Thursday, December 16, 2010

Necessity

And, you know, as a follow-up, MattY thinks solitary confinement is going too far! He just wants Bradley Manning to be punished, not punished so much. I'm just going to keep civilly disobeying Godwin's law here, mkay? He just, you know, supports transport, not extermination. He supports the "necessary evil," but not the "straightforward evil." No, really!

So as best I can tell Manning is, in fact, guilty of serious crimes. And unlike the nutty and dangerous effort to legally sanction Julian Assange for publishing leaks, I have no problem with the government punishing people who violate the terms of their classification status. But Manning hasn’t had a trial and hasn’t been convicted. Somewhat punitive post-arrest pre-trial measures are kind of a necessary evil, but the prolonged confinement of Manning under cruel conditions go well beyond the necessary into the straightforward evil.
Listen up, Ima just throw some shit out at all y'all. Put this in your pipes and smoke it. It is never necessary to do evil. It is always a choice.

26 comments:

AlanSmithee said...

How heartless of you, IOZ! Why, without evil there could be no lesser-evil - and without a lesser-evil poor Matty would be reduced to sucking tenured cock for ta jobs and writing papers for rich kids. Do you want to impoverish poor Matty? Well do you???

Anonymous said...

Your posts about the wrongs being done to Bradley Manning -- by the state and by the supposed critics of the state -- are brilliant. Thank you.

davidly said...

Evil classified. That's all you need to know.

¯\(°_0)/¯ said...

So as best I can tell Manning is, in fact, guilty of serious crimes. . . But Manning hasn’t had a trial and hasn’t been convicted.

IOZ said...

Let's get MattY one of these for Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Just so I'm clear on your position: if I rent your house and don't pay, what happens next?

Professor Coldheart said...

Just so I'm clear on your position: if you order me to gather biometric data on strangers, and I tell the New York Times about what you ordered, what happens next?

¯\(°_0)/¯ said...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4JDQ1GYD9K4/TQpV6jjImQI/AAAAAAAAACQ/z79vNy3DQzg/s1600/judgematty.JPG

Justin said...

I don't understand why you find him so ridiculous, you are both for lesser punishment for Manning.

Anonymous said...

I think this is supposed to be an argument for no punishment for anybody. But so far as I can see like most of IOZ's oeuvre it's really about making fun of the fat kid.

peter ward said...

Cruel and unusual punishment is fine; just as long as it's doled out in moderation.

Anonymous said...

Yglesias is just arguing that Manning should receive the same kind of pre-trial detention that awaits other people facing charges. That's it.

I hadn't heard that Manning was beatified. Perhaps if & when he is we can toss aside the question of whether he broke the law. Until then, it doesn't seem completely outlandish that he might have to be confined in some way. Perhaps he's a flight risk. Perhaps he'd need to post bond. I don't know. I suspect that few of the people commenting here do, either. Is Manning really supposed to walk without **any** hearing? Because he stuck a thumb in the eye of people we don't like? Because he meant well?

For real?!?!

Yglesias puts his foot in his mouth pretty often. But in this case, if IOZ really does have something better going on than "making fun of the fat kid", it's really hard to see.
-- sglover

IOZ said...

Progressivism as law and order. Interesting. It makes Yglesias' case for Nixon over Kennedy clearer, certainly.

the talking dog said...

"Anarchy is liberalism, cleansed of the police." -- Leon Trotsky

NutellaonToast said...

"Yglesias is just arguing that Manning should receive the same kind of pre-trial detention that awaits other people facing charges. That's it."

That is hardly fucking it. Read the god damn piece! He's clearly hemming and hawing in the face of torture. If he were taking a moral stand he'd actually denounce someone and wouldn't equivocate. But he doesn't because he's not a man about morals. He's a man about the system.

The Medium Lobster said...

Oh, well. He violated the terms of his classification status! Fetch the thumbscrews!

IOZ said...

Yeah, but he clicked the I AGREE box when he accepted the End User Agreement!

demize! said...

C'mon everyone knows martyrs should first be coated and then revered. It is teh nessussaries!

demize! said...

That should read "flayed" my keyboard has a limited vocabulary and inccorrectly corrects me. It should be "coated".

demize! said...

My keyboard that is. Urrrrghflizzzhhibbità@!

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

As I recall my Plato, Socrates said that to the ordinary person, justice consists of returning evil for evil in proper measure - whereas the philosopher wishes never to do evil at all.

Or something like that.

Anonymous said...

How grotesque and ironic that the treatment he endures at the hands of USofA guvernment's goons ends up vindicating Manning's actions.

Capt'n Obvious

Enron said...

Roll that shit, light that shit, smoke it

Nathan said...

Finished Adam Bede this morning, then read this.

Damn.

You're doing good works lately, IOZ.

Coach Outlet Online said...

He supports the "necessary evil," but not the "straightforward evil." No, really!oh...

coach outlet said...

Socrates said that to the ordinary person, justice consists of returning evil for evil in proper measure - whereas the philosopher wishes never to do evil at all.