How did Bush get a 3rd Term???
 

Today, President Obama un-suspended the scheduled tribunals for Gitmo detainees. It seems, upon further review, the Bush Administration policy of dealing with enemy combatants, is the best way to deal with the situation. This follows a barrage of other actions taken by the Obama Administration in recent weeks, which have to be frustrating to the left-wing anti-war radicals of his party.

Yes, we have seen the Obama Justice Department lawyers, doing an about-face on the Rendition Program... You recall, this was the program the left wanted to try Bush for war crimes over, but Obama attorneys say... meh, not so bad, we want to keep it! Likewise with the designation of "enemy combatant", it hasn't gone away with Bush.

At the start of his presidential bid, Obama said he planned to withdraw American forces from Iraq within 6 months. Before the Democrat primaries were over, this had been stretched to 9 months, and by the time the general election was over, it was up to 18 months, which coincidentally just happened to coincide with the Bush Administration's own estimate for a draw down. Last month, Obama announced another 15,000 troops will be heading to Iraq, and 17,000 to Afghanistan. Curiously enough, there is still no date circled in red on the calendar for American withdrawal from Iraq. Most experts conservatively say 2011 is the soonest we could see a major draw down of forces in the region.

The Obama Justice Department, not only lobbied to keep the Bush Administration policy of warrant-less wiretapping, they sought to extend the program beyond it's current limitations. So, apparently, this is not an "impeachable offense" of Bush violating our Constitutional rights at all. Apparently, it is typical of the Executive Branch throughout history, and Bush using these executive powers is really no different than Obama using them, or Truman, Roosevelt, Lincoln, etc.

It's amazing to watch Obama transform the Pinheads. All of this absolute bs he fed them during the primaries and general election, is now having to be re-thunk. He can't exactly do what he promised, he is caught between his slick polished Harvard poli-sci debate rhetoric, and the real world he is faced with. Reality being, he can't bring the troops home, he can't remove the tools we are using to keep America safe from attack. It's easy to say you are going to do this or that, but reality says there are many variables to every issue, every decision, every move. In the coming weeks, I am sure we will be entertained with valuable and wise press conferences from The One himself, to explain it all to us.

Tell us how you really feel. :thumbsup:

This is the first time you have heard of a politician saying one thing then doing another?

Good post, I can't wait to see what it turns into.

Nice avatar too.

Gee...a politician who presented himself as the antithesis of an unpopular politician and who sold the general populace a bill of goods that couldn't be delivered.

Shocking

He CAN do what he promised, he's just being a coward. This is why no one takes the Democrats seriously. They're centrists, they play it safe in the middle.

Obama was still a better choice than McCain, but that gap is beginning to close. If this keeps up, expect this liberal pinko to be demanding the impeachment of President Obama.

Well, it's like this:

The world rejoiced when Obama was sworn in. "Hooray!" they cheered. And then on his second day in office, he ordered the closing of Guantanamo. "Hooray!" they cheered again. And then he said, "since I'm closing Gitmo, who wants to help me out in taking in these prisoners?" And they all fell silent. Even the crickets stayed silent, fearing even a single chirp could be interpreted as agreeing to accept them.

So nobody wants to take these prisoners (save for that one symbolic but meaningless gesture by Germany). And nobody wants to set them free, especially if there's the possibility that they could resurface as a somebody high up in the al Queda hierarchy, like Said Ali al-Shihri, or become suicide bombers, like Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi. So with no foreign nation willing to take them, and no American city willing to take them, what is to be done with them?

Some call his actions cowardice; I call them unfortunate reality checks. He probably would've been on pace to close Guantanamo by the end of the year if he had found people willing to take these prisoners in. He probably would've had no problem releasing the remainder of the Abu Grahib photos if there wasn't for the thirst for revenge that he never anticipated when he declassified the Justice Dept memos on interrogations. American forces would've been withdrawn in under six months if it wasn't for the logistical impossibility of it all, coupled with his realization of how fragile the peace is and how easily it could degenerate back into the bloody Sunni/Shiite battles that nearly tore the country apart.

Reality bites, and even the man that many of us have put hope and faith in can't change that.

We can try them for the crimes they were captured for. We can at least attempt justice. Imagine the innocent going free and the guilty found so based on the evidence. What a sight that would be.

I find the notion of a Bush Three to be absurd.

Most of Obama's promises (and subsequent policies and actions to-date) are what I expected. Some I agree with and others I dont, but its hard for me to see how they are Bush-like.

Expansion of the SCHIP program that Bush vetoed twice, lifting Bush restrictions on stem cell research, putting more than 2 million acres of wilderness under federal protection and stopping leases on oil/gas exploration near federal parks issued by Bush in his last days in office, signing the law to provide fair pay/pay equity for women, ending Bush restrictions on Clean Air Act regs on GHG emissions, a commitment to urban issues, that was neglected for eight years, with the creating of an office of urban policy and restored or expanded funding for numerous programs - COPS, CDBG, ...

The first attempt at real health care reform after eight years of neglect as costs rose and access declined, with the hope of legislation by the end of summer and climate change legislation (reducing GHG emissions) in the works.

A presumption of release of documents under FOIA requests rather than the Bush presumption of denying such requests whenever possible and by any means.

Rebuilding US image abroad by engaging with Muslim leaders and communities and restoring diplomacy as a foreign policy tool.

As to other national security/foreign policy actions....this is where I might disagree , but who is really surprised?
- setting a hard timetable for withdrawal of most troops from Iraq (not soon enough for me)
- deployment of more troops to Afghanistan (a no win situation)
- continuation of prisnoer rendition (at least not to the countries with the worst human rights records) and closing "black" prisons

The only real mirror image of Bush policy is probably w/ regard to FISA and now these military tribunals (at least with more prisoner rights).

So among all of the above, what comes as a real surprise?

You mean belief in accountability? Lock me up and call me bloodthirsty because yes, that is what I want.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...tos/index.html

I was as happy when Obama was elected as anyone but I always knew (and said out loud) that, in the end, he would disappoint me. I have to admit though, that even I am shocked at how hard and fast that end has come.

It only reinforces my certainty that, for all of the talk (aka, distraction) about liberal conspiracies in American media and education, that liberalism (progressivism) has been clearly disabused of any semblance of a legitimate stance in American politics and society.

Congratulations conservatives, you won. You can put down your guns and your teabags and go on home. Your precious sensibilities and traditions are still safe and sound in Washington.

Try them were? In the U.S.? Wasn't going to happen. Fairfax County, VA was one of the proposed locations to hold the trials and folks around here went bananas just from the proposal itself. I find it difficult to imagine that the reaction would be different anywhere else.

It doesn't help that the $80M that the White House requested to close the prison was taken out of a spending bill winding its way through congress, btw.

The new system is not perfect, but it is a significant improvement, and it certainly beats the legal limbo they've been stuck in and would continue to be stuck in as the gov't tries in vain to find a suitable place to conduct trials.

I'm confused. Weren't we-liberals GLAD when Bush started actually trying Gitmo detainees, rather than just holding them forever on made-up (or no) charges? Aren't we glad we have a legal process for pulling people out of there? What am I missing?

Don't get me wrong--there's stuff I'm not happy with Obama about, here. There's also stuff I'm happy with him about. On the whole I think he's done better than he's done worse. But I'm not delighted with the no-change I'm seeing in our approach to national security.

Obama is twenty pounds of shit in a ten pound bag. It was obvious during the primaries, and obvious during the general election. He made way too many promises too way too many people. He's going to be worse than Bush, for the simple fact that most people think he's better.

Yeah, they were acting like fools. Still, I don't think that public discomfort is the roadblock on this issue. It's about looking "soft on terror", demonstrating that Democrats are still playing by the axioms established by the chickenhawk GOP. The left won't truly have power until they take it. Setting up Limbaugh as the unofficial leader of the Republican Party was a good first test of progressive strategizing, but it's small fries. It's time to create leftist buzz-phrases like "stupid on terrorism" or "soft on reality"; it's time for the Democratic government to start releasing complete and factually correct information that can be verified in order to have a properly educated populace; it's time for a number of things, but first and foremost we need to clean up the biggest messes that are ongoing, which includes the innocent or guilty prisoners that are being held without trial. They're a drain on resources and holding them without due process is unethical and hypocritical.

There have been several reversals in policy that one could chalk up to the fact that Obama didn't have the intelligence and facts about things until he took office. It's easy to say "we need to stop illegal wiretapping" while you're running an election, but if your security team takes you aside in your first week in the White House and shows you 100 instances where wiretapping prevented terrorist attacks (as a random example), you might think twice about your campaign stance.

I don't see how a farmer we've had in captivity for 3 years could still be holding on to actionable intelligence.

More CHANGE than a pair of homeless siamese twins. :splat:

And this is why I voted for Obama. He didn't seem like the type to rush in to decisions based on ideology, but on what was the best course of action. I.e. No pulling out of Iraq because 'war is bad' but a phased draw down as would render the most stable Iraqi government in the U.S. forces' place.

Still not too happy about empowering the president to label someone an 'enemy combatant' and denying them their rights though.

Dude, have you never heard of "my turd is better than your turd"?

I always knew people would be dissapointed by the progress so far. Sure, you want us to do something ... but how, most especially if you aren't willing to help, should we draw blood from a stone???

How do we prove half the prisoners in GITMO are actually guilty? What do we do if they aren't? "You can go home now, sorry, my bad..." I for one will NEVER feel safe if GITMO is closed down.

**shivers**

Those of you who speak of timetables ... really? C'mon now, how? I don't see how we can say, "by x date Iraq will be stable enough to not need us"

Protip: You dont start shit you can't finish.

QuasiMondo, Get out of my head!!!!

I never expected progress right away, I just don't trust him. He's this brighteyed wiz kid with good intentions, but he's too nieve and optimistic too actually do anything helpful. It's like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

All in due time ... all in due time. I actually think were better off.

In my opinion whether you agreed with him or not the Bush agenda was clear. Obama seems to be all over the place and is not sending clear messages. Many complained about Bush's rhetoric, which appeared to some to be unsophisticated, but Obama's nuances don't work in a war. Obama is not even close to Bush regarding the execution of war. Bush had clear goals and objectives for Iraq and treated prisoners of war like prisoners of war. We don't even know what Obama's objectives are in Afghanistan, do we? But he is escalating the war. Do we know who are we fighting? What political goals we are trying to achieve? Are the people we are fighting the enemy or are they people needing help? Are we in a secret war in Pakistan? One thing we did know in February was Obama's intent on treating Afghanistan detainees in a manner similar to the Bush administration, while being highly critical of Bush's policy in Gitmo.

Obama administration keeps Bush view on Afghanistan detainees - CNN.com

The sad part is no one in the media is asking the questions that need to be asked and neither are the politicians in Washington. what is Obama trying to prove in Afghanistan? The US can not win a war in that country and we can not control the local factions with our military.

Not so much about "what do we need to prove in Afghanistan" as in, how can we stabilize A-stan so that the country's problems don't spill in to and destablize Pakistan too (a nuclear-capable country).

this is a joke, right? If not, what were Bush's clear objectives? And please, don't insult our intelligence by ignoring the several different objectives he set up. And how was Bush's execution of the war much better? Last I checked, Iraq was a mess for at least 4 years, Rumsfeld had to resign over it, and Afghanistan was slowing drifting back into Taliban's hands. And shouldn't all those questions be asked of who started the wars? And are you seriously saying that he "treated prisoners of war as prisoners of war?"

Of course I would rather see Obama reverse a lot of his decisions on these matters, but I don't see how anyone can sustain a position that at the same time criticizes Obama for continuing some Bush policies and attacks him for not being enough like Bush with a straight face.

His only objective was getting Bin Laden (and intelligence tells us Bin Laden's not been in Afghanistan for years). After that, it was just the same as Iraq; vague crap about brining freedom, fighting "trrrists" that didn't actually attack us, etc.

Mr. Obama does not have to worry about what the far left thinks.

When 2012 rolls around they aren't going to push for a different Demcrat in the primaries (and if they do, who is going to listen?) and they sure as heck aren't going to support a Republican.

Therefore he doesn't have to worry about what they think.

Those on the "farther" left should remember that is was not they who got him elected. It was the mainstream Democrats, the Independents, and the open minded (read:fed up) Republicans.

He needs to make sure he has their continued support (especially the last two groups mentioned) if he wants to get re-elected.

When Bush did all this crap it was grounds for impeachment. Now it's accepted as the "Washington game."

Outsiders can not have a lasting impact on "stabalizing" Afghanistan in the remote areas. This has been proven many times. But are you suggesting the war on terror has changed to a war to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan?

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

Perhaps it is to you.

To remove Sadaam from power and to render his military impotent and unable to wage war. To incapacitate Iraq's ability to use or develop WMD.

After the above was accomplished the war evolved into an occupation "building democracy", which I still have mixed feeling about. Iraq was also a chosen location to engage terrorists as we battled them along with the Iraqi people for political control of the country.

I am not suggesting mistakes were not made, no major war in history has been executed without mistakes, however, in my view what leaders have as a primary responsibility is to clearly define the cause. In Obama's case I thought his cause was to end the war, but he is escalating the war in Afghanistan and seems to be expanding the war to include Pakistan in a manner that is not clear to me.

We did not start the war.

In the war on terror the rules of engagement are unique, but generally I think Bush treated prisoners of war like prisoners of war as opposed to treating them like criminals.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

What about the one's who have declared war on us and are acting accordingly? Are you suggesting we are fighting a mythical enemy?

In some ways, yes, that's exactly what we're doing. The rules of war can't apply when you're (supposedly) fighting an ideology or a movement vs. fighting a country or government. The "war on terror" is completely unwinnable.

Declaring war on us does not automatically make one a threat. I could declare war on the US right now and the FBI wouldn't be breaking down my door. The fact is that the Taliban were simply a regional source of instability back in 2001. They really weren't a threat to anyone but the people of Afghanistan. If you need evidence of this, go back and look at what our government did right after 9/11: we asked the Taliban nicely to hand over Bin Laden. We were happy to leave them be if they'd simply hand over someone virtually the entire world was pissed at. We had no intent to bomb or invade or "liberate", that came later, after they flatly denied our request. Our beef was with the small number of people at the time in what was later called al Qaeda.

We, Ace, are fighting "the terrorists". That's about as mythical as it can get.

I don't have the words to express how much I disagree with your statement.

I think we fundamentally disagree on the concept of "threat". My tendency is to want to act on a potential "threat" before the "threat" is able and willing to inflict harm. It seems you would not act on a potential "threat" until after it is able and has communicated its intent to harm. And for the record when I say "act", I don't necessarily mean using violence.

Again, I don't have the words to express how much I disagree with your statement.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

I do agree that the phrase "war on terror" is a simplistic slogan, but what is happening and what has happened is not a simplistic slogan. I also agree that terrorism is a tactic, and that you can not wage war on a tactic, but there are people who are singularly focused on using that tactic to have innocent people in the world bow down to their will, and that in my view is very real. I will not bow down to anyone, I will fight to protect freedom.

Again, who are Obama's objectives any less clear than Bush's? How is his conducting of the war any worse than Bush's? And I see you didn't even answer your own questions.

And don't give me this crap about "war on terror" in relation to Iraq.

And Obama had made it perfectly clear that he would expand the war in Afghanistan and take the war to Pakistan if necessary. Agree or disagree all you like, but that was a major point of the campaign, and either you have a really short memory or you are willfully ignoring history.

As far as POWs go, how can the USA be treating them as POWs when people went to such lengths to even deny they were POWs?

so wait---after being wholly aligned with the crudest imaginable form of neoliberal economic ideology for year after year--you remember, right? that quaint horseshit about markets being rational, enlightened self-interest raising all boats blah blah blah--the dreamworld that landed us in a systemic crisis--now conservatives are trying to argue that because obama operates within constraints and so is moving toward what he talked about more quickly in some areas, more slowly in others, and sometimes has to reverse course---that somehow conservatives had a handle on reality?

that's hilarious.

so the gitmo tribunals are in place but they're also being made over into something more than kangaroo courts--so therefore, in the blinkered little world of what remains of the right, bush administration policy in this area is vindicated?

because the bush administration's wiretap policies have not been entirely abandoned, those policies are vindicated?

i suppose by this same logic, the right can say that because the administration limited the release of images which show the extent of the bush people's use of torture as an arm of policy that therefore the bush people's use of torture is vindicated.

these arguments are so stupid that it's hard to know where anyone not a far right ideologue can find the energy to waste their time on them.

maybe this is what the karl rove school has come to--a kind of victory through stupidity that happens in some alternate universe that makes if seem coherent to still be on the right---if a statement floats out there in the media-aether and is so stupid that no-one outside the right takes it seriously, then the right wins. hooray!

Perhaps the problem is mine. I thought I understood what Bush was trying to accomplish. I don't know what Obama is trying to accomplish.

I think a war needs a clearly defined cause. I think bush had one (reasonable people can disagree on if the cause was worthy), I don't know what Obama's is, do you?

For what cause?

Nuance. I generally don't like lawyers because they have to play word games. Obama is a master at "nuance", drives me crazy. Bush was forced to play that game of "nuance", so you get enemy combatants rather than POW, etc, Obama willingly plays the game. In my book it is what it is, an enemy combatant in captivity is a POW.

I, username Willravel, formally declare war on the United States of America. I have neither the inclination, nor the means to wage such a war, but I declare it none the less. I intend to take no action with this declaration. It is a declaration and a declaration alone.
No, I believe in acting on credible threats. The Taliban weren't a credible threat, and my opinion on that is shared by the intelligence community under Clinton, and under Bush (until 2002, when they said "no" to turning over Bin Laden). Demonstrate to me why you considered the Taliban to be a CREDIBLE threat.
I know it might be difficult, but find them.

...dude has been in office for like a whole ten minutes. He was handed a shit sandwich.

I'm not a genius, but the POTUS is one guy and doesn't have the Iron Fist of Dictatorship (TM) card.

Anybody else expecting him to water-to-Redbull or just ditch established GWOT policy and start all over like a new game of Sim City 2000?

New guy is gettin' all sorts of triple-A because he's coming on after a double-dose of a Super Bad.

I'll wait until 2012 before I start saying "nothing has changed, nothing is getting done."

I don't know. But my actions, what I do, what I support, what I practice, are real to me. Those things that confound my "reality", I question. In my questions you can easily find the boundaries of what you might consider my handle on reality. If you get a handle on those boundaries as they affect me and others you could have a great deal of influence. With your knowledge you have power what you do with it is up to you, the choice is yours, the red pill or the blue pill?

No, no, no, but this is:


I don't feel vindicated because the real issue has yet to be resolved one way or the other. However, I would think liberals should feel like they were lied to.

No, but I think there has been a fair debate on the issue and the nation is better because of that debate.

Not for that reason, but it is nice to see people on the left taking into consideration the potential consequence of their actions in eyes of those who would want to do us harm.

Perhaps if you bolded and capitalized "stupid", it would actually persuade me to stop wasting time. Or, maybe not...the choice is yours...

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

When I have gone to the Comedy Store, I laugh at the jokes and don't take them serious. When I go to a "political" meeting, I take the speakers serious and assume they would act on what they say.


If you had a baby crocodile living under your house, no ability and no expressed intent to do you harm, would you act now or wait?

And I don't have the words to express how much I disagree that "we didn't start the war". We absolutely most certainly did. Who attacked us was NOT a country. We responded in 20th century fashion by focusing the bulk of our force on a country that wasn't related in ANY way to those who attacked us. Whatever war we're in now, WE'RE the aggressors.

ace---my arguments were clear. i have neither the time nor the inclination to screw about with you picking through the various straw men etc..i'll leave that for folk who are perhaps nicer than i am. it's better that way. trust me on this.

The terrists have already won, then.

They won't bow down, they'll fight for freedom, they won't stop...

...

Wait... what are they actually doing, again? I mean, I did the patriotism thing once... I didn't see any of them there.

Stop ignoring the means to attack. You're the same kind of person who says "they've build a nuclear weapon, all they're missing is the uranium and a delivery system". The Taliban completely and totally lacked the ability to do any damage whatsoever to the US. They weren't even a threat to our allies. They were only a threat to Afghanistan. That's sad, I feel for those Afghans that were under Taliban rule, but even if they were hell-bent on destroying America (and they weren't, btw), they lacked the means.
Can you demonstrate that they were "a baby crocodile"? I don't know why you expect that everyone automatically buys this idea that because someone threatens us we're actually in danger.

BTW, do you know how many baby crocodiles we don't act on? Like the one in Mexico? If you were serious about this, you'd want us to go after crocodiles based on how immediate the threat is, right? The most immediate threat to the US is Mexican instability, followed by domestic terror, followed by North Korea selling nuclear weapons. Even back in 2001 after 9/11.

Hey, wait a second, you forgot to respond to my main point: Demonstrate to me why you considered the Taliban to be a CREDIBLE threat. Do it.

Trust you? It is better that way? Let's not get carried away.

Being humble has never been a strong point for me, but I have been working on it. Let me simply say, for the record your arguments have been anything but clear. Your last post was a confused conflation of many random bits of information used to promote a baseless premise.

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

No. Some want to restrict freedom. However, in my view defending freedom is not a restriction of freedom, it is a prerequisite for freedom. The fight continues.

The fact that you've backed into a position of defense and fighting is exactly what they want. They want a world where you're afraid of them and forced to be aggressive. You're furthering their agenda, with your attitude. They win.

And the fact that you're doing it in the name of freedom is the work of another terrorist named George W. Bush.

As I understand the Taliban, one of their goals is to enforce Sharia Law. I do not want to live in a world bound by Sharia Law. If their goal is to force that upon me, I consider that a threat to my freedom of religious choice. If they are willing to coexist, I have no problem with them, but that is not what they want. It doesn't matter if they have nukes, AK47's, or cap guns, their stated goal as I understand it is not acceptable to me. So, if the problem is mine and I don't understand Sharia Law or their intent, I need help getting educated, otherwise there is a conflict that will lead to violence.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

I am not afraid and I am not being forced to defend freedom. Being free and defending freedom is my choice, and it is not a cause that I not willing or afraid to commit my life to.

I think their goal goes beyond simply creating "terror", I think "terror" is their tactic to accomplish their goal.

George Bush is perfectly willing to let people make a choice on how they live. Islamic extremist and those who employ terrorism in the name of a holy war do not.

You don't. You're willing to kill them, but you're ass-end-of-nowhere ignorant about them. You can quote Fox News, though, so at least there's that. :shakehead:

You can be judgmental, that is o.k., but don't ignore what I wrote. I clearly stated that if the problem is mine that I need to get educated. Your judgment has not helped. If the Taliban is willing to coexist, I have no problem with them. Are you suggesting that they are willing to coexist with those not willing to follow Sharia Law?

Whoa, wait a second. All radical Islamic groups are not the same. The Taliban did not necessarily want to spread Islamic law to the US. They wanted to have their own special brand of Islamic law rule Afghanistan (and now Pakistan).

In fact, the Taliban were fairly recently very pro-America. Sure, they don't like modern things and are partial to a particularly serious brand of Islamic law, but until we started bombing them under Clinton, they had nothing but nice things to say. We helped them drive out the Soviets.

The Taliban was pro-American because at one point America was pro-Taliban. The US has a poor history of picking the theoretical lesser of two evils when it comes to the ME. I admit that the US has made mistakes, but we can not undo what has been done. Today, my view is clear. I am willing to work peacefully with any group or nation willing to peacefully coexist with others. Those who have a goal of imposing their will or way of life on me are a threat.

But seriously, Ace, the Taliban doesn't want to force you to live under Islamic law. They're fine operating in their own country. I can't remember ever seeing anything about how they intend to spread Islamic law to the west. They're not expansionist and are only in Pakistan because they don't recognize the border.

Sorry, but I don't believe that. To me, we have a baby crocodile living under our house. Today, all the baby croc wants is its own little place grow and thrive. However, the path is clear - at some point the conflict with the croc will be one that needs to be addressed.

Life Rule # 3,427 - Don't trust crocodiles.




And Native Americans thought the "white man" would honor peace treaties. You are far more trusting than I am. Or, perhaps I am just paranoid. Could be a combination of both, and I actually hope you are correct unfortunately I am not willing to take the risk.

Life Rule # 3,428

Don't take risks with crocodiles.

Warning - don't watch this if you don't think you should.

This isn't about beliefs, ace, this is about facts. The fact is that it is not a goal of the Taliban to force Islamic law on the West. What you're suggesting—attacking and killing people that are not a threat because of an unsupported belief—is premeditated murder.

Well, that's true. Tragically, you don't see it as a view. It's The Truth, to you.

You're talking out your ass here, hoss. And you're willing to commit major military effort and sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives to enforce the conclusion that your ignorance draws you to.

I don't see how anything the Taliban has done or is doing is in any way impinging on YOUR freedom, Ace.

Given that you continually find both the time and the inclination that you don't have to respond to his 'stupid' posts in ways that aren't helpful to anyone, perhaps you should start trusting yourself on that.

how nice, fta.
at least i made a general indication in the direction of actual content--in the post above the one you removed from it's context.
but it seems that you didn't feel so moved. pity, really. it's generally better to do so. just saying.

btw i didn't refer to ace's posts as stupid--in general i find them logically consistent but based on premises that i find arbitrary--but that's to be expected as it's part of the game of political discussion. i would prefer discussions about premises, how they're arrived at, which more accurately refer to agreed upon descriptions of the world--to the extent that such descriptions go beyond simple rhetorical exercises (generally they don't but that's another matter)--but for whatever reason, these discussions never seem to happen. personally, i think it's because folk who hold more conservative views either cannot defend their premises, or they conflate their views with the order of things as they imagine it to be such that they don't think they have premises.
either way, there's rarely such a discussion and so these debates don't really move.
restatements of starting points: that's all these "discussions" amount to.
which gets tired.


sometimes, though, there are arguments that are so thoroughly absurd that they seem to me to invite ridicule--and try as i might, i sometimes succumb to the need to say as much---mea fucking culpa---the conservative meme of the moment that's recycled in the op--that obama represents an extension of the bush administration and thereby some kind of confirmation of the necessity of the policies that are continued--is an example of such an argument.

but if you want to play with me, go ahead and defend the premise of the thread.
if you're not going to participate in the game of the thread, i don't see you having fuck all to say about what happens in it.

Nah, I have neither the time nor inclination.

roach, you've got the idea, you just need to take it to its logical conclusion. restatement after restatement, again and again and again, all on an internet forum. in the end, comrade, it's nothing to get worked up about. there's nothing to get angry about because there's nothing of consequence. it's a pass-time, this forum thing of ours. we're not on capitol hill. our shouts don't ring in the halls of academia. our points aren't published in our nation's (shrinking) publications. our discourse may survive the test of time, but that's a consequence of the medium, not the importance of the content. it's just a forum.

if something impressive or original or interesting happens, great, but it's just a forum. if something horrible or redundant or ignorant happens, oh well, it's just a forum.

Your position is weak.

I am willing to live in peace with those who respect the right of me and others to practice the religion of their choice, or practice no religion. I will not live in a world bound by Sharia Law. And because I want that freedom, I feel obligated to come to the defense of those who want the same freedom. It doesn't matter if they live next door to me , on the other side of the globe, or in the ME. If the Taliban respects this, there is no conflict. Period, end of story, but they don't.

If I were a free black man in the US in 1860, my freedom would mean little if other black men were still enslaved, and I would feel obligated to fight for freedom of all men.

If, I get your point - that its o.k. for the Taliban to force some people to live under a law that restricts their right to religious choice as long as it is not the west, I think you are wrong.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

I clearly made an offer, an offer in sincerity. If I need to be educated on the Taliban, Sharia Law or the intent of the Taliban, I am open to that education. However, that opportunity has been met with ridicule, and condescension.

So, yes. I am willing to commit major military effort and sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives to enforce the conclusion that you claim my ignorance has lead me to. So, if there are people like me in the world and you have the opportunity to influence us with your knowledge, but choose instead to simply call us ignorant, who really has the problem? Who is really at fault?

I have laid out my position. All the Taliban has to do is prove their intent is not to do what I think they want to do. If they can't or don't want to, then the path to conflict is clear.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

See the above.

And to be clear, I am not suggesting we take any extreme measure today, however, the path we are on is one that will not end favorably. Wise people need to intervene, or step aside and let the matter be resolved.

If you're out to defend "freedom" (meaning your own subjective interpretation of freedom shaped at least in some part by American societal rules), there are places a lot less free than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a paradise compared to some places on our planet. Darfur, Burma, Somolia... shoot, even North Korea is likely less free than Afghanistan. And don't get me started on how the US invading Afghanistan helped to keep the Taliban in power.

If your position is that you want to attack anyone that makes people less free, that's a formidable list, a list in which we couldn't make a dent in 100 years.

All of this is moot, though. We are in Afghanistan because we wanted to get Osama Bin Laden, and when we invaded the Taliban and militant insurgents engaged us. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom. It still doesn't. In 4-8 years, we'll pull out of Afghanistan just like we're pulling out of Iraq, just like the Soviet Union pulled out a generation before. Just like the next sucker to invade will have to pull out.
There's no need for strawmen. It's not okay, but there are certain things that are beyond our ability AND there are better ways to go about assisting progressive change. We, the US, likely don't have the military ability to defeat the Taliban, and our presence increases their recruitment. Eventually, either we'll elect an even more liberal leader or we'll wipe out the people of Afghanistan. We support progressive change by being smart. We support progressive imams. We support women's organizations. We cut off the opium trade by suggesting to our allies that legalizing and taxing opium in Asia will do more to damage the Taliban than a million bombs. There are a thousand more ideas like this, waiting in the wings.

I want a free Afghanistan. I want the Taliban to be disbanded. We won't be able to do that until we stop pretending that our presence will lead to it.

Why do you want the Taliban disbanded?

The Taliban, not unlike like Hezbollah, does a lot more ultimate harm than good and has demonstrated even during what we might consider peace times that they're unwilling to set aside their violent, extremist fundamentalism. They're welcome to their religious beliefs so long as those beliefs don't extend to violence, but since they do unfortunately, they demonstrate that their organizations do not have a constructive place in society. Still, while I think it's the job of every human being to help police ourselves, we have to respect international boundaries. I won't go as far to say, "It's not our problem, therefore we should do nothing about it," but there have to be realistic limits to policing the world. We can't be international peacekeepers everywhere at once when we can barely do it in one country.

I am more confused regarding your position and the position of others on this subject now than when we started. My position is that I don't trust the Taliban, that I am not willing to risk the future based on a perception that they can not harm us, and that their goal of having free people bound by Sharia law is unacceptable. On one hand people suggest that I am ignorant and then on the other you write what you wrote above.

But getting back to the subject in the OP, my reasons for not liking the Taliban are clear, at least to me, however, I still don't know what Obama's cause is for escalating the war in Afghanistan. We don't need more troops to find Osama, that is pointless. Is he sending more troops to chase nuclear weapons? Is he sending more troops to promote democracy and religious freedom?

And, if the logic was - our military presence causes people to become terrorists, why is sending more troops going to solve the problem of ridding the world of terrorists?

So many questions, to bad no one is asking those questions and too bad Obama is not making his intentions clear. So, again agree with Bush or not, at least we knew what his intentions were.

I'm just guessing, but it seems pretty obvious that he's fallen victim to staying the course. On the campaign trail, Obama's key to looking tough on terror was his talk on Afghanistan. He won, but now he's stuck with a campaign promise that I don't think he believes in. Still, it's a mistake to drop all of this on Obama's shoulders alone. Yes, I know early on I seemed mad, and I am, but Obama inherited Afghanistan from the previous administration. Even if he wanted to pull out, it wouldn't have happened by now.
It's possible the president and I don't see eye to eye on that issue.
We didn't know Bush's intentions until after we were already in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, information is still coming to light that changes our collective perception of what Bush actually wanted.

Counter Insurgencies are tricky things. Sometimes an increased presence is the worst possible option, and sometimes it is essential.

We have a new commanding general who has served in SOF units for nearly his entire career. I would assume he knows which option is appropriate for each region of Afghanistan.

In friendly areas, an increased presence allows more civic functions, police patrols, stability, and an opportunity for a free(r) society to grow, prosper, and become immune to the insurgency.

In unfriendly areas, an increased presence may well encourage resentment and provide a good recruiting tool for the insurgents (as well as more targets).

I know one of the big sticking points in Afghanistan has been a lack of air assets and a substantial part of the 'mini-surge' has been aviation...which would allow our soldiers to fly directly to strongholds rather than drive mined roads.

One of the tendencies of any major power is to consolidate into large bases, but in FID and/or COIN missions the emphasis needs to be in many, smaller outposts that are more 'among the people' where the units living there get a very good local perspective and are able to influence their areas all the time. This is one of the directions we seem to be going now, but it requires more support, people to stand guard, set up electricity, etc.

The surge in Afghanistan is very dissimilar to the one in Iraq. They are both complex strategies with very different overall approaches, though there is some overlap.

In Iraq, the surge was intended to be part of a large effort at hitting the critical mass necessary to actually contain the violence enough to allow things to settle down. Afghanistan has been under-manned since the conventional army got involved in 2002, and has been basically on-hold since the kickoff of Iraq in 2003. Now our military is finally able to give it the attention they would have years ago if other events had not prevented them from doing so.

For some reason, the big 3 networks are no longer interested in opening each show with a casualty count. This is probably a good thing, since as was noted, Obama has no stated goal in Afghanistan, other than to station more of our troops there. He also has no exit strategy that I am aware of.

By the way, I had this av first.

the absurdities continue. so the bush administration lost interest in afghanistan for the most part after it launched it's pseudo-directed military adventure there because it had shiny new neo-con toys in the iraq debacle---but the problem now with afghanistan is obama. astonishing. i guess meme-repetition is easier than thinking.

at the same time, though, there are things that take place that i have a really hard time understanding. this morning, for example, senate democrats voted to strip out the money required to shut down yet another bush-administration gift that keeps on giving in guantanamo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us....html?_r=1&hpw

this, from harry reid, is about as foul a thing as i've seen emanate from this general sector:

people who have not been charged, not been brought to trial--who have been kept in a legal black hole for years now---not prisoners quite but "detainees"---many of whom have been tortured---the democratic leader in the senate declares "terrorists" and then scuttles into a good old fashioned bourgeois nimby thing.

it's a shame obama is not what the far right thinks he is. having to make nice to the center-right, allowing its discourse to continue framing debates--none of this is good. if obama was, in fact, anything like what the right pretends to itself he is, there'd likely be a much greater shift in the language of politics and with that new ways of framing issues and with that more room to manoever.

the stinking pile of wreckage left behind by the bush administration clings too much because the way of talking about issues has not yet adequately marginalized the right.

My license and usage check is in the mail.

Meanwhile, back on the transparency in government front, President Obama whistles past the grave yard:


Obama signing Friday breaks transparency pledge
Posted: 04:00 PM ET

From CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry

WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Obama will quickly sign the credit card legislation that just passed through Congress at a White House ceremony on Friday, according to White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

One problem: this means the President will again break his campaign pledge to post legislation online for five days for the public to comb it over in the interest of transparency before he signs it into law.

Obama has an out, however, because he has always suggested he would waive the self-imposed rule for an emergency situation, such as his quick signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill earlier this year.

While the President has not previously declared an emergency on credit card reform, Psaki told CNN "the urgency of the situation" for credit card users dictates that it should be signed rapidly.

o i take it that you think the credit card industry is just dandy and that there's no particular need to put the law into effect, right?
you couldn't be as shallow as the cnn article is and think that the 2 and opposed to 5 days in the context of a pretty urgently needed change in how credit cards operate is real important, could you?
why that you imply that it's all form over substance for you, as a representative conservative?
how's that work if in other contexts, conservatives have lately been also claiming that the bush administration policies were swell because they recognized a substantive reality?

wait i know---it doesn't work. it's just more cheap conservative meme-level opportunism.
well you just go ahead and have fun with that.

I'm beginning to think I should have voted for Mr. Obama:

1. President Obama is keeping George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists."

2. Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out renditions. Current U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role under the Obama administration.

3. He insisted in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. He agreed on April 23 to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Then he announced he wouldn’t.

5. Mr. Obama condemned Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, Mr. Obama ordered more troops to Afghanistan. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

6. And just this morning (from the NY Times)—
WASHINGTON — President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.
***
The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.
***
“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantnamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan…

1. Since when is Afghanistan anything like Iraq?

2. Obama has made it clear he hasn't made a decision on the detainee program. He's mulling it over—weighing the factors. This isn't quite cowboy style, is it?

What are we seeing here, really? That Obama is a centrist? That he's right wing?

But I thought he was a socialist....

Oh, wait. Protecting consumers from credit card companies is completely socialist! (I'm so confused, the Canadian Conservatives are legislating something related....)

well, the other confusion comes from the fact that conservatives seem to operate with a special definition of time. obama is not being consistent at this moment. now at this moment. now at this one. look how many moments pass while inconsistency obtains. that way, the space between, say, yesterday's senate vote and this morning's speech about gitmo can appear to be made up of millions of individual inconsistencies. so what might appear to other people as a mere 24 hours to the right is now as many things as they decide they want.

same thing with the logic that informs comparisons for other people. if conservatives say that oranges and wombats are elements of the same set, then goddamn it they are. afghanistan, iraq: same thing. well, to the outside world, what these two fine situations have in common is that they're debacles brought on, cultivated and brought to a glorious fruitition by that special brand of utter incompetence that was the bush administration. but in special land, they are essentially alike and it's all obama's fault.

in special world, conservatives who opposed even talking about the torture carried out by the bush administration can complain about the stoppage of photo releases.

while i have been typing this, another Mountain of Inconsistencies has piled up.
there's another one.
there's another.
such a Big Mountain made up of so many moments.

Good point, roachboy. And it made me think of this:

Is it too early to create the acronym WWDD (What would Dubya do?)?

Concerning these issues, if he were still in power...WWDD?

And there's this:

Tracking Stimulus Spending May Not Be as Easy as Promised

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 21, 2009

Shortly after the economic stimulus bill was signed, Vice President Biden was talking up the administration's Web site to track the spending, Recovery.gov, when he accidentally directed people to Recovery.org.

As slip-ups go, this one had an upside: Unlike the government site, the privately run Recovery.org is actually providing detailed information about how the $787 billion in stimulus money is being spent.

To build support for the stimulus package, President Obama vowed unprecedented transparency, a big part of which, he said, would be allowing taxpayers to track money to the street level on Recovery.gov. Together with a spruced-up WhiteHouse.gov, the site would inject the stodgy federal bureaucracy with the same Webby accessibility and Facebook-generation flair that defined the Obama campaign.

But three months after the bill was signed, Recovery.gov offers little beyond news releases, general breakdowns of spending, and acronym-laden spreadsheets and timelines. And congressional Democrats, state officials and advocates of open government worry that the White House cannot come close to clearing the high bar it set.

well, I must say that i'm not terribly surprised at the apologist postings concerning the numerous 'promises' made by the Obama campaign that are now being ignored by the Obama administration. You guys sound just like the republican apologists. same coin, different side is all. It's no wonder the country is coming apart at the seams.

actually, dk, i'm not apologizing for the obama administration at all--i just think that the carping from the right is absurd. brand triage uber alles---you conservative folk find yourselves in a world of shit and are transparently using anything and everything to try to dig your way out of it. the main tactic, of course, is to subdivide time so as to create a greater---and entirely imaginary---distance between yourselves and the bush administration. no-one, except maybe the conservative faithful, is fooled.

i have alot of problems with the obama administration--but i was a lukewarm supporter all along.
i figure he's nowhere near far enough away from the sucking sound that is conservative language, conservative views. the guy's a moderate---always was, always will be, it seems. he's paying the price for being a moderate.

but this has nothing to do with the imaginary world the right inhabits.

Might I remind the TFP that there were few of us here who expected a post-Bush presidency to be daisies and butterflies.

That Obama didn't have a crystal ball while campaigning should come as no surprise. How many presidents had one?

The president needs to compromise as he comes across certain realities. I'm sorry...how is this like Bush?

yes, you are.


yeah, ok. Thats precisely what 'I'm' doing.

better the slow ride to hell than the fast one? If that isn't being an apologist, nobody will know what is then.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

With Obama now following quite a few of the 'same' actions and policies that Bush had implemented, All of those on the left that castigated the Bush admin for enacting them are now forced to support those very same policies because it seems 'reasonable' or some stupid shit like that. How is that NOT like Bush?

With few exceptions on here, support for Obamas policies are being explained as necessary, yet those of you doing so were totally against them when enacted by the Bush admin. If that's not 'apologizing', again what would be?

For Obama, it's a case of deciding between "staying the course" and "diverting the course."

For Bush it was "setting the course" and "staying the course."

The course is fucked up. Bush was taken out of the driver's seat on a ride of his choosing. Obama was put in his place. What do you expect? There is no reset button. There is no do-over.

the conservative meme must be correct: see how identical obama and bush are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us...ef=global-home

sometimes the right makes me laugh and laugh.

It is discordant to me to see the The Agent of Change following in the foreign policy footsteps of his predecessor on terrorism. He represented the hopes and dreams of millions of idealistic people across the world. I'm not fully sure what to make of it. Is he doing it because the threats are real, or is he doing it for some other reason. If he's doing it for some other reason, what could that reason be? Is he joking? This is a man who ran and won the office of President of the United States on a platform of Change, the living breathing embodiment of an International Apology for the quasi-fascist policies of the Bush administration. Now we come to find out its business as usual. Where we duped? Tricked? Foisted? Propagandized? What the heck?

http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/arc...affiti9303.jpg

snap out of it, powerclown.
you can do it.

I've got a basement, I'll take a few detainees if the state or federal government can supply a few full time prison guards, at least until they can be tried. I'll even feed them. I just want this chapter in American history to end.

you know, you make a good point. If a rep would simply say, "You know, nobody wants these prisoners, but we need to move on and get past this, we will gladly house them in ____," and poof, instant hero. His constituents may despise him for a bit, but it's better than hearing everyone claim the NIMBY approach. It's annoying and we just need to get past this. Besides, i'm suuuuure he could get a S**tload of money for some pet projects just for taking the hit on this....

I'ts win win...i don't get it

They don't want to look "soft on terror", as if that phrase had any meaning whatsoever.

You think locking terrorists down in a home-state Super-Max is soft? I'm QUITE sure it could be spun the other direction.

I don't think it's soft. The politicians clearly do, though.

Obama got skewered by Rachel Maddow on his new policies towards detainees, and rightly so. It's incredibly disappointing that he is not only NOT overturning Bush's policies, but is taking them even further. Completely unconstitutional decisions being made in a speech where he says he wants to follow the letter of the law. Amazing.

I see we are now acknowledging the existence of bonafide terrorists and terrorism. Where before they and it were the stuff of the fevered imaginations of fringe conservatives only. Obama certainly is concerned with terrorism.

There has been progress made here.

Being concerned with terrorism is fine. Arresting people and detaining them based on something they may do is completely unconstitutional

As soon as they announced Robert Gates would be staying on as Defense Secretary, it was apparent the status quo would be maintained.

and it's completely disappointing to me. hi stance on GITMO and detainees was, for me, a major selling point is his campaign.

-- "Completely unconstitutional" how?......
Please be specific. Thank you.

of COURSE the overall status quo is being protected/maintained. you really didn't believe the characterisations of obama as some kind of left radical, did you powerclown? no-one believed that. i know people who were dancing in the streets when obama was elected--because he wasn't a republican, because of who he is---but no-one in their right mind thought that he was any kind of Radical.

if you had been living under a rock for the interminable television spectacle of run-up to the dribbling conclusion of the bush fiasco, and so missed all the nonsensical framing and reframing of obama as this or that image, and surfaced near the end, and decided to try to figure out where obama stood, the information was readily available: in the decision to continue in afghanistan you could have seen a basic acceptance of the idea of the "war on terror"---it was just a narrower interpretation of it than the bush people tried to generate, and so didn't include the iraq debacle--but it DID include al-qeada---and apparently the taliban (situational dynamics which result from yet another dimension of the incompetence of the bush squad resulted in swapping out the object of the "war on terror" for another object)---the array of compromises of principle that came along with this "war on terror" were also not in themselves Problematic--rather obama seemed to have understood that among the central problems caused by the overwhelming incompetence of the bush squad was POLITICAL and so giving the APPEARANCE of breaking with that period of overwhelming incompetence was task 1. there was NEVER any indication of a wholesale break.

the list can be extended in almost any direction.

so i don't know what you're talking about, powerclown: you seem to be working your way through your own private drama in which things really are as the ultra-right tried to portray them.
that was never the case.

The Constitution does not grant the President the power to indefinitely hold prisoners without trial. It's pretty simply really.

Observers of differing political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government.

Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list:
"The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."

Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds:
rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

An unnamed and dismayed human rights advocate, on legalizing indefinite detention of alleged terrorists (in the New York Times, May 21):
"We were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

-- Absolutely true.

But it does not grant habeas corpus to enemy combatants taken on the field of battle, either.

They are not covered by the Geneva Convention, for that matter.

It most certainly DOES. In Boumediene v. Bush, Dec 5, 2007 the court recognized habeas corpus rights for Gitmo detainees. The first people were released from there under writs of habeas corpus starting October of that year.

EDIT: Okay, technically, the Constitution doesn't grant ANYBODY the right of habeas corpus. That's not a right explicitly granted by the Constitution. It's a piece of common law adopted from very old British practice. But it remains one of our fundamental legal rights nonetheless, and the Court has held that it extends to non-citizens and people being detained at the pleasure of the President.

In fact, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006 that so-called "enemy combatants" were entitled to the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention--in short, deciding that the made-up classification "enemy combatant" didn't suddenly NOT make them prisoners of war.

So... I get your opinion on the matter, but the people who actually have the job of interpreting the Constitution and our nations laws disagree with your assertions.

Does this mean they aren't enemy combatants? Does this mean this isn't a war?

Speaking of the Constitution, in regard to Habeas Corpus, and especially torture, isn't the American executive subject to the Eighth Amendment in these matters?