- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14604927
Conservatives Quickly Turn Against āIdiotā Marjorie Taylor Greene
The Georgia Republican is fast falling out of favor for her opposition to the Ukraine aid bill.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greeneās failed fight to end aid to Ukraine, and herĀ sort-of-serious crusadeĀ against House Speaker Mike Johnson, has cost her the support of right-wing media.
The Sunday front page of the New York Post, owned by the conservative Murdoch family, was the latest outlet toĀ attackĀ Greene, invoking the āMoscow Marjorieā nicknameĀ coinedĀ by former representative Ken Buck.
Fox News, another arm of the Murdoch media empire, had alreadyĀ taken aimĀ at the Georgia Republican last week, with columnist Liz PeekĀ callingĀ her an āidiotā and saying she needs to āturn all that bombastic self-serving showmanship and drama queen energy on Democrats.ā This follows an editorial last month from The Wall Street Journal, also in the Murdoch portfolio, that called Greene āRep. Mayhem Taylor Greeneā and accused her and her allies of being āmost interested in TV hits and internet donors.ā
Even a non-Murdoch outlet is on the attack, as conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra SaundersĀ demandedĀ to know āwho put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge?ā
Everyone has said they would shut down Gitmo, and then they do not.
Gitmo served a purpose in the early days of the war and quickly lost that purpose. It should have been shutdown a long time ago.
I donāt think I agree with you about Gitmo ever serving a purpose. It was entirely outside of Geneva Conventions and served as a secure prison for anyone deemed an enemy of the state, including US citizens. Torture was regularly practiced and there was no oversight; it was an oubliette into which people disappeared for years, with no representation or recourse. Gitmo was everything the US should stand against, when we consider our highest ideals and morals.
The US has plenty of blood on its hands, but Gitmo was out in the open; there was no subtlety, it wasnāt a ādark secret.ā The only thing it accomplished was to prove that you can scare the current American public enough that theyāll accept nearly anything, including stuff that would have outraged the WWII US public.
Gitmo had nothing to do with Geneva. It dealt with US law. If we brought them back to our soil, theyād have full protections under the constitution.
Gitmo was supposed to be a stop gap while we figured out what that meant.
I was there for about six months. Obviously canāt get into details but it needs to be shutdown. Itās lived long past its purpose. The things that went on there are a black eye to our country.
Isnāt that where the GC comes in? The convention isnāt about applying your countryās laws, but about ethical standards for treatment of enemy combatants. Gitmo being not on our soil is where Geneva should have come into play.
Iām sorry about that; maybe some people enjoyed working there, but I think it would have messed me up.
No. Geneva has nothing to do with it. We have to comply with Geneva anywhere.
We picked gitmo specifically because itās not US soil.
There is the whole debate if they weee protected under Geneva and if they was law enforcement, etc. but gitmo was only selected to avoid US law.
Yah I think weāre talking past one another. I wasnāt debating where Gitmo was located; when I said it was āoutside Genevaā I meant it was operating outside of the agreements of the Geneva Conventions. Torture is not allowed for captured enemy combatants under the convention; prisoners at Gitmo were tortured. Gitmo was not obeying the conventions.
Iām sure there are all sorts of loopholes engaged in what went on there; were insurgents technically āenemy combatants?ā By classifying them as āterroristsā were they excluded from protection? Since they werenāt wearing military uniforms, were they excluded from protection? Is waterboarding technically torture?
But nobody in the world is going to being the US in for trial, so the question was moot: we all knew Gitmo defied the spirit of the Geneva Convention; this is why I say it didnāt serve a purpose. We know torture is an unreliable way of gathering intel. If I waterboard you enough, eventually youāll name your own child as a terrorist if I want you to.
The torture is a whole different debate. It was called enhanced interrogation techniques. Iāll leave it at I wouldnāt want that shit some to me. Iāve been through many of the techniques and theyāre no joke.
I suspect we disagree on a lot of things, but this one thing weāre in complete alignment. Thereās a golden rule concept floating in here: I think if one takes the position that waterboarding isnāt torture, they should try it sometime. I donāt want to be incarcerated, but Iād be willing to try it for a while it if meant proving itās not inhumane. Very few of the āapprovedā interrogation techniques Iāve heard come out of Gitmo would I willingly subject myself to.
I have been through them all but in a much milder manner. Also, when we did SERE training, they subjected us to techniques.
I canāt say I am a fan of them or approve of their use in 99% of cases.
I have never been incarcerated but I think it should be humane and try to better the person. Just warehousing like we do currently is not a solution to any problem.
This season of the Serial podcast is about GitMo and itās very interesting. Would recommend.
I may have to check that one out.
What disappoints me is both parties have lost interest in closing gitmo