Benghazi Redux Poll

[billw55]

If you really want to know, then first understand that Fox News basically acts as the mouthpiece for the farthest right of the Republican party and accurate reporting is low on the priority list for them.

It is true, but not especially more so than many other outlets that advocate for a particular political stance or party. It seems to be very difficult these days to find accurate reporting or trustworthy sources at all. In some ways, journalism has really failed as a profession.

[hrothgar]

It is true, but not especially more so than many other outlets that advocate for a particular political stance or party.

 

Actually, there are very significant differences between Fox News and the "Mainstream Media".

 

In particular, a wide number of surveys demonstrate that Fox News Viewers are significant less well informed about objective reality and facts than people who get their news from other sources. Its important to note: This doesn't necessarily demonstrate that watching Fox News makes people less well informed. Its very possible that Fox News attracts stupid viewers. (As I recall, The Daily Show tended to have the best informed viewers. Also many of these polls were conducted before the rise of MS-NBC which is pretty bad in its own right)

[mycroft]

I don't disagree with billw about his "it is true" comment. However, Fox isn't *supposed to be* "advocating for a particular political stance", unlike, say, the Great Orange Satan, or RedState, or WSWS.

 

We all know it is - until it's convenient for them to be "non-partisan", usually to save or spend money.

 

Don't get, and don't tend to see clips from, MS-NBC. So I can't tell how they're obviously-liberal-biased (it's clear from everyone they are) or whether liberal has its usual USAnian meaning (i.e. conservative).

[ArtK78]

As I view MSNBC (admittedly from a bias on the left), its reporting of events is accurate. It is only the discussion of the events that is slanted to the left. This is different from Fox, which reports the events with a bias.

[Winstonm]

Fox News will never let facts get in the way of (making up) a good story. :rolleyes:

[nige1]

A tepid teapot on a tiny molehill. It's frightening that the media make a fuss about this when the British and American people re-elected governments that condoned spuriously justified wars, rendition, and so on. Previous war-criminals were hung for less at Nuremberg.

Ye're a vera clever chiel, man, but ye wad be nane the waur o' a hanging.

[ArtK78]

A tepid teapot on a tiny molehill. It's frightening that the media make a fuss about this when the British and American people re-elected governments that condoned spuriously justified wars, rendition, and so on. Previous war-criminals at were hung for less at Nuremberg.

 

Sorry, Nige. I think you are going way overboard calling the American and British government leaders war criminals.

[hrothgar]

Sorry, Nige. I think you are going way overboard calling the American and British government leaders war criminals.

 

Torture is a war crime

[PassedOut]

The Times has a pretty good wrap-up on the Benghazi flap: The C.I.A.s Part in Benghazi

 

It was the C.I.A. that wrote in the first and subsequent drafts that the attacks were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault on the American mission in Benghazi and a separate annex, operated by the C.I.A.

 

Early drafts said Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated and that the news media had suggested a link to the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia. In an apparent attempt to avoid blame for not heeding warnings, the C.I.A. said it produced numerous pieces on extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya.

 

Other e-mails show that it was the F.B.I., which led the inquiry, and the C.I.A.s general counsel and deputy director who wanted references to Ansar al-Sharia deleted to avoid compromising the investigation. Another intelligence official wrote that there was no actionable intelligence that foretold an attack of the kind that occurred.

 

Republicans faulted the State Department for objecting to the C.I.A.s initial draft. But the department seemed concerned mostly that the C.I.A. would say more to lawmakers than what could be shared with reporters or that the C.I.A. was trying to suggest that warnings about the attack had been ignored.

 

To a degree, the wrangling occurred because the C.I.A. annex was a classified operation. In fact, the C.I.A. was the main American presence on the ground in Benghazi, had relationships with local groups and was supposed to have the best fix on what was going on. There are serious questions as to why the agency did not have a better handle on security and didnt do a better job of vetting the local militia that was hired for protection.

But Hillary Clinton was not running the CIA, so the political outrage could not be directed at the CIA...

 

Don't you agree, Flem72?

[andrei]

Torture is a war crime

 

How about using drones ?

[hrothgar]

How about using drones ?

 

It depends...

[andrei]

It depends...

 

Actually, there are very significant differences between Fox News and the "Mainstream Media".

In particular, a wide number of surveys demonstrate that Fox News Viewers are significant less well informed about objective reality and facts than people who get their news from other sources. Its important to note: This doesn't necessarily demonstrate that watching Fox News makes people less well informed. Its very possible that Fox News attracts stupid viewers. (As I recall, The Daily Show tended to have the best informed viewers. Also many of these polls were conducted before the rise of MS-NBC which is pretty bad in its own right)

 

Yeah right, torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing them is not.

[PassedOut]

torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing them is not.

Clearly.

[hrothgar]

Yeah right, torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing them is not.

 

Wow... You actually managed to say something factually correct.

Admittedly, you were probably trying to be ironic, but non-the-less, we should all take pause and note one of those rare occasions where the broken clock is right...

 

Congratulations. You really might want to go out and celebrate cause it will probably be years before one of these events comes round again.

 

FWIW, Torture is a war crime by it is defined as such by international law. In this case, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Nations Convention against Torture).

 

Using drones may or may not be a war crime. With rare exceptions, the decision to use a given weapon does not constitute a war crime in and of itself (And there are no international treaties banning the use of drones). Rather the important characteristic is how a weapon is used. Hence my use of the expression "It depends".

 

As for the whole terrorist angle... Terrorists were never mentioned in the original question that you posed.

This is something that you introduced after I had answered your original question.

 

If you can't bother to pay attention to what you're writing, why should anyone else?

[andrei]

Yeah right, torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing them is not.

 

Should have read:

Yeah right, torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing/injuring civilians while killing them is not.

 

I feel a rant about "military necessity, distinction and proportionality" is coming.

[dwar0123]

Should have read:

Yeah right, torturing "terrorists" is a war crime, but killing/injuring civilians while killing them is not.

 

I feel a rant about "military necessity, distinction and proportionality" is coming.

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, no matter how justified, is not a crime.

 

It is however, not a war crime, cause that would be stupid. A war crime is defined by treaty and sadly, merely killing/injuring civilians is not(without context) a war crime.

[andrei]

It is however, not a war crime, cause that would be stupid. A war crime is defined by treaty and sadly, merely killing/injuring civilians is not(without context) a war crime.

 

A violation of international humanitarian law is a war crime. The first basic rule of IHL is:

 

"Persons 'hors de combat' and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their moral and physical integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely without any adverse distinction."

 

So I guess killing civilians is a war crime. This is the reason a Pakistani court apparently ruled the drone attacks as war crimes.

 

Lately, the principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality were introduced, and this is how US are explaining their actions.

 

I am no lawyer, but if civilian deaths, in small number, are acceptable to help military defeat the enemy, why is torture of prisoners, in small number, not? Which one is preferable to you? All this "God forbid we have tracked Bin Laden down using torture", while droning the s... out of Pakistan, seems hypocritical to me.

[hrothgar]

I am no lawyer, but if civilian deaths, in small number, are acceptable to help military defeat the enemy, why is torture of prisoners, in small number, not? Which one is preferable to you?

 

I recommend looking back at World War Two, during which the Allies carpet bombed civilian population centers such as a Dresden and Tokyo.

Not only are civilian death's in small number acceptable, civilian deaths in enormous are acceptable.

 

I am also not a lawyer, but back when I took a course on "Just War" theory back in the 80s, the discussions around civilian casualties normally revolved around the following:

 

1. Were civilians targeted directly or were they killed accidentally when a "military" site was attacked

2. Was the attack proportional? Was the military goal that was achieved proportional to the civilian lives put at risk

 

Torturing prisoners (arguably) fails both tests

 

1. The US made a deliberate choice to torture

2. It wasn't necessary to use torture to achieve the same ends

 

There are some moral absolutists who claim that any act that puts a civilian life at risk is unreasonable.

Personally, I don't find these arguments convincing...

[kenberg]

Here are some thoughts I have had about the changing nature of war.

 

The civilan/military distinction has always been a little artificial, but at least it was once more clearcut. For example, during WW II my father was in his forties and was not in the uniformed military. He did work at a munitions plant, however. This made him a civilian part of the war effort, perhaps philosophically an oxymoron. However artificial the distinction was, there was a distinction. With terrorism, it seems less clear to me who qualifies for protection as a civilian. It would be really great if we could get all terorists to wear a special scarf around their necks identifying them, but alas, they refuse.

 

Thinking in a different direction one could argue that during WW II, the country was virtually totally committed to the war effort, making everyone effectively a combatant. I have mentioned before that, at least according to my memory, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and even Pluto the dog were depicted in the comics as fighting the Nazis and "the Japs". At Halloween, at the playground near me, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito dummies were doused in gasolinie and set on fire. On the non-fantasy front, I suppose there were some who objected to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I never heard such objections growing up, nor any objections to the fire bombing of Tokyo or the carpet bombing of Dresden.

 

But still in a different direction, it is my understanding that during the closing days of WWII, enemy troops very much hoped to be able to surrender to American troops. There may have been reasons for this.

 

Every age has its own problems but respect for life and freedom will always clash with the need for security. Both are vital.

 

I am far from sure of the answers in the modern age of warfare, and I am skeptical of anyone who thinks that the answers are clearcut.

 

And I see by the morning paper that our president thinks that we should close Guantanamo. My memory is getting faulty, but I could swear I have heard that suggestion before.

[PassedOut]

And I see by the morning paper that our president thinks that we should close Guantanamo. My memory is getting faulty, but I could swear I have heard that suggestion before.

Me too.

 

Presidential candidates are always saying stuff like, "if elected, I'm going to do [blah-blah-blah]." Most of the time they are making promises beyond their ability to deliver. Even if Obama finally closes the Guantanamo camp to save half a billion dollars, it will be long past his original 2010 deadline.

[ArtK78]

It seems to me that the objection to the use of drones is that it is somehow an impersonal way to perform military strikes, which makes it easier and "less messy" to take out the intended targets - sort of like playing a video game rather than engaging in an actual military strike. The crux of this argument is that the fact that these missions would otherwise have to be flown by human pilots subjecting them to combat risks serves as a deterrant to engaging in such missions.

 

If the use of drones is limited to replacing actual combat missions by actual pilots thereby eliminating the risk of loss of life or serious injury to those pilots, I am 100% in favor of the use of drones. Furthermore, I have no problem if drones are used in otherwise valuable military operations that would be deemed to be too risky for human pilots to engage in (i.e., suicide missions).

 

To me, we cross the line when the missions involve targets which would not be targeted in any military operation. That is where we get into the discussion on how targets are chosen and the legality or morality of drone strikes.

[blackshoe]

I am far from sure of the answers in the modern age of warfare, and I am skeptical of anyone who thinks that the answers are clearcut.

 

And I see by the morning paper that our president thinks that we should close Guantanamo. My memory is getting faulty, but I could swear I have heard that suggestion before.

You're not alone in your uncertainty. The Laws of Land Warfare are based on the supposition that war is conducted between nation-states. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state. The Constitution is based on the same presumption in its requirement that war be declared by Congress. Today's reality doesn't fit the assumption, but no one, including the pros, is sure how "the rules" should best be changed.

 

Mr. Obama has been using "close Guantanamo" as a campaign point since before his first election. If he really meant it, he'd have put more effort into getting it done already. His problem is that he knows well how to campaign. He knows not at all how to lead. Since campaigning is what he knows, that's what he does. In addition, I'm sure he sees bringing Gitmo up now as a way to deflect attention away from more dangerous (to him) things, like the DoJ's targeting of the news media and the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

[hrothgar]

His problem is that he knows well how to campaign. He knows not at all how to lead.

 

I seem to recall that Obama was able to get Health Care reform passed... something that people have been advocating since the days of Nixon but never achieved.

In a similar vein, looks like we're going to see immigration reform pass...

Not to mention the lilly Ledbetter act and any number of other large scale legislative initiatives.

 

Obama isn't a chest thumping neanderthal, however, he's been quite effective in getting his priorities enacted despite ridiculous legislative obstruction from the Republicans.

[Winstonm]

Me too.

 

Presidential candidates are always saying stuff like, "if elected, I'm going to do [blah-blah-blah]." Most of the time they are making promises beyond their ability to deliver. Even if Obama finally closes the Guantanamo camp to save half a billion dollars, it will be long past his original 2010 deadline.

 

Our memories are not foolproof - Obama was not allowed to close Gitmo:

 

By Stephen Dinan-The Washington Times Wednesday, December 8, 2010

 

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

 

The move to block the prison’s closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January.

[PassedOut]

Our memories are not foolproof - Obama was not allowed to close Gitmo.

Yes, he made a promise that he did not have the ability to deliver. Seems that all politicians like to do it.