--------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message includes replies to: Michael Hirsch, John Lacny ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Messages in this collection:
* Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England
* Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England
* Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England
=== Message 1: Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England =========================
At around 28/9/05 4:01 pm, John Lacny wrote:
> "amadeus amadeus" writes:
>
>> Common sense, as we know it, is dependent on
>> the social milieu of the time: in 17th century
>> America, it was "common sense" that black
>> people were inferior, and meant to be slaves
>
>
> The black slaves probably would have begged to differ with this "common
> sense."
>
i think that's his point, yes?
=== Message 2: Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England =========================
At around 28/9/05 5:20 pm, Michael Hirsch wrote:
>
> Are you (or is Ravi) casting that wider net or getting to the bigger,
> systemic picture. You are not if you gloss over the agents of torture
> or ask the kind of trial-lawyerly questions Ravi is toying with.
>
huh? what trial lawyerly questions? i posed a question regarding babies and diapers to show the limits of the argument that i was responding to. i (and doug too) have mentioned that she is indeed culpable. i (and i believe doug too) have mentioned that not only do we have to get to the bigger, systemic picture. i have added that that IMHO is more important.
additionally, we cannot shut out discussion of her mental, psychological states and other similar considerations while estimating blame. to say "twinkie defense whiner slacker", "take responsibility for your action", etc, is not only a non-argument, but it is the sort of non-argument the right usually offers.
if like wojtek you believe in retributivism (if that's the right term), by which i understand some form of theory of revenge, then yes, punishing lindy england becomes a high priority. i do not see much value in revenge and tend to place a lower priority on england, i would argue, from a utilitarian point of view: getting the larger culprits contributes a lot more to prevention.
> Not
> only do you sound like an apologist for horror, you're not even
> laying a glove on Rumsfeld. Want me to put what I'm saying into a
> slogan, one you can spray paint on a wall? How's this? "Graner and
> English--Guilty as Charged. Next, Bush and Rumsfeld." I'd even
> accept "Al Ghraib: They tried the puppets. Now let's deal with the
> puppeteers."
why would you want to try the puppets before the puppeteers? shouldn't your slogan be "abhu ghraib: bush, rumsfeld, england. jail them in that order of culpability"?
=== Message 3: Re: [lbo-talk] Lyndie England =========================
At around 28/9/05 8:09 pm, Michael Hirsch wrote:
>
> Let's assume I've made a hash of Ravi's argument or ascribed positions
> to him he does not hold. How would you describe the parameters of the
> discussion here? Is Ravi saying anything more than "England's crimes
> don't matter in the larger scheme of things." Am I saying anything less
> than "they do, and here is why they matter." And I will say why again.
> Because if folks are serious about wanting to neuter US policy, then we
> can't make noises that suggest that the tortures actually committed by
> troops are peccadilloes in comparison to the wantonness of the US
> occupation. Or that dealing with England ipso facto takers the US off
> the hook. That will not play. The point is not to deny their importance,
> nor to single them out as aberrant and exceptional. Of course they are
> not exceptional--only blatant. The point is to link the specific horrors
> to the general, not to drive a wedge between them.
>
the second part of the above is a discussion of tactics w.r.t communicating with the larger world. perhaps thats the right approach. i agree w/ your last sentence: since the public grasps the horror of abhu ghraib in terms of the immediate actions of england, we need to work to establish the link from her to the larger perpetrators. but, that, in intention, is my very point. where i disagree is your words: "tortures committed by troops are peccadilloes in comparison to the wantonness of the US occupation". imho, this is the wedge! my point is: the tortures were not just "committed by the troops". they were committed as much by the US occupiers. they (the right) believe/know that dealing with england ipso facto takes the US off the hook. that is their wedge. we have to not permit that wedge. the actions of england are nothing but the actions of her more powerful commanders and the broad policies that lead to them. of course that last sentence doesnt play either, but that is because i am no wordsmith.
the discussion within LBO, from what i have read, is about the culpability of england, and the analysis of her action. when speaking within the left, i am not concentrating on what will play. i am concentrating on what is right/true. it is not correct, IMHO, to argue against consideration of her mental health, class, state, etc, in ascertaining her share of the responsibility for the crime. especially when such argument rests on wordplay (again IMHO) -- hence my critique of the arbitrary notion of "personal responsibility" and my reference to my earlier response on the london killing w.r.t the conflation of "doing" and "causing".
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!