Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:23 PM Aug 2013

Intellectual Dishonesty 101: "We can't tell the U.K. what to do"

We know -- the White House has confirmed -- that the Administration had advance notice of the U.K.'s planned detention of Miranda. Had the administration raised an objection, the U.K., our closest ally, would surely have honored such an objection. To suggest otherwise is the absolute height of intellectual dishonesty. And that was the point Rachel was making.

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Intellectual Dishonesty 101: "We can't tell the U.K. what to do" (Original Post) markpkessinger Aug 2013 OP
We can tell anyone what to do, and they can tell us to piss up a rope. nt MADem Aug 2013 #1
Right -- and the U.K. is SO likely to do that . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #3
They can't Hydra Aug 2013 #5
You get real--you mouth off with the "Jesus Fucking Christ" like you have inside knowledge, but all MADem Aug 2013 #6
Here- Snowden dumped on the UK and exposed them. OF COURSE THEY WANT THE INFO STOPPED KittyWampus Aug 2013 #29
If the U.S. did tell them what to do, the ProSense Aug 2013 #13
This message was self-deleted by its author MADem Aug 2013 #26
I'm sure that line of discussion will come around, in time! nt MADem Aug 2013 #28
Straw man markpkessinger Aug 2013 #32
Found out yesterday we've detained Laura Poitras 40 times (!!!!!), Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #2
By we do you mean... one_voice Aug 2013 #7
The US. Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #10
Ok, thank you.. one_voice Aug 2013 #11
Funny. Nuts was exactly the term I used. n/t Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #15
I think we did the right thing by staying out of it. JaneyVee Aug 2013 #4
You really believe the U.S. just "stayed out of it?" markpkessinger Aug 2013 #17
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Marrah_G Aug 2013 #33
Yeah, that'll show me. JaneyVee Aug 2013 #34
Advance notice=total control Progressive dog Aug 2013 #8
Raising an objection . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #14
"Had the administration raised an objection," Progressive dog Aug 2013 #22
There is no conflict between saying . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #24
If you had said that at first, it wouldn't have been Progressive dog Aug 2013 #25
I didn't think I had to . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #31
Well then, why would they do what the US told them to do? Progressive dog Aug 2013 #35
"Why would they do what the US told them to do?" markpkessinger Aug 2013 #37
You said "It is a given that the U.K. is a sovereign country, to whom the U.S. cannot dictate" Progressive dog Aug 2013 #44
We DID tell the UK what to do. It's not like Snowden is revealing THEIR secrets. nt Demo_Chris Aug 2013 #9
Good point n/t markpkessinger Aug 2013 #16
Totally wrong, Snowden did finger surveillance operations in the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, NZ KittyWampus Aug 2013 #20
Snowden leaked US intel, he never worked for Germany or the UK and never "spied" on them. nt Demo_Chris Aug 2013 #36
Rusbridger: "Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America..." ProSense Aug 2013 #12
It's not like they're Egypt or something. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #18
There is a fine line to be walked here. randome Aug 2013 #19
Good, let's move on shall we? Savannahmann Aug 2013 #21
Sequester. Voting rights. Gun control. randome Aug 2013 #23
None of those are considered important according to polling. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #38
I think DU looks 'stupid as hell' right now. randome Aug 2013 #41
More important is a matter of perception. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #43
They can still choose to do otherwise treestar Aug 2013 #27
Not necessarily. Britain had its own reasons pnwmom Aug 2013 #30
To clarify the OP a bit . . . markpkessinger Aug 2013 #39
While totally forgetting that most of us JoeyT Aug 2013 #40
Put another way: They wouldn't do it if we objected. DirkGently Aug 2013 #42

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
5. They can't
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:37 PM
Aug 2013

They're defending the indefensible. Once your in that land of unreality, ANYTHING is possible.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. You get real--you mouth off with the "Jesus Fucking Christ" like you have inside knowledge, but all
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:40 PM
Aug 2013

you've got is unsubstantiated speculation and ass-umptions.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
29. Here- Snowden dumped on the UK and exposed them. OF COURSE THEY WANT THE INFO STOPPED
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:30 PM
Aug 2013
London: British spies are running an online eavesdropping operation so vast that internal documents say it even outstrips the United States' international internet surveillance effort, The Guardian newspaper says.

The paper cited UK intelligence memos leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden to claim that UK spies were tapping into the world's network of fibre optic cables to deliver the "biggest internet access" of any member of the Five Eyes - the name given to the espionage alliance composed of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

That access could in theory expose a huge chunk of the world's everyday communications - including the content of people's emails, calls, and more - to scrutiny from British spies and their US allies. How much data the British are copying off the fibre optic network isn't clear, but it's likely to be enormous.

The Guardian said the information flowing across more than 200 cables was being monitored by more than 500 analysts from the NSA and its UK counterpart, GCHQ.

Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
32. Straw man
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:34 PM
Aug 2013

The U.S. government makes its wishes known to allies and non-allies alike all the time, and nobody particularly objects. The objections arise when there is an implied threat of force or coercion that accompanies such an expression.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
2. Found out yesterday we've detained Laura Poitras 40 times (!!!!!),
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:27 PM
Aug 2013

and Miranda was coming back from having met - Laura Poitras. Sooo, what would make the US stop the UK from detaining someone who is very close to Greenwald AND just saw Poitras?? No doubt they were cheering them on.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
10. The US.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:45 PM
Aug 2013

Search her name, you'll find the thread. Absolutely amazing. They've been relentlessly harassing her since 2005 or so. If it were me I would have sued a long long time ago.

Progressive dog

(6,898 posts)
8. Advance notice=total control
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:42 PM
Aug 2013

I don't believe the US government is claiming to have interfered in the UK's decision to detain Miranda.
The US couldn't win this one, if they interfered, they'd be dictating; so they didn't, but they should have. They might have interfered and been rebuffed by the UK, but that can't be admitted as a possibility.

Had the administration raised an objection, the U.K., our closest ally, would surely have honored such an objection. To suggest otherwise is the absolute height of intellectual dishonesty.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
14. Raising an objection . . .
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:48 PM
Aug 2013

. . . which the government of the U.K. would have been free to reject (but likely wouldn't have), in no wise equates to "telling them what to do." Again, this is just dishonest.

Progressive dog

(6,898 posts)
22. "Had the administration raised an objection,"
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:15 PM
Aug 2013
the U.K., our closest ally, would surely have honored such an objection. To suggest otherwise is the absolute height of intellectual dishonesty.

which the government of the U.K. would have been free to reject

Do you have another position, perhaps an honest one?

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
24. There is no conflict between saying . . .
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:17 PM
Aug 2013

. . . that the U.K. would have been free to reject an objection raised by the U.S., but that, given the close relationship between the two countries, it likely would not have done so. There is no dishonesty in that whatsoever.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
31. I didn't think I had to . . .
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:31 PM
Aug 2013

It is a given that the U.K. is a sovereign country, to whom the U.S. cannot dictate. It is also a reality -- one with which I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that everyone on this board would be familiar -- that the U.S. and U.K. have an extremely close alliance and working relationship. I assumed everyone here was at least that politically literate.

Progressive dog

(6,898 posts)
35. Well then, why would they do what the US told them to do?
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:46 PM
Aug 2013
that the U.S. and U.K. have an extremely close alliance and working relationship. I assumed everyone here was at least that politically literate
If the relationship is as close as you claim, why would the UK need to be told what the US wanted and why would the US involve itself in one temporary detention of a Brazilian in the UK?

If you can't defend your original claims, it might be better to just stop making them.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
37. "Why would they do what the US told them to do?"
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:54 PM
Aug 2013

Oh, gee, I don't know -- out of respect for a long-standing alliance, perhaps? Look, the point is, the U.S. could have raised an objection, but did not. Maybe the U.K. would have respected such an objection and maybe it wouldn't have, but I think the most reasonably likely outcome would have been that it would have chosen to respect such an objection. If the U.S. had raised an objection, and the U.K. had declined to respect it, then we would be having a different conversation. But Rachel Maddow is spot on concerning this issue, which is all about what the U.S. did not, in fact, do but which it could have done. The question of how the U.K. would have responded is secondary in any case.

Progressive dog

(6,898 posts)
44. You said "It is a given that the U.K. is a sovereign country, to whom the U.S. cannot dictate"
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 05:41 PM
Aug 2013

but you didn't mean it. LOL

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. Rusbridger: "Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America..."
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:47 PM
Aug 2013

"Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America, which has better laws to protect journalists, I saw no reason not to destroy this material ourselves rather than hand it back to the government."

Rusbridger: destroying hard drives allowed us to continue NSA coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023498667


 

randome

(34,845 posts)
19. There is a fine line to be walked here.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:59 PM
Aug 2013

If Obama is determined to not play politics with this issue, then he needs to take a 'hands off' approach.

And for those who think he was 'secretly' cheering on the U.K., Jesus Christ, there is no secret! Is it a bad thing to want to stop the spread of national security documents?

DU needs to move on to something more intellectually challenging that this constant beating of a dead horse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
21. Good, let's move on shall we?
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:09 PM
Aug 2013

How are we going to win the House in 2014 while revelations of NSA spying are making us look like wannabe Rethugs?

How is that for another topic? Or this. How are we going to get our base to turn out when so many in the party spends so much time insulting them? What is our sales pitch going to be? Get out and vote, if you don't the Rethugs will win and they'll spy on you?

How do we keep the Senate when a growing number of people, nearly a majority all ready, object to this stuff and consider it important?

But let's move on. I know, let's talk about Drone Strikes which create as many terrorists as they kill? No, bad topic to get the anti-war and anti-spying base to turn out. Perhaps we could run on our record of holding Wall Street accountable. Nothing there to run on. Perhaps we can campaign on how well that Employer Mandate is working out. Nope, nothing there to run on.

We have smarted our way into a corner, and the paint is on the floor, and the only question is how the hell we get out of this mess. Evolving on some of these issues is obvious, and obviously the one tactic we won't take. Fear has put us in this corner, and fear will keep us here. That leaves the field open for the Rethugs to run the table.

So what do you want to talk about? How about we campaign on Citizens United. That should really get people excited to vote Democratic.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
23. Sequester. Voting rights. Gun control.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:16 PM
Aug 2013

These, to me, are many times more important than what some 'lost boy' in Russia says the NSA might be doing.

Outside a few Internet bubbles, most people aren't 'up in arms' over might-be's and could-be's. It's too bad Snowden wasn't as good as he claimed or he might have shown us a smoking gun.

Drones? Even that is more important, IMO. That's real. This NSA crap is based on fear and suspicions. At some point this forum needs to return to the real world.

It's the one that matters to most people.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
38. None of those are considered important according to polling.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 07:57 PM
Aug 2013

Economy, which you could possibly argue that the Sequester is important to, possibly by stretching a point, is number one. So what plans do we have for the economy? Nothing on the horizon.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164057/economy-easily-important-driver-obama-approval.aspx

Next up Healthcare. Well, we shot ourselves in the foot by giving big business a year's pass on providing Healthcare to workers. So that one isn't going to be real helpful to us. Let's look at number three.

Terrorism. Not a lot we can say about that except that we're spying on everyone to try and find terrorists. A few more warnings about vague chatter on the internet probably won't help either.

Next up, the sequester issue in full force. Budget Deficit at the Federal Level. Yeah, so what do we run on with that? We could run on raising taxes, we could call it tax fairness. But running on that while we're excusing business' from providing healthcare isn't going to go over well. We could try. The Republicans are better positioned with the cutting spending argument since doom and gloom has not followed the Sequester the way it was promoted.

We are on at best neutral ground on most of the important issues, and at worst the wrong side of the others. That's where we have maneuvered ourselves too. Thankfully, the Republicans haven't figured it out, because if they do, we're toast in 2014. Our last big victory will be getting Corey Booker into the Senate.

Gun Control isn't in the top nine issues. Either is voting rights. Now again, this isn't me, this is Gallop's polling results. This is information released today. This is literally the most up to date information, and your suggestions aren't in the top three. If we start promoting those things, we're going to look stupid as hell. Most people have forgotten about the Sequester because as far as they could tell, nothing changed. Oh they might remember it, I've heard guys (and girls) in the break room at work watching the news mumble about the sequester when President Obama went on vacation. The general phrase was sequester my ass.

So let's pivot to the economy. What plan are we putting forth this time? Because so far the people don't seem to think that it's going all that swimmingly. We can't get a big stimulus package through the Congress. We don't have the votes in the House or Senate. So we'd have to have a long term plan to run on next year. What plan? Bail out Wall Street again? The people would not only vote for the Republicans, they'd lynch us for suggesting TARP II.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
41. I think DU looks 'stupid as hell' right now.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 09:02 PM
Aug 2013

Our posts do not occur in isolation. This is a group endeavor. A group personality, if you will. This obsession with the NSA is not healthy when there are far more important matters we could be discussing.

Polling be damned.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
43. More important is a matter of perception.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:34 AM
Aug 2013

To me, there is little more important than our civil rights. Each time one of them is violated it diminishes us. If we are to decide that is no longer a topic worthy of discussion, then we need to use another metric. Polling shows us what is important to others, others that we hope by our agreement to join/post here to convince to vote Democratic.

Therefor if we are not going to discuss issues that are personally motivating, then obviously we are going to pivot to other issues that are more relevant to the nation at large. That means economy.

There we are as a party, stymied. We would need to come up with a stimulus plan that would be able to get Congressional approval. On this issue, we are at direct opposites with the Republicans. Especially with the Deficit being another important issue. The Republicans will not approve tax increases on the rich, and we couldn't fund a stimulus without adding to the deficit, which would harm us with still other voters.



That graphic from the Gallup story is very interesting. Those who think the economy is the most important issue give President Obama a fairly low approval rating. Roughly 35% of the people approve of the President's handling of the Economy, which reflects on the party as a whole, but consider it a very important issue.

So what can we discuss on that issue that makes us look good as Democrats? How do we stimulate the economy to give more and better jobs? What plan can we point to? What grand national goal can we point to as the reason to pump money into the economy?

Even the ones which President Obama has better to good numbers on, are considered relatively unimportant.

We can start a discussion on Voting Rights, but nobody cares outside of this board about the issue. We can't post a number of recent articles, because the press doesn't care, nor do the pundits. We could start a discussion on Guns, but we've lost that argument, and we are unwilling to expend more political capital on it. Even if you and I came up with a good plan, all we could do here on DU is start yelling at each other because we have our share of gun nuts that essentially cancel out those in favor of common sense gun reforms.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
27. They can still choose to do otherwise
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:29 PM
Aug 2013

They are a sovereign nation. However they are allies of ours and consider their interests to be similar.

Maybe they don't want our intelligence compromised either.

pnwmom

(108,950 posts)
30. Not necessarily. Britain had its own reasons
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 06:31 PM
Aug 2013

for wanting to see what was in the computers/drives Miranda was carrying, as Greenwald made clear afterwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491903

“I am going to publish things on England, too. I have many documents on England's spy system.”

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
39. To clarify the OP a bit . . .
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 08:05 PM
Aug 2013

. . . The intellectual dishonesty I am asserting is really twofold.

First, it is dishonest to equate the U.S. government voicing an objection to a government, with whom the U.S. has long-standing close relations, about a planned action by that government, to "dictating" or "telling that government what to do." The U.S. government makes its wishes known to allies and foes alike all the time, whether or not those governments respect or reject those wishes.

Second, it is dishonest to pretend that there is a serious likelihood, in light of the long-standing, very close relationship between the U.S. and the U.K, that the U.K. would disregard an express objection by the U.S. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? Hardly.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
40. While totally forgetting that most of us
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 08:55 PM
Aug 2013

were pissed at Blair for marching to George Bush's drum and doing whatever he was told to do. Many have apparently totally forgotten the Iraq war ever happened.

Edited to add: Or when Blair was running around building up support for new peace talks in the Middle East and Bush pretty much shut that shit down by telling him it wasn't going to happen, and Blair kind of forgot all about it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Intellectual Dishonesty 1...