthest thing from a concentration camp (at least, if you're using the term to refer to the Nazi concentration camps of WWII).

And yes... Ted is deranged.

Immoral Majority said...

I had heard of Echelon, but I had to look it up to get the details. According to this website, the program has been in existance since WWII, and it seems to prove my point. It was set up to monitor communications that may reveal threats to US and UK security, but according to the article, it was abused by Clinton to promote the economic interests of private US and UK companies. Similarly, since domestic spying is illegal in the US and UK, the US would conduct the surveillance on the UK and vice versa, and then the information would be exchanged. Both of these examples are abuses of power, and would not have been permitted if there was sufficient oversight.

In response to the briefing of members of congress, those half a dozen Senators and Representatives are just as responsible for allowing the Bush administration's abuses of power to continue.

The "War on Terror" is not a blank check for the executive branch to do whatever it wants.

And the "due process" you speak of is a complete farce. Prisoners receive trials ONLY IF the administration decides that it is appropriate, i.e. they have some evidence. If the prisoner is lucky enough to get a trial, he is not even allowed to see the evidence against him, as that is considered to be sensitive information. And still, there are prisoners there who the administration ADMITS did nothing wrong, but they can't be released because after being held by the US they would be in danger if they were returned to their home countries.

And in regards to those few who have been released, most were held for three or four years. That's more than the prison sentence for some violent crimes. Of course no justice system is flawless, and some innocent people will always end up in jail, but at least with the civilian justice system they have a chance to prove their innocence. Yes, the comparison to concentration camps is a bit extreme, but is it more extreme than saying that Majikthise loves Nazis?

St Wendeler said...

And in regards to those few who have been released, most were held for three or four years. That's more than the prison sentence for some violent crimes. Of course no justice system is flawless, and some innocent people will always end up in jail, but at least with the civilian justice system they have a chance to prove their innocence. Yes, the comparison to concentration camps is a bit extreme, but is it more extreme than saying that Majikthise loves Nazis?
First, I've admitted that my Majikthise post was "over the top."

Second, you prove the point that the Left is not serious about the War On Terror.

It would be more accurate for you to compare the Gitmo detentions to the POW camps, etc instead of the criminal justice system

A couple of more comments like this and you'll be honored with a link on the Lefty Moonbat blogroll, IM....

;-)

Immoral Majority said...

The POW comparison is not valid because, first of all, the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to consider the prisoners POWs because then they would have rights under the Geneva conventions, like the right to not be tortured, imprisoned forever, etc.

I don't support the "War on Terror" not only because it is inhumane, but because it is ineffective. Rounding up hundreds of Arabs, holding them forever, and torturing them until they tell you what you want to hear is not only morally wrong, it's ineffective. Monitoring billions of phone calls and emails is not only an invasion of privacy, it is ineffective.

You can call me a "Lefty Moonbat" if you like. It won't hurt my feelings. Such name calling, used by both the left and the right, is just a convenient device to dismiss criticisms that they have no response to.

Stupid Country said...

Pat Roberts is happy with the briefings on the NSA spying program. Jay Rockefeller isn't. You may argue that that's a partisan difference, and that's true. But that argument cuts both ways -- Roberts has as strong a partisan reason to sound satisfied as Rockefeller has to point out the gaps in the briefings (and indeed the entire Congressional oversight process and whole fantasy that it's essential to the protection of freedom that the Administration hold itself above the law).

I'm not impressed.

As for the detainees, of course, by any rational measure, they were "just summarily thrown in Gitmo." The phrase captures it perfectly. The fact that a few have been released proves only that international pressure will eventually shame the administration enough to force it to make a shallow gesture or two. It proves nothing else, really.

I don't support the "war on terror" because it's a fantasy. There is no such thing.

St Wendeler said...

IM - I think you'll come to find that my use of Lefty Moonbat doesn't have the slanderous intent that you perhaps are feeling.

WRT POW camps... if the terrorists were legal combatants (as defined by the Geneva conventions - specifically those to which the US is a signatory), they would be afforded the protections you reference.