Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene
The Georgia Republican is fast falling out of favor for her opposition to the Ukraine aid bill.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s failed fight to end aid to Ukraine, and her sort-of-serious crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson, has cost her the support of right-wing media.
The Sunday front page of the New York Post, owned by the conservative Murdoch family, was the latest outlet to attack Greene, invoking the “Moscow Marjorie” nickname coined by former representative Ken Buck.
Fox News, another arm of the Murdoch media empire, had already taken aim at the Georgia Republican last week, with columnist Liz Peek calling her an “idiot” and saying she needs to “turn all that bombastic self-serving showmanship and drama queen energy on Democrats.” This follows an editorial last month from The Wall Street Journal, also in the Murdoch portfolio, that called Greene “Rep. Mayhem Taylor Greene” and accused her and her allies of being “most interested in TV hits and internet donors.”
Even a non-Murdoch outlet is on the attack, as conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra Saunders demanded to know “who put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge?”
I don't think I agree with you about Gitmo ever serving a purpose. It was entirely outside of Geneva Conventions and served as a secure prison for anyone deemed an enemy of the state, including US citizens. Torture was regularly practiced and there was no oversight; it was an oubliette into which people disappeared for years, with no representation or recourse. Gitmo was everything the US should stand against, when we consider our highest ideals and morals.
The US has plenty of blood on its hands, but Gitmo was out in the open; there was no subtlety, it wasn't a "dark secret." The only thing it accomplished was to prove that you can scare the current American public enough that they'll accept nearly anything, including stuff that would have outraged the WWII US public.
Isn't that where the GC comes in? The convention isn't about applying your country's laws, but about ethical standards for treatment of enemy combatants. Gitmo being not on our soil is where Geneva should have come into play.
I'm sorry about that; maybe some people enjoyed working there, but I think it would have messed me up.
Yah I think we're talking past one another. I wasn't debating where Gitmo was located; when I said it was "outside Geneva" I meant it was operating outside of the agreements of the Geneva Conventions. Torture is not allowed for captured enemy combatants under the convention; prisoners at Gitmo were tortured. Gitmo was not obeying the conventions.
I'm sure there are all sorts of loopholes engaged in what went on there; were insurgents technically "enemy combatants?" By classifying them as "terrorists" were they excluded from protection? Since they weren't wearing military uniforms, were they excluded from protection? Is waterboarding technically torture?
But nobody in the world is going to being the US in for trial, so the question was moot: we all knew Gitmo defied the spirit of the Geneva Convention; this is why I say it didn't serve a purpose. We know torture is an unreliable way of gathering intel. If I waterboard you enough, eventually you'll name your own child as a terrorist if I want you to.
I suspect we disagree on a lot of things, but this one thing we're in complete alignment. There's a golden rule concept floating in here: I think if one takes the position that waterboarding isn't torture, they should try it sometime. I don't want to be incarcerated, but I'd be willing to try it for a while it if meant proving it's not inhumane. Very few of the "approved" interrogation techniques I've heard come out of Gitmo would I willingly subject myself to.