I’m no expert, just a dotard who’s been watching too much crap too long but has observed stuff.
Like when you look at the big picture policy-wise, there’s a whole lot of bipartisan bullshit.
Enabling, protecting and promoting an extractive, exploitative, impoverishing economy for one. And national security for another. Since at least post-WWII, national security in reality has had two goals before protecting the nation: making the world safe for capitalist extraction, so to speak, and enrichment of military-industrial complex entities. And to sell those goals, a huge amount of fictions are needed. You know; lies. Nothing in the case described in this post is justifiable as actual national security. And any fear of a future lack of cooperation by our own enablers — in this case Poland — can be salved, as often is the case, with economic and/or munitions largesse ie bribes. At the end of the day, we have nothing else to offer.
Another complication is politicians’ need to promote the establishment line on national security in order to avoid attacks from political opponents and the mainstream media.
Another thing I’ve realized, let’s say, over the years is a tendency of the elite to bond over being successful members of the elite so differences are overlooked. And being a member of the elite means by definition supporting the establishment. Differences may not be denied but they are low importance. These people can’t see because they refuse to look. Too, they just don’t care if it impacts their personal position in the world.
Finally, our leadership, public and private, is sociopathic. That we do not have a true national response to Covid x- one that can’t be blocked by governors — is or should be mind blowing. OTOH, neither party has particularly cared about the needs of the majority of the nation since at least Reagan. (Caring about the masses is by definition what a republic does; so not caring maybe means we’re not a republic.)
In the case here there’s also likely SCOTUS inscrutability going on. Never helpful to read about an argument and extrapolate which way the decision will be made. Too, quite possible here, is that maybe a majority might like to find for Abu Zubaydah but needs the lawyers to give them something on which to base a decision that goes against the liberal deference given the IC. Personally, I’ve loved the ideas for years that there should be no problem confirming what everyone assumes happened. Here, there’s no doubt that was tortured in Poland so really, what’s the harm realistically speaking? Of course, looking like idiots is no problem for us because again money.
If we can finally acknowledge that the GWOT was a mistake - or, at the very least, that it was excessive in force and in length, can we not also acknowledge that Gitmo was an even worse mistake in terms of its violation of the rule of law and our supposedly American values?
Yes, Why Not Let Abu Zubaydah Testify?
I’m no expert, just a dotard who’s been watching too much crap too long but has observed stuff.
Like when you look at the big picture policy-wise, there’s a whole lot of bipartisan bullshit.
Enabling, protecting and promoting an extractive, exploitative, impoverishing economy for one. And national security for another. Since at least post-WWII, national security in reality has had two goals before protecting the nation: making the world safe for capitalist extraction, so to speak, and enrichment of military-industrial complex entities. And to sell those goals, a huge amount of fictions are needed. You know; lies. Nothing in the case described in this post is justifiable as actual national security. And any fear of a future lack of cooperation by our own enablers — in this case Poland — can be salved, as often is the case, with economic and/or munitions largesse ie bribes. At the end of the day, we have nothing else to offer.
Another complication is politicians’ need to promote the establishment line on national security in order to avoid attacks from political opponents and the mainstream media.
Another thing I’ve realized, let’s say, over the years is a tendency of the elite to bond over being successful members of the elite so differences are overlooked. And being a member of the elite means by definition supporting the establishment. Differences may not be denied but they are low importance. These people can’t see because they refuse to look. Too, they just don’t care if it impacts their personal position in the world.
Finally, our leadership, public and private, is sociopathic. That we do not have a true national response to Covid x- one that can’t be blocked by governors — is or should be mind blowing. OTOH, neither party has particularly cared about the needs of the majority of the nation since at least Reagan. (Caring about the masses is by definition what a republic does; so not caring maybe means we’re not a republic.)
In the case here there’s also likely SCOTUS inscrutability going on. Never helpful to read about an argument and extrapolate which way the decision will be made. Too, quite possible here, is that maybe a majority might like to find for Abu Zubaydah but needs the lawyers to give them something on which to base a decision that goes against the liberal deference given the IC. Personally, I’ve loved the ideas for years that there should be no problem confirming what everyone assumes happened. Here, there’s no doubt that was tortured in Poland so really, what’s the harm realistically speaking? Of course, looking like idiots is no problem for us because again money.
The bullshit is exceptional.
If we can finally acknowledge that the GWOT was a mistake - or, at the very least, that it was excessive in force and in length, can we not also acknowledge that Gitmo was an even worse mistake in terms of its violation of the rule of law and our supposedly American values?