... (0 comments)This is pretty beyond the pale, even for Fox News:
Here’s a key part of what he said:
Now look, Julie, I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies at wartime… I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.Amazing how these sociopaths are able to get up on the teevee day after day and say horrible stuff like this and it’s all ok — because you’re a Republican. Could you imagine the non-stop 24-hour-news freak-out on the right if someone like Howard Dean or Wesley Clark said something like this?
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
I was really hoping that Santorum would win the Iowa caucuses. The disgustingly puerile humor would have lasted for WEEKS! (0 comments)Good stuff: The National Labor Relations Board announced on Wednesday that it had adopted new rules that would speed up unionization elections, its last major policy decision before it drops to two members and can no longer make new decisions. It approved the rules in a 2-to-1 vote. The labor board said the new rules, which have ... (0 comments)A Dinosaur Infringed On A Patent For Rocks...
Reading this lead-in to an article today made me think of cavemen and dinosaurs:“The long-running antitrust suit Novell filed regarding Microsoft’s alleged tactics to prevent WordPerfect from running properly in Windows 95 seemed to be on the verge of conclusion…”
... (0 comments)
(DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
l fear for this young man, if he is released he will swap one tormenter for another and possibly get worse treatment from the US military. But l hope not! these are young men and we all know they make mistakes when drink is involved.
Is that guy serious? *sigh*
Desertion is punishable by death under a court martial.
We shouldn't pre-judge, but if we knew for an indisputable fact that he was guilty of willful desertion (which seems to be the Lt Col's hypothetical, not in so many words) then it would certainly be true that "the Taliban could save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills". (though, of course, they'd hardly be motivated to do so when the soldier is a useful propaganda piece--which makes it quite odd for the Lt Col to be entertaining the possibility).
I don't understand what's sociopathic or horrible about noting something true. The leftosphere's reaction to this clip seems to be a baseless or manufactured outrage that preys on ignorance of the seriousness of desertion.
Could you imagine the non-stop 24-hour-news freak-out on the right if someone like Howard Dean or Wesley Clark said something like this?
It would be quite shrill, but just as baseless and manufactured.
Lt Col. Ralph Peters is one of the truly crazed ones who feel that the terrorists are just the front runners of a total Muslim war in the Middle East aimed at the US. He does not want any reporters in the war zone, treating them as the enemy. If his ideas were to be followed we would be living in a garrison like existence under martial law. He also has no sympathy for the way we have been running the troops into the ground and with the combat fatigue and the suicides resulting from the constant combat operations. It figures that this piece of work would be exposing his extreme views on the station that pushes sensationalism before facts.
I'll take your word on the personal stuff against Peters, but I still don't see how this particular clip's hypothetical exposes "extreme views".
Capital punishment, while an extreme measure, was definitely within mainstream views of criminal and military justice last I checked. (As is the UCMJ as a whole, AFAIK).
I don't think it's helpful to label statements as extreme just because you don't like what's being said.
as a lawyer, i find horribly grotesque the suggestion that a summary execution of a captured US soldier by a hostile enemy is somehow equivalent to a court martial process, governed by the UCMJ, that ultimately finds such a soldier guilty of desertion.
i really don't take kindly to the dismissive brush-off of this as some kind of nutroots/"leftosphere" tactical manufactured outrage event and i don't have the time or inclination to go into the many ways in which I find the Lt. Col's comments offensive, but the complete disregard for the value of the rule of law comes to mind as well as the monstrous insensitivity to the poor family of this captured soldier who not only has to worry about the fate of their son in the hands of a hostile enemy but also irresponsible sociopaths like this Lt. Col. broadcasting that it might not be so bad if the enemy took it upon themselves to execute their son and thereby spare us the oh-so-inconvenient bother of allowing their son to mount a full defense before a court martial to the allegations of desertion. This cavalier disregard for the value of the rule of law reminds me too clearly of the ultra-hawk wing of the conservative movement who suggest that we'd have been better off if we just summarily executed all of the suspected al-Qaeda members rather than shipping them to Gitmo and exposing them to the anti-american efforts of the ACLU to afford them some measure of protection under the rule of law.
And let's not even get into the simple factual matter that desertion is rarely punished by execution in modern times as a result of a court martial (it usually results in a lengthy prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge).
That's all I really have to say on the matter.
Like I said, Peters seems to be offering the hypothetical of the soldier's guilt being indisputable. I don't get why it's grotesque to say that if we somehow knew such a thing for a fact, the same outcome could be achieved without the nicety of a trial.
The rule of law is useful because we do NOT know such things for facts--if we did, we wouldn't need a lengthy legal process, and such a case could be decided by summary judgement.
> let's not even get into the simple factual matter that desertion is rarely punished by execution in modern times as a result of a court martial (it usually results in a lengthy prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge).
This is more interesting, and I think it's fair to say that Peter's desire for an execution is not modern. It sure wouldn't be my choice. But, while old-fashioned, I don't see how that makes it too horrible or extreme to be discussed.
"The rule of law is useful because we NOT know such things for facts--if we did, we wouldn't need a lengthy legal process, and such a case could be decided by summary judgement."
the is pure and unadulterated malarkey. criminal trials (and courts martial) are never, ever, under ANY circumstance, subject to the imposition of summary judgment. every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense in an impartial tribunal. my head is spinning to think that you actually believe that we could conceivably dispense with the "nicety" of a trial if some mythical, omnipotently wise arbitral body were 150,000% convinced of a person's guilt.
Well I'm sorry but your head seems to be spinning with a lack of logic. Peters offers a hypothetical and conclusion of the form: "If A, then B".
As it turns out, A can never be true. There is no mythical body that can determine these things. But that doesn't mean the logic of "If A, then B" is somehow horrible.
Let me give you another hypothetical: If I were omniscient and infallible, I could replace much of the world's judicial system.
But, obviously, I'm not omniscient, and I'm not infallible, so the condition can never be met. This doesn't make the logic of my conclusion horrible or grotesque.
well, i'm not getting through and I must sleep. if you still think this is some kind of made-up-from-whole-cloth "leftosphere" "manufactured outrage" event after reading my commentary then, well, zzzzzzzz
The extreme review has to do with labeling the young soldier guilty of a crime on hearsay and opinion while he is still a captive. After hearing this report most of the airhead Fox viewers will have him judged guilty and convicted before the terrorists can kill him.
As to my opinion on the “talking head: Fox advisor you can start goggling his writings and works like I did.
Here's the quote: "But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies at wartime…"
Notice the "if" ? That's not "labeling the young soldier guilty". It's saying if he were guilty.
I'm sure that after hearing this some Fox viewers will think him guilty. But also, some won't. People pre-judge others' guilt and innocence all the time--this is what's known as "the court of public opinion". So what? Like I said, we shouldn't pre-judge. But hypotheticals are not judgments.
i really don't have time to keep replying tonight but you are just helping to illustrate why these comments and the resulting apologism genuinely infuriates me (and is not some casually dismissed "leftosphere" "manufactured outrage"). positing the hypo doesn't address the fundamental and unavoidable truth that the summary execution of a soldier by an enemy is about ten thousand light years away from the soldier being able to mount a full defense before a court martial to an allegation of desertion.
True, those things are far apart.
Also true, the hypothetical doesn't address your "fundamental and unavoidable truth" of them being far apart.
But the reason the hypothetical doesn't address this truth is because it's assuming a different truth--one in which the desertion is no mere allegation, but an incontrovertible fact.
If you rule such hypotheticals verboten, then how is someone to comment on what they think a suspect's punishment should be provided they're guilty? Maybe you think there should be absolutely no discussion of possible sentences until after a verdict?
If I became outraged every time someone on cable—or the blogosphere, or real life-- offered a conditional ("if A, then B") with an unsatisfiable antecedent (the "A" is false or cannot be determined), my head would asplode.
For the sake of juxtaposing with your IF-Then predication, i'll consider the ponderence of guilt as fact.
Having said that, how is it not outrageous for a ranking officer of the military to suggest this, or any US soldiers' death by the hands of enemy captors-- captors that we, of this great nation, are currently at war with, a favorable outcome?
Dissertion and the subsequent legal remedy, be it execution or courtmarshall, are concepts of United States justice. Therefore, your IF-THEN is not rational as the standard treatment of this charge would not have due process. My dear fool I assure you his captors would not be executing him in honor of US doctrine and justice…and I feel comfortable saying that as "fundamental and unavoidable truth".
Disappointingly, the Lt. Col. comments are tantamount to remote vigilantism. My goodness, we of this great nation might as well turn to the practice of "an eye for an eye" vs "judicial or military justice". Albeit, we would lose the constitutional foundation our country is based upon.
————My ultimate response to this story———--"No man left behind!"
I truly hope that Fox paid him enough for the public opinion lynching that he has arraigned for one trooper.
To me it shows how far that Bush and Cheney has driven the countries morals and ethics, that people cannot be appalled by the innuendo lynching of a US soldier by a prominent TV Network “talking Head” and instead replying that it is not worth spinning my head over.
Lt. Col Peters, go yourself, NOW, on the ground in Afghanistan, with the exact same gear that our boys are getting. Pay your own way. Prove that you believe this war effort is worth it.
I gotta offer a smirk at the irony of this being posted by "practical one".
That is about as likely as his corporate sponsors and fellow news reports showing up beside him.
oh great, this again….their crazy comments never get any less interesting! oh wait, yes they do.
It doesn't matter whether or not he committed a crime, doesn't matter what that crime was, doesn't matter how that crime is usually punished and doesn't matter how many other people were victims of it. None of that is in any way relevant.
Americans get trials before they are declared guilty of a crime. Soldiers get a court martial. That has been one of the most fundamental laws of the United States since the day the Constitution was ratified.
Those boys are shedding and spilling blood to protect that constitution. For another soldier -- sitting in a comfortable chair in a TV studio 10,000 miles away -- to say we should ignore 200 years of constitutional law because it would save us a few thousand dollars worth of legal expenses is to spit in their face. It is unAmerican and no different from Jane Fonda straddling a North Vietnamese artillery barrel calling our soldiers in Vietnam baby killers. He should apologize for disgracing his uniform and his fellow soldiers on national television.
Whatever that boy has done, the punishment is not execution without trial. That is how Iran and China settle their problems -- not us.
amen. i was trying to explain something similar to gherald above but wasnt having much luck
Well I tried replying to him twice, but some moderation queue is eating it : (
2nd that. Just as there's no rational legal justifiable basis for lynching, or child abuse, ever. No "If A then B". Gherald's gotta throw in the towel on this one.
And not a trial of public opinion by a “talking head” on Fox entertainment.
(a reply delayed by moderation queue)
For another soldier -- sitting in a comfortable chair in a TV studio 10,000 miles away -- to say we should ignore 200 years of constitutional law because it would save us a few thousand dollars worth of legal expenses is to spit in their face.
Perhaps. But this doesn't seem to be what Lt Col Peters actually said.
He seems to have said that if, somehow, we knew for a fact it was a desertion, the soldier's death could be a just end result. Perhaps even a sort of poetic justice.
Additionally, within the hypothetical (that is, assuming the soldier did desert), Peters's "as far as I'm concerned" language seems to be placing himself in the shoes of a "buddy" who's been let down by a desertion--a victim, of sorts. (Do I think the "buddies" of this particular deserter would be pissed enough to want to see killed by the enemy? No, but this seems to be Peters' thinking.)
Suppose a child is abused, and the father said of the perpetrator: "as far as I'm concerned, he should be [insert terrible fate]". Would this be a disgrace to his fellow citizens? Should the father's comment be interpreted as undermining the criminal justice system, or as a spit in the face of all possible suspects? Clearly not. It would only be human.
There's a reason why we don't let angry fathers of victims or supposedly angry "buddies of deserters" carry out their own justice. This doesn't make those people horrible for having their own ideas of what kind of justice they want to see.
Rather than being an outrageous attack on the justice system, this clip seems like a pretty good illustration of why we need one.
[Eh, I'm not throwing any towel in, but for some reason my attempts to reply were moderated, and then when LG got around to approving them and I tried to edit a sentence for clarity, it got put in the queue moderation queue again! So here's my fourth and maybe final attempt...]
Rooker writes: "For another soldier -- sitting in a comfortable chair in a TV studio 10,000 miles away -- to say we should ignore 200 years of constitutional law because it would save us a few thousand dollars worth of legal expenses is to spit in their face."
Perhaps. But this doesn't seem to be what Lt Col Peters actually said.
He seems to have said that if, somehow, we knew for a fact it was a desertion, the soldier's death could be a just end result. (Perhaps even a sort of poetic justice, if done by the enemy)
Additionally, within the hypothetical (that is, assuming the soldier did desert), Peters's "as far as I'm concerned" language seems to be placing himself in the shoes of a "buddy" who's been let down by a desertion--a victim, of sorts. (Do I think the "buddies" of this particular deserter would be pissed enough to want to see him killed? No, but based on Peters' comments, this is what he's thinking.)
Suppose a child is abused, and the father said of the perpetrator: "as far as I'm concerned, he should be [insert terrible fate]". Would this be a disgrace to his fellow citizens? Should the father's comment be interpreted as undermining the criminal justice system, or as a spit in the face of all possible suspects? Clearly not. It would only be human.
There's a reason why we don't let angry fathers of victims or supposedly angry "buddies of deserters" carry out their own justice. This doesn't make those people horrible for having their own ideas of what kind of justice they want to see.
Rather than being an outrageous attack on the justice system, this clip seems like a pretty good illustration of why we need one.
As the parent of a soldior serving in a hostile area I appreciate your well put sentiment. Thank you.
The manipulation of logic required to find Lt. Peters blathering non-offensive illustrates the futility of trying to have any serious discussion of any issue with the viewers of Fox News.
I am sorry ,but I do believe one keep the reporters out of the war zone for our soldiers sake the only reporters that should be there are the military reporters.Plus, leaving your post without being properly relieved is one of your general orders. So what this kid just like 3/4 of us signed a dotted line and knew even though they were going in for college you had that chance of seeing some type of conflict.So he should be punished.Remember this country was found by conservitives and military always had rules to go by.Sorry about his luck.
And who then watches the watchers? What stops the military from covering up every blunder, collateral damage (the opps those were civilians), or the sign offs on it was just the privates ideas; no one in command would ever sanction that. The military serves the Republic the Republic does not serve the military. We are exhausting the troop’s stamina by constantly returning them to combat with to little rest. Check out the suicides the murder and attempted murder of troops by their own. And then this “talking head” implies that the terrorists should just kill this trooper and save everyone’s time. That is just disgusting.
Doesn't it seem that the American soldier would be of even more propaganda value if the Taliban reported that the soldier had slipped away to join their cause? What's in it for the Taliban to claim the guy was captured if, in fact, he deserted?
I'd like to know how tough Lt. Col. Peters would behave if in the hands of the Taliban.
The terrorists like to spin just like our politicians like to spin. Do you think that would have had this kind of coverage if they would have just shot him? This way they can get Fox’s “talking heads” involved in condemning a US soldier for supposed actions, and attempt to destabilize our morale. Just because we see the terrorist as an animal does not mean that they are stupid.
Sorry, I have no idea why the moderation queue is so weird. I've setit to be very permissive. I'll probably just turn it off.PS. You're still way off base :). (Posting this from my BB)
Unbelievable!! Is this what our Senior Officers have regressed to? Are we now at the state of calousness that an American life can be given away at conjecture. This Colonel has done more to encourage the enemy in their deceptive practices and psycological maneuvers than any other single act of coersion in the war. Regardless of his title and position he should be Admonished if still on active duty or Retirement, if in that status. These young men are under tremendous pressure while serving this Country and deserve a little more consideration than this. Combat Zones have always had some Leaders that were "Nuts" adhering to a TV version of Bravery. I'll wager that he has never been in a truly unprotected situation, and we all know that prisoners of War are subjected to all kinds of coersion and tactics to induce an atmosphere of collaboration. Whatever the case, we do not sell out our Soldiers until the situation is accounted for.
Damn, sorry again for the bother. I will try to figure out how todisable moderation when I come up for air.
Thanks for adding these thoughts. Especially like last sentence.
So we can then disregard the Lt Col comments and implications the soldier should be killed “if” he was guilty? That it is perfectly proper for the “talking head” to insinuate that the soldier in case “could be a deserter?” That combat vets run to the edge of mental exhaustion can be made sport of by sensationalism just because the expert talking head implies that desertion is possible? Or nation has descended to the point where troopers who but their life on the line are subject to the “if” attacks by TV talking heads that do not have enough information? This is totally disgusting and very similar to how vet’s were treated during Vietnam, when people were to cowardly to spit on the politicians.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll try to answer the questions…
So we can then disregard the Lt Col comments and implications the soldier should be killed “if” he was guilty?
Disregard? It's one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth. It ain't worth much to me, so I don't understand what we're getting worked up about.
That combat vets run to the edge of mental exhaustion can be made sport of by sensationalism just because the expert talking head implies that desertion is possible?
If sensationalism were something to get worked up about, we'd all have to stay very, very, far away from cable news. I'm not sure what's special about combat vets being mentally exhausted.
Or nation has descended to the point where troopers who but their life on the line are subject to the “if” attacks by TV talking heads that do not have enough information?
Is there something in particular about being a trooper who puts their life on the line that I'm not aware of? Talking heads make opinionated comments and hypothetical about all kinds of different people, including non-troopers who put their life on the line. What is sacred about the military?
This is totally disgusting and very similar to how vet’s were treated during Vietnam, when people were to cowardly to spit on the politicians.
Quite a few things happened to vets during Vietnam, so you'll have to be more specific for me to understand the similarity you're concerned about and why it is important.
Gee Gherald so cold and so analytical that it does not bother you that a US solider can be declared a deserter and virtually condemned to death by a “talking head” who can afford to write off the soldier with a if. We both know that this has set the soldier up to be tried and found guilty by public opinion and you can only say “so what”. What is pathetic is that you can not understand why we are up set. I do not know if that is because you do not like the people in the military, or if you cannot understand how the public will lynch and tar and feather this trooper by the carful character assassination carried out by Fox news and their talking head. The basic unfairness cannot reach you so you can shrug it off with a cavalier “so what?”
..it does not bother you that a US solider can be declared a deserter and virtually condemned to death by a “talking head” who can afford to write off the soldier with a if.
Does it bother me that this talking head thinks a soldier could, possibly, be guilty of desertion? No. Do I agree with his opinion that, if so, he should be condemned to death? No.
We both know that this has set the soldier up to be tried and found guilty by public opinion and you can only say “so what”.
I don't know that. I don't suppose public opinion cares much. I don't have a TV, but I haven't seen any news after this clip so I suspect it was a just a blip in the 24 hour news cycle. And, yes: so what?
What is pathetic is that you can not understand why we are up set. I do not know if that is because you do not like the people in the military, or if you cannot understand how the public will lynch and tar and feather this trooper by the carful character assassination carried out by Fox news and their talking head.
I have no particular dislike of people in the military. But if speculating that someone could be guilty of something and should be condemned for it is "character assassination", then I guess I've done quite a bit of character assassination. For instance, I've often said Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, et. al. may be guilty of war crimes.
Or is this so-called character assassination only a problem when it's "carried out by Fox news and their talking head" ?
If you check out his writing and position statements the Lt. Col. Is way out their with the wacko’s. He also changes these positions as the politics change. Like Rush, and a large number of Republican leaders, he is in the game for what he can get out of it. How much can he make while still sounding like an expert, and the hell what happens to the solider that he sells down river with his infamous “if”.
There are many wackos on Fox News, plenty of which change their positions to suit the moment. This Lt Col may well be one such a wacko; I'm happy to take your word on that. So what?
So then it is all right for them to do a character assignation of a young soldier on network news just so sell air time. That they can us unsupported innuendo to spread their sensationalism and wreak a young mans life as they go. And all we can say is “So what?”
Still playing devil's advocate on this?
Playing? My position is genuine and, as best I can tell, correct >_>
As for still, it's still your lead post after more than three and a half days, Mr. busy man! ; )
Lol, such a fighter! Sorry for the post rate. I've been slammed withthis deal that hopefully will close next week. At least I figured outhow to post snarky replies to comments via blackberry :)
I read the article and listened to this subject on video…..I have also followed the comments in the past 4 days just to see if I could get a feel for the general thought of those who thought enough of the situation to post an opinion. I must say that many sure did take it as just another daily news post item, and other than a few blogs nothing has been further said on "FOX", the presenter of the Topic. I sincerely wonder if they were embarrassed by the actions of their commentator? Remember, freedom of speech does not include suggesting the taking of someones life, in any context.
Remember, freedom of speech does not include suggesting the taking of someones life, in any context.
Actually, it certainly does:
Even if the protection were less strict, any reasonable standard would surely permit the suggestion in a number of contexts. For instance, how else could a prosecutor argue for a convicted felon's execution?
For a more complete explanation see this PDF of a 1931 ACLU position.
Gherald is correct on this point. Advocating for the death of another person is protected unless it amounts to imminent incitement
To Gherald and LibraryGrape I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but are you saying that the subject speaker did not insinuate defamation of character or encourage/exhort a definite kind of violence to this Soldier? Yes, I realize that the First Amendment is broad, but the spokesman went on national TV to very deviously condem a US Soldier. However, If There is something very acceptable here by twisting our constitution for the benefit of a callous Idea,then I will now really begin to wonder where we are headed as a nation. Out of all of our wars and conflicts this is the first that I have recollection of outright condemnation before confirmation. There were many deserters during our past wars, but their cases were justly approached before villification to the public.