cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14604927

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?”

  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    It was entirely outside of Geneva Conventions

    Gitmo had nothing to do with Geneva. It dealt with US law. If we brought them back to our soil, they’d have full protections under the constitution.

    Gitmo was supposed to be a stop gap while we figured out what that meant.

    I was there for about six months. Obviously can’t get into details but it needs to be shutdown. It’s lived long past its purpose. The things that went on there are a black eye to our country.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Gitmo had nothing to do with Geneva. It dealt with US law. If we brought them back to our soil, they’d have full protections under the constitution.

      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 was there for about six months

      I’m sorry about that; maybe some people enjoyed working there, but I think it would have messed me up.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Isn’t that where the GC comes in?

        No. Geneva has nothing to do with it. We have to comply with Geneva anywhere.

        We picked gitmo specifically because it’s not US soil.

        There is the whole debate if they weee protected under Geneva and if they was law enforcement, etc. but gitmo was only selected to avoid US law.

        • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The torture is a whole different debate. It was called enhanced interrogation techniques. I’ll leave it at I wouldn’t want that shit some to me. I’ve been through many of the techniques and they’re no joke.

            • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I have been through them all but in a much milder manner. Also, when we did SERE training, they subjected us to techniques.

                I can’t say I am a fan of them or approve of their use in 99% of cases.

                I have never been incarcerated but I think it should be humane and try to better the person. Just warehousing like we do currently is not a solution to any problem.