Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Saturday August 13 2016, @08:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the she-said-he-said-he-didn't-(he-did) dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Television news has long used graphics at the bottom of their screens to identify the people and places in their stories – but with the 2016 presidential race, two networks lately have been injecting analysis into them during their news reporting.

It started in June when Donald Trump denied having said Japan should have nuclear weapons. CNN inserted this snarky line in their chyron:

TRUMP: I NEVER SAID JAPAN SHOULD HAVE NUKES (HE DID)

[...] While fact-checking may or may not be a legitimate new use of the chyron, what is noticeable is a distinct absence of chyron fact-checking for various claims made by Clinton.

For instance, Clinton recently told Fox News' Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey had called her answers about her private email use as secretary of state "truthful" – he did not make such a sweeping statement.

Source: FoxNews


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday August 13 2016, @10:45AM

    by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Saturday August 13 2016, @10:45AM (#387454)

    "I don't think Trump would make a good president, but Hillary is simply corrupt. It's doubtful that she has any principles other than power and personal enrichment."

    Tell me again how any of your recent presidents (last 50 years) have been any different? It is hard to find one that is not involved in one war crime or another.

    Honestly. Not seeing it to be honest. And please. No Obama "hope and change" shite...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:44PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:44PM (#387482) Journal

    It is hard to find one that is not involved in one war crime or another.

    Being involved in "war crimes" doesn't correlate with corruption.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:39PM (#387596)

      But violating the constitution--something they all did--does.

    • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday August 13 2016, @09:15PM

      by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Saturday August 13 2016, @09:15PM (#387625)

      War crimes and corruption have correlated throughout history. I know you made a knee jerk response that you did not really think about much, but that was seriously weak.

      Corruption:
      Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement, though it may also involve practices that are legal in many countries.

      It does when you corrupt your own laws/constitution to allow said war crimes - especially against the direct will of your population.

      Or when you sign up to the international treaties on such but use your political influence to ensure your own country is exempt from it.

      Or when you violate international law by attacking sovereign nations on illegitimate grounds in direct violation of international law based on fraudulent reasons which even if true are not justification with your only excuse again being you don't recognize those laws.

      Or when you carry out torture, which are clearly unethical war crimes, in secret and then change the law so the president cannot be SENTENCED TO DEATH for it according to your own laws. (yes, that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996 [wikipedia.org] )

      A point many people mistake is that something that is legal cannot be corruption. This is false. Many corrupted countries have passed corrupt laws which make corruption legal.

      For example: allowing corporate donations to politicians which allow lobbyist access to said politicians and allow them to draft legislation on their behalf. Perfectly legal and even publicly declared but still the very definition of corruption.

      I have even seen people passionately defending this as a form of "free speech".

      Mind boggling, but true. Sometimes you have to take a step back (or pull your head out of your arse) and re-appreciate how fucked up some of the things people take for granted are.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 13 2016, @11:23PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 13 2016, @11:23PM (#387649) Journal

        War crimes and corruption have correlated throughout history.

        No, because war crimes is a 20th century concept.

        It does when you corrupt your own laws/constitution to allow said war crimes - especially against the direct will of your population.

        Acting against the direct will of a population is not illegal, even if it is your population. Should we go back to making homosexuality and weird religions or scientific beliefs illegal just because people don't like those things?

        Or when you sign up to the international treaties on such but use your political influence to ensure your own country is exempt from it.

        Hypocrisy is not a crime either.

        Or when you violate international law by attacking sovereign nations on illegitimate grounds in direct violation of international law based on fraudulent reasons which even if true are not justification with your only excuse again being you don't recognize those laws.

        Which let us note wasn't crimes either. Should be? Yes, but not in reality.

        Or when you carry out torture, which are clearly unethical war crimes, in secret and then change the law so the president cannot be SENTENCED TO DEATH for it according to your own laws. (yes, that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996 [wikipedia.org] )

        Well, you finally have something worth pursuing. The US has committed institutionalized torture both at Guantanamo and via illegal kidnapping "renditions".

        A point many people mistake is that something that is legal cannot be corruption. This is false. Many corrupted countries have passed corrupt laws which make corruption legal.

        No, what I think is the problem here is that people mistake something legal for something illegal, and vice versa.

        For example: allowing corporate donations to politicians which allow lobbyist access to said politicians and allow them to draft legislation on their behalf. Perfectly legal and even publicly declared but still the very definition of corruption.

        I have even seen people passionately defending this as a form of "free speech".

        It doesn't help your case that you fail to understand the other viewpoint or the law here. Corporate donations (which let us note are actually rich people donations since corporations have nothing to do with the issue, and usually people forget that labor unions and non profits are also generally corporations or very similar legal beasts to corporations) is a form of free speech and in the US, free speech is pretty absolute and often defended in a similar absolute matter.

        • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:13AM

          by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:13AM (#387687)

          I can see that not only are you are an apologist you lack the ability to argue to a level I find interesting.

          Since nothing I can say will make any difference here I will just beg to differ and be done with you.

          Thanks.

          Feel free to count this as a victory if you wish. Enjoy.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:07AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:07AM (#387725) Journal
            And there's the psychological projection again.

            Since nothing I can say will make any difference here I will just beg to differ and be done with you.

            You have to give a rational argument first. Let's review: you started by asserting without evidence that every US President for the past half century is engaged in some vague term called "war crimes". When called on that, the only genuine war crime you bother to mention is torture. It's not a war crime that sticks to anyone before G. W. Bush. So you've covered 15 years of your 50 year period. What will cover the other 35 years?

            I don't mind that you "beg to differ", but please have a reason.

            • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday August 15 2016, @11:33PM

              by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Monday August 15 2016, @11:33PM (#388471)

              Ok I was just going to walk away but you request sounded reasonable so I will make an attempt. You don't have to agree and this is just a starting point as the history is very complex, vast and not really talked about much outside of academic circles.

              One of the biggest takeaways I get from this history is that this behaviour is not random, isolated or out of the norm. Once you sift through each event you see the pattern and intent as it is too obvious to miss. Like with all politicians and PR you have to ignore their waffle and look at their behaviour. Ignore their PR stated goals and pay attention to their actual goals as stated internally.

              This list is no where near complete. Some of the presidents are more guilty of this than others of course and some only by directly supporting war crimes through military aid and political support (e.g. vetos in the security council.) So they are more moral because they are only "accessories" to (mostly directors of) murder and not murder directly - although since presidents don't fight one could argue this is all they EVER are so the difference is irrelevent.

                - Truman for the atomic bomb and fire bombing japanese residential areas, plus counter-insurgency work in Greece
                - Eisenhower for role of CIA in the overthrow of the Arbentz government in Guatemala, maybe also intervention in Lebanon and role of CIA in Iran
                - Kennedy for Bay of Pigs invasion, Operation Mongoose, and Vietnam
                - Johnson for Vietnam escalation
                - Nixon for Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos
                - Ford indirectly for his explicit support of Indonesian invasion and attempted genocide of East Timor
                - Carter supported (including military aid) Indonesian government despite atrocities
                - Reagan for Central America (a lot here...) and support of Israeli invasion of Lebanon
                - Bush (Sr.) for ordering the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
                - Bush (Jnr.) for torture, targeting civilian facilities incl. hospitals, illegal invasion of sovereign nations and a bunch of other stuff.
                - Obama for drone strike program which kills suspects (ex-judicially) but also knowingly kills civilians as well. (e.g. rocketing funerals and weddings)

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes [wikipedia.org]

              Long audio book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0fuR4oYpY [youtube.com]
              The Book itself: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/55469/failed-states/ [penguin.co.uk]

              And any number of other sources.

              Again: I don't think any of this will make a difference and I would be surprised if you even read any of it. More than likely you will call is conspiracy and go back to your life with your cognitive dissonance resolved as most do. Possibly you are one of the murderous horde of "armchair soldiers" who consider all of the above perfectly ok and necessary for all sorts of reasons including there was "no other choice" - just know I call BS on all of that. Murder is murder. War crimes are war crimes.

              If you struggle with this being somehow bad I would ask you to engage in the helpful thought experiment of what your position would be if you were reading all this about another country you don't know much about. And then as a further one think about the target of the above being your own country and how those acts COULD be reasonably justified - what exactly would it take for you to be ok for these things if it was the US?

              Its probably better for you personally if you don't, it is not something that feeds the soul...

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:35AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:35AM (#388562) Journal

                Murder is murder. War crimes are war crimes.

                Except when they aren't. I wouldn't consider most of this list crimes, much less war crimes. Law matters here, not your light weight opinion on what should be a war crime.

                If you struggle with this being somehow bad I would ask you to engage in the helpful thought experiment of what your position would be if you were reading all this about another country you don't know much about.

                Like the USSR or China? Except well I do know something about them and what they've done.

                Again: I don't think any of this will make a difference and I would be surprised if you even read any of it.

                [...]

                Its probably better for you personally if you don't, it is not something that feeds the soul...

                And of course, we have the obligatory public virtue signaling. Well, I can't be bothered to care about fake war crimes, especially when real ones barely get a mention.

                For example, you mentioned Vietnam several times as if the US being involved was by itself illegal. I don't buy it. The US had a legitimate concern that communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia (and indeed it did to some degree despite the US's efforts). The communists incidentally were notorious generators of war crimes. And it apparently is a little known fact that parties which don't follow the rules of the Geneva conventions lose much of the protections of the Geneva conventions. For example, in Vietnam there was a frequent problem with guerilla groups hiding by appearing as civilians. Well, if they get caught, they aren't legal combatants and they can be and often were executed on the spot.

                And there are several claims in your list that the US targeted civilian facilities and gatherings. But no word of the enemies who illegally used such facilities for military purposes or military targets who are present at civilian gatherings. That makes it legally a military target, folks, and the enemy's action is a war crime precisely because it mixes innocents into the line of fire. Nor is there any mention of conflating military law with criminal law. People who were targeted by Obama's drone strikes were not targeted because they were suspected criminals or in close proximity to such, but were targeted because they were thought to be at war with the US. A foreign person at war with the US is not against any law. That's not going to keep them from getting killed "ex-judicially" though.

                In addition, the US does have procedures for evaluating compliance with the various laws of war, such as evaluating the military value of the proposed attack, receiving approval from fairly high up to conduct the attacks, and education of its soldiers in the laws of war and rules of engagement. That's not completely a sincere effort since much of it is for CYA-purposes, but at least for the recent drone attacks, Obama and company are kept in the loop which is more than you can say for the Irangate affair under Reagan which probably was done with Reagan's ignorance of the matter (though ignorance probably of the "would someone rid me of this troublesome priest" variety).

                To give you an idea of the problem you face, quote the laws that makes this list illegal and then show the president in question was responsible or knowledgeable enough of the activity to be breaking the law. I'll weed out most of your list on the following grounds: 1) the activity is not actually a crime under any conditions under the statute you cite, 2) one or more exemptions listed in that statute preclude the activity from being a crime, 3) the president wasn't aware of the activity at the time it happened and/or didn't have any control over the outcome, and 4) the activity in question didn't actually happen like claimed.

                There's a lot of terrible deeds that have been done out there, including some by the US. But I want to see credible reduction in the worst war crimes rather than this faddish obsession over US maladventures, most which don't rise to the level of war crime.

                • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:09AM

                  by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:09AM (#388574)

                  Which brings us back to doh...

                  Thank you for proving my original point and estimation of your character. I will return to my original stance. You are an apologist and this "debate"is a waste of time.

                  I will add I also think your stance on the atrocities mentioned means that, in addition, you are a terrible person.

                  And as such wont care what I have say of course, but it is said regardless.

                  Good bye.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:34AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 17 2016, @12:34AM (#388918) Journal

                    Thank you for proving my original point and estimation of your character.

                    Which is worthless to me and likely worthless to you as well. And of course, my point still stands despite yet more pretentious moralizing on your part.

                    Funny how you are only interested in imaginary war crimes of US presidents rather than real attrocities. A million deaths in Cambodia or a few hundred thousand deaths in East Timur become merely a pretext for another bullet point about US presidents.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:51PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 17 2016, @09:51PM (#389317) Journal
                    My view on this is that war crimes should be for clearly delineated, obviously reprehensible acts like waterboarding war prisoners at Guantanamo or executing thousands of innocent civilians, not vaguely war-like things I don't like, say like LBJ escalating the war in Vietnam or Ford not doing some vague something when Indonesia invaded East Timur in large part armed with US gear.

                    We wouldn't let our police get away with such ridiculously weak standards both of law and evidence because it would be heavily abused. Not only does it lead to serious abuses by those who enforce the laws, it leads to uneven enforcement of the law.. Some would get heavily punished for minor infrastructures while others with genuine blood on their hands go free due to resources for preventing crimes getting diverted to frivolous use. And I think we see the same effect here. Millions of people have died and the best the war crimes people can do is to rant about prosecuting US presidents. That effort is insignificant and does nothing to curb the real problem.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:31AM (#387713)

          No, because war crimes is a 20th century concept.

          Um, there are some Roman lawyers, like Cicero, who would like to speak with your.
          And Many doctors of the Canon Law. And the Umma. And even Hammurabi. Sometimes, khallow, your khallowness surprises even me.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:09AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:09AM (#387726) Journal

            Um, there are some Roman lawyers, like Cicero, who would like to speak with your. And Many doctors of the Canon Law. And the Umma. And even Hammurabi.

            Go for it. Show me examples of laws from those times that is relevant.