Listening to Democrats whine all the time about everything has always been torture to me.
Posted by Kate on December 15, 2007 at 1257 hrs
Listening to republicans bitch about everything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1259 hrs
Eartha Kitt.
Posted by Aaron on December 15, 2007 at 1315 hrs
Owen, did you want a series of snarky comments or were you serious?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1334 hrs
I know it when I see it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1352 hrs
Torture is the inflicting if severe pain in order to gain information or get revenge or for sadistic pleasure. Enough said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1400 hrs
Hillary Clinton giving a speech.
Posted by Jim the Fireman on December 15, 2007 at 1401 hrs
Excuse typo in last post, meant to read ‘of severe pain’. Blasted fumble fingers syndrome!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1402 hrs
A very useful tool to gain information in a timely and rapid manner.
Oh and reading anything Scott writes in any comment section
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1424 hrs
severe pain inflicted judicially, either as punishment for a crime, or for the purpose of extorting a confession from an accused person, as by water or fire, by the boot or thumbkin, or by the rack or wheel.
Extreme pain; anguish of body or mind; pang; agony; torment; as, torture of mind.
1913 Webster
Posted by midnightcomm on December 15, 2007 at 1454 hrs
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=torture
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1607 hrs
-
Posted by Aaron on December 15, 2007 at 1621 hrs
Having Jim Doyle as our Governor.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on December 15, 2007 at 1638 hrs
...Waking up on a Tuesday Morning expecting a HUGE Ice Storm, then looking out the window only to discover, It Looks just like a Snowstorm! Complete with 7 inches of snow.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on December 15, 2007 at 1642 hrs
rap “music”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1951 hrs
“You light up my life.”
Celine Dion.
Eight years of Bush.
Eight minutes of Sykes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 2007 hrs
All those junk e-mails I get telling me my :ahem: “unit” is too small!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on December 15, 2007 at 2029 hrs
I asked this question long ago of anti Bush acquaintances and I dont think this one has been adequately answered either. What exactly constitutes torture? When does interrogation become torture?
If I was to venture a definition, I’d say that by and large and from a historical perspective, the object of torture was to inflict pain, maim and kill without regard to whether information is part of the result. Its fairly easy to see examples of torture in Saddams Iraq and Afghanistan and some other 3rd World areas. Those seem pretty clear cut. I don’t think that the techniques used by US interrogators today resemble what Saddams torturers did. For example from what I understand it, waterboarding is not designed to permanently harm or kill the subject but to put terror into them.
Now this is where some person asks would I like to be waterboarded or my sons? The fact I wouldnt nor would I want to see it done to any member of my family doesnt demonstrate anything except that it is a terrible thing which I suppose is the point isnt it? I personally would tell them anything they would want to know very quickly to stop it. But if I use this criteria which is would I want it done to me, then this opens up a large list of things. Surely thats not the only or even most important criteria we would use?
So, if waterboarding isnt killing anyone or causing them permanent physical harm, then I think we have to shy away from calling it torture. Barring that, then someone has to list for me exactly what they think would be acceptable forms of interrogation when the safety of American lives are at risk. Is it ever acceptable? Would it have been had it prevented 9-11?
Forget for a moment Iraq. Pretend that this is the great noble once in a millenium war that the Left can actually get behind. Assuming that our aim is (as always) to get the war over quickly, decisively and at a minimum loss of American life, is torture then accetable? Remember now this is that theoretical war that Lefties think it is right to kill other people for.
My point is whether all this discussion about torture is really a smokescreen obscuring the anti War sides belief we shouldnt be fighting this war in the first place? Because in the 3 other times Democrats committed our military forces to war in the 20th century, discussing whether torture by our side occurred never seemed to be a large concern.
Is there a point to discussing what torture is or isnt since I would argue the Left doesnt really care about it except as a further political tool for ensuring its plan is followed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 2230 hrs
The implication here—that torture is too slippery a devil to pin down, and thus criticism of the Bush administration for doing it is open to wide interpretation—disgusts me.
Torture is no harder to define than “liberty,” or “stupid.” Here’s what apparently passes for a standard definition:
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Wikipedia goes on to say that torture may also be inflicted by other groups or individuals, sometimes for the same reasons, but sometimes for sadistic gratification, too.
There you have it. Torture defined. Why is this such a difficult mystery these days? Because someone (and his followers) want to pretend that they’re not guilty of it. But they are.
Posted by scott on December 16, 2007 at 1044 hrs
Its a practice that is one of the defining differences between an advanced country and others that have not progressed beyond medieval beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1051 hrs
A procedure/activity inflicting pain that gets the tortured person to tell you just what you want to hear so you quit torturing him/her.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1214 hrs
There you have it. Torture defined. Why is this such a difficult mystery these days? Because someone (and his followers) want to pretend that they’re not guilty of it. But they are.
The question is this discussion is what defines torture. its clear that you define it by what others do. There is a difference between you and me which is evident. You are not willing to answer my question and actually wear the shoes of one who is trying to prosecute a quick end to war and tell us what would be acceptable because you understand that ultimately whatever you say can likewise be condemned using your reasoning.
You have set yourself up in a nice little fantasy utopia where men never blow up thousands of women and children over some twisted notion of martyrdom, or where one nation doesnt move miltarily against another to capture their resources. There is no horse high enough apparently for you to climb upon and show your excellent humanitarian credentials. You claim that luxury for yourself.
When the dogs of war are unleashed, you cant act surprised that people are going to die. Those dogs were unleashed by BOTH sides of the aisle despite the collective amnesia the Left has gotten since it became politically expedient to do so about its own role and decade of exhortations to get Saddam out.
But you did not address my theoretical because you know your own answer would damn you with your own criticisms. What you want is the best of both worlds. You want to be able to demonize the people who are trying to minimize loss of life but you refuse to answer how far you would go if you had a war you felt was noble enough for you to approve of.
Please I invite you to tell us what in your opinion would be acceptable in the effort to save American lives. Otherwise save your moralizing and your idiotic citing of Wikipedia as the font of knowledge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1444 hrs
Bullshit. I answered your question quite thoroughly.
I invite you to tell us what in your opinion would be acceptable in the effort to save American lives.
Absolutely everything and anything—provided it is consistent with the law.
How about you? What won’t you condone? Waterboarding is okay if you suspect someone has done something or has knowledge of something? How about electric shock? That okay? How about hanging someone by their hands? Tell us what’s off-limits, please. And why.
I used to wonder about people who did these kinds of things. What kind of monsters were they? How different from us they must be! Thanks for disabusing me of that fantasy. All it takes for some of my fellow American neighbors to do it is to frighten them a little, demonize an enemy, and there you have it: perfectly willing to put anyone named Mohammad in a friggin’ meat grinder.
Such people make me sick.
Not only that, I think you’re all embarrassingly cowardly. You’re more frightened of a few thousand Arab nutjobs than our fathers were of Hitler’s entire army. Our forbearers would be as ashamed of you as I am.
Posted by scott on December 16, 2007 at 1458 hrs
Absolutely everything and anything—provided it is consistent with the law.
This is whats known as weaselling, just another form of a non answer.
Tell me specifically what techniques, behaviors, other forms of compulsion you see as perfectly legitimate in an interrogation setting.
I am honest enough to say I dont know what I’d condone if getting the knowledge meant saving American lives. I have to say that my feelings on this would be influenced by the knowledge the person in front of me would gladly kill me and any innocent woman and child. In a conventional war setting under the Geneva convention (which terrorists are not protected by) lawful combatants operate under “western” conventions of war. They wear uniforms, they dont involve non combatants except by mistake, and they value their own lives. There is an effort to fight for lack of a better description, a “civilized” war. These were developed over centuries in Europe where they realized that they were always going to live within a few hours march of each other and that if they were ever going to be able to live in peace afterwards they were going to have to set and abide by rules.
Terror warfare in the “east” has always been different and they simply don’t play by our rulebook. As we have seen, they will gladly kill themselves and any innocent around them whether theres a strategic value or goal present. Terrorists dont honor conventions of war, so the question is whether they then deserve to be treated by them.
Its not surprising you would automatically assume because I view waterboarding as other than torture then in your mind Im ok with anything. Anyone who invokes Naziism first chance they can is clearly wound a little too tight.
Feel free to give me another non answer. I dont expect any more than that and more faux expressions of outrage from a cliche Lefty such as yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1655 hrs
There is nothing imprecise or “weasely” about my answer. I say i’d allow everything permitted by law. You, on the other hand, say you “don’t know” and then bring up the international laws of war—only to dismiss them as irrelevant to the people in question. To that last point, I say this: there are laws against torturing people regardless of any state of war, or of anyone’s participation in it.
You frighten me. I wouldn’t let you walk my dog. What’s so difficult to understand about wanting very much to have my country abide by international laws against torture?? Torture!!
As I said before, this whole Bush-era has been quite a disillusionment about human nature, and about the character of some of my fellow Americans. When I was younger I thought modern people—Americans, surely—were civilized enough that these questions could not seriously even be asked. I will be telling my grandchildren to watch out for their government and for their neighbors, how both will be only too eager to condone the most disgusting acts of hate upon other people if only they’re a little frightened.
Posted by scott on December 16, 2007 at 1818 hrs
Actually its people and thinking like yours that got us into this mess in the first place. We are fighting Islamo fascism now because the last President was too busy lining up dates to attend to multiple attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on Americans abroad. He even tried to pass off the first WTC bombing as a law enforcement problem. Although to be fair you can also accuse GHW Bush of the same thing.
But until you make a simple declarative statement about what you consider appropriate techniques, actual descriptions not more weaselling, then my opinion of you remains that you and your very odd ideas are the primary reason the American people know never to trust Democrats with the security of this country. Look for the GOP to retain the Presidency. I’m sure your villification of whoever gets the job will begin immediately.
Its interesting how bereft of anything substantial to say apart from the usual bizarro universe Lefty narrative, you cant resist making your ad hominem expressions of “fear” or “disgust”. I honestly am not impressed or affected in any way by them. This is typically what happens when the Left which supposedly is more accepting and encouraging of diversity encounters diversity of thought. You can’t imagine anyone having a difference of opinion with you. You wig out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1839 hrs
You know, it’s not just a few on the so-called “fringe left” that find your willingness to torture at the drop of a hat repellant and disgusting. It’s pretty much the entire civilized world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 2231 hrs
By Scott’s definition, things like sleep deprivation, lying to inmates about their future, temperature extremities, food deprivation (with sustainable supplements), isolation, and a whole other host of techniques could be deemed torture. They may very well be, but are they out of bounds?
Posted by Owen on December 16, 2007 at 2253 hrs
Everything permitted by law? Now we have put into law different ways to question terrorists? Then we have to let the courts in on it? So to define tprture, we have to let politicians define it and not the experts? I am sure the terrorists would just love to see that.
That is such a weak answerPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 2318 hrs
You know, it’s not just a few on the so-called “fringe left” that find your willingness to torture at the drop of a hat repellant and disgusting. It’s pretty much the entire civilized world
Another person from the peanut gallery who is all full of self righteousness. You are just the latest example of someone who uses all or nothing reasoning. Evidently I am either against all of it or for all of it. And you reserve the right to determine what is torture and what is not for yourself. You really have to give evidence of what exactly you wouldnt have a problem with because one person says torture while another says tomato. That has been the heart of the debate now for some time. Is for example waterboarding torture? I dont know but if it were my 2 sons whose life depended on good intel, then I would be less likely to be so high and mighty. The problem with reasoning like yours is that you want to grant the entire world the same rights and protections we get as American citizens despite the fact that we already know the people we are fighting dont share them and mean us harm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 0022 hrs
I am so damn tired of the “where do you draw the line” argument that people always pull out to justify their extreme behavior. Well, shoving bamboo under the fingernails is perfectly fine, but yanking the fingernails completely out, why, that’s beyond the pale! To answer your question, yes, waterboarding is torture. It is torture by everybody’s definition except for a few diehard Torquemada wannabes in the Bush Justice Department and their followers.
You’re right, Dan. I do believe the entire world is entitled to the same rights that we as Americans have. There’s a document that we as Americans profess to place great belief in. Perhaps you’ve heard of it; it’s called the Declaration of Independence. It says ALL men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn’t say just Americans are created equal. You might read it some time. You’d also see that in the opening paragraph it also mentions “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” which means that the Founding Fathers realized that we’d be part of an interconnected world.
Every torturer throughout history has felt himself justified to torture by the circumstances he found himself in. In the Spanish Inquisition they thought they were doing it to save the souls of those being tortured. The North Vietnamese tortured John McCain because they said the bombing of North Vietnam was illegal.
Look how cheaply we’ve given up our morals for torture. In World War II, we faced two of the most extreme regimes in history and lost more than 300,000 troops, yet we didn’t stoop to torture. In the Cold War, we faced the threat of total annihilation from nuclear war, but torture didn’t become part of our officially sanctioned lineup of weapons. This administration has raised fearmongering to such a high art that it’s made a segment of this country think that barbarism should be a hallmark of Americanism. You’ll forgive me if I’m not buying in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 0946 hrs
Let the law decide how we must treat people in United States custody!?!?! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!1 The islamofacistheadchoppingterroristmonsters will have already won!!!
It’s stunning to me that you don’t seem to hear yourself. Yes, we should adhere to the law. And, yes, we should let the courts decide what those laws mean. The fact that any American thinks this inappropriate—outrageous, even—is itself amazing.
We are fighting Islamo fascism now because the last President…
It’s Bill Clinton’s fault! Who couldn’t have predicted that response.
until you make a simple declarative statement about what you consider appropriate techniques,
You mean the way you have not done? Frankly, I find “adhere to the law” to be about as simple a declarative statement about the matter as one could possibly make. Your own statement of “I don’t know” is a whole lot less concrete than mine. So while you’re busy insisting that I’m “weaseling” in my answer, I suggest you re-read your own comments on the subject and ask yourself if your statements are more or less concrete and precise than mine. Any reasonable person will say that they are not.
your very odd ideas are the primary reason the American people know never to trust Democrats with the security of this country.I think the reason Democrats have historically lagged in public opinion in this area is pretty simple: Republican positions on national defense tend to exploit people’s fears. It has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong: it’s all about finding that “fear” nerve and plucking away on it.
By Scott’s definition, things like sleep deprivation, lying to inmates about their future, temperature extremities, food deprivation (with sustainable supplements), isolation, and a whole other host of techniques could be deemed torture. They may very well be, but are they out of bounds?
The only rational challenge to my remarks so far! I do appreciate it. Are these kinds of techniques out of bounds? Off the cuff, I’d say yes they are. I’m perfectly prepared to admit, however, that your named techniques aren’t described in much detail. What is “sleep deprivation”? Making someone get up at 5am and refusing them an afternoon nap? Or is it keeping them awake for days, which as you probably know can actually cause hallucinations and even death? What does food deprivation mean? Feeding someone twice a day instead of three times? Or does it mean reducing them to 70% of their normal body weight? What is “isolation”? Is it keeping someone from talking to other accused detainees or is it putting someone in a hole for three months with literally no human communication?
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we just go back to the way we did things prior to 9/11? When we had limits which didn’t included pouring water forcibly into someone’s mouth and nose until they feel they are going to die? Whatever laws, courts and other processes we had back then seemed to be working just fine.
Is for example waterboarding torture? I dont know
Yes you do. You’re just to spineless to admit it.
but if it were my 2 sons whose life depended on good intel, then I would be less likely to be so high and mighty.
A few thoughts occur. First, there is a reason we don’t allow victims to determine how the accused are treated, or even how the convicted are punished. We have laws for that. Also, I’m not sure I want my own son living in a society where we torture anyone for any reason. We’ll risk it, my family and I. Finally, I’m not the least convinced that this new policy of torture actually makes our nation safer on the whole.
you want to grant the entire world the same rights and protections we get as American citizens
Well, yes and no. I do want to grant the entire world the same human rights as we enjoy. And that means no torture. Beyond that, I haven’t even ventured an opinion.
despite the fact that we already know the people we are fighting dont share them and mean us harm.The idea that our adherence to international laws against torture should be dictated by the ideology of the persons in question is just nuts.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1000 hrs
In World War II, we faced two of the most extreme regimes in history and lost more than 300,000 troops, yet we didn’t stoop to torture. In the Cold War, we faced the threat of total annihilation from nuclear war, but torture didn’t become part of our officially sanctioned lineup of weapons.
That’s exactly what I was getting at earlier. While our fathers and grandfathers held fast to their principles even while fighting global wars which threatened our entire nation and even freedom itself, some of us today are so chickenshit that we’re willing to cast aside the Constitutional right to privacy as well as basic human rights because a few thousand crazies are cooking up schemes with box cutters and shoe bombs. It’s shameful.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1007 hrs
Let’s say I overhear a few people talking about destroying a local municipal facility of some type. Let’s say I can identify the main leader of the conversation.
I come to you Scott and tell you this information, for you are someone in this bit that has some authoritative power in this scenario.
You go pick the guy up and question him and he denies all claims against him from polite interrogation. You proceed to let him go.
A second person comes forth and claims the same thing I did but gives you a time range in which this attack is to occur, so you pick him up again and question him, and he continues to deny any such conversations.
you follow proper investigative procedures and determine he seems a squeaky clean foreigner/US citizen (or not).As you get closer to the supposed date of the attack, what methods would you enforce to get to the bottom of things?
I will give my answer to this after you expound yours, as I don’t want your reply to be a simple criticism of my thoughts or a typical reply of “Whatever is within the current mandate of law” answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1342 hrs
As you get closer to the supposed date of the attack, what methods would you enforce to get to the bottom of things?
Thats the simple question I have been asking but have yet to see an answer. Did you see the waffling on sleep and food deprivation?
As for waterboarding being torture, its a tough one. Democrats briefed 3 years ago on the techniques to be used by the interrogators evidently asked “will these be enough to get the information”? Evidently things were not cut and dried with them either.
When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded he evidently gave in immediately and something over a hundred missions were launched based on the information he provided. Sorry military parents, the holier than thous say we cant do such things. Better your sons or daughter die for a utopian liberal principle.
As for previous wars. I wouldnt be so quick as to believe that these were the noble wars you fantasize about. None of those wars were the John Wayne movies you apparently think they were. As contrary examples they fail.
Seriously, had GHW Bush turned down bin Laden two times the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left would have been deafening. Clintons foreign policy was non existent. Multiple terrorst attacks went by with absolutely no American response. Even Carter tried to mount a rescue of the hostages in Iran. Yeah Clinton deserves a large share of the blame for what happened on 9-11. Any other take is self delusion. Some of you apparently have the notion that the world turned bad on W’s inauguration day.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we just go back to the way we did things prior to 9/11? When we had limits which didn’t included pouring water forcibly into someone’s mouth and nose until they feel they are going to die?
Yes of course lets go back to those days when Islamic Terrorists could strike without compunction knowing a feeble US President wouldnt respond. Too busy buying Walt Whitman poetry for gullible interns. And of course waterboarding was invented by Bush, did you know that? While he was weaseling out of his last few weeks with the Texas ANG he personally came up with the idea. Prior to Bush the CIA had always lived by the Golden Rule and the Boy Scout Oath.
This and the idea of our prior noble war practices are products of simple minded thinking that doesnt realize that these things simply were not talked about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1414 hrs
Let me ask you a question. Someone comes to you—the authority on such issues—and says a guy is plotting a terrible attack. You bring him in for questioning and he denies everything. The supposed attack date looms. Do you torture the guy?
Frankly, I think these hypotheticals are a waste of time, as it’s quite easy to make either side look totally unreasonable. Let’s stay in the real world, where suspicion and intelligence are quite muddy waters. There is no ticking nuclear bomb and a maniacally cackling evil genius in custody who refuses to tell you precisely what you need to know to thwart a disaster that cannot be prevented in any other way. This isn’t “24.”
I say we go with what is consistent with not only our values as free people, but with international law: people have basic human rights which should not be denied under any circumstances. To give up this principle for some imagined gain in security is fools gold.
We could do a whole lot to prevent crime simply by allowing law enforcement officials to search anyone and anything at any time, right? But nobody wants to allow that—for reasons I hope are obvious.
Freedom carries risk. Those who don’t have the courage for such freedom may find themselves more comfortable in one of several totalitarian regimes available around the world.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1415 hrs
Democrats briefed 3
years ago on the techniques to be used by the interrogators evidently asked
“will these be enough to get the information”?Prove it. All I saw was George Tenet saying “to his recollection” some people in the room expressed that sentiment. Nowhere did it say that Hilary Clinton or any other Democrat asked this. Furthermore, one wonders if the briefing wasn’t classified, thus preventing any public condemnation of the practices mentioned. Frankly, the whole thing is pretty thin. Far to thin to dodge the fact that it is your president and your party which is responsible for this sickening slide into the abandonment of human rights and international law.
Clinton deserves a large share of the blame for what happened on 9-11.
Christ, give it a rest. You sound like a shrill, Democrat-hating, Clinton-demonizing, responsibility-dodging hack.
And, yes, Bush is the first president I know of to officially sanction torture. You seem to agree with him. Grow a spine and stand up for it then, instead of trying to ridiculously insinuate that it’s been happening all along.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1423 hrs
Dan and ltm let’s kick the BS up a notch as long as we are talking hypotheticals.
What if that suspect is one of your family members?
Your wife, brother, son?
How should I proceed?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1435 hrs
Scott: one can certainly argue definitions of torture and if torture is ever applicable, but to argue that the Bush administration is unique, or even in the minority in sanctioning torture by the definition you have provided is to express an ignorance of US history and of what has been done in your name.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1526 hrs
No, I think there is something unique about it. Name another president who made an official policy of torture.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1529 hrs
Name another society in the history of the industrialized world where citizens openly advocated for torture, or for doing “whatever is necessary”. As Dan has brilliantly illustrated the politics of division and war on terror have led some of us to forget the principles this country was founded on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1600 hrs
And as long as we’re dealing in hypotheticals, let’s back it down a notch. At what point do you start torturing people? How many lives have to be stake? Does it have to be another World Trade Center situation? An airliner full of people? A school full of children? One person? Do lives even have to be at stake for the bloodthirstiness to kick in? How about an empty school? A bridge? Something that will merely inconvenience people and cost a lot of money to replace?
Like I mentioned earlier, every torturer in history has felt justified in his application of torture. Feeling justified in your own mind doesn’t make it right. It’s still torture. It’s still barbaric. It’s still a war crime, and those who do it, and those who give the orders for it are war criminals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1612 hrs
Like I mentioned earlier, every torturer in history has felt justified in his application of torture. Feeling justified in your own mind doesn’t make it right. It’s still torture. It’s still barbaric. It’s still a war crime, and those who do it, and those who give the orders for it are war criminals.
Yep, I think that would fall under that “rule of law” stuff.
And Biggy,
to argue that the Bush administration is unique, or even in the minority in sanctioning torture by the definition you have provided is to express an ignorance of US history
Please refresh my memory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1626 hrs
Other presidents: Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson. The list of presidents who have not condoned torture by the definition you provided will be short.
The world can be an ugly place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1641 hrs
Please help us ignorant liberals out. You have an impressive list of names there, but we’d like to actually know what they did. Specifically. Like as in specifically authorized and publicly defended techniques such as waterboarding.
Posted by scott on December 17, 2007 at 1644 hrs
Well, for instance waterboarding predates the United States. It was commonly used in the civil war on deserters, in the Phillipine’s against the Moros and othe insurgents, during the 1920’s against central american insurgents and can be found in any number of CIA manuals and documents from the 1940s until today as a method taught by the USA to other nations.
The civil war had other goodies like lashings and a particularly harsh method of punishment of tying a person to a wagon wheel; all commonly administered by both armies.
If you want to dig into FDRs admin you can find memos
advocating denying German POWs food, water and other amenities in order to soften them up for inprisonment, a suggestion that was subsequently enacted in 1945.During the 20 years of Vietnam there are US manuals specifically detailing interrogation techniques that would clearly be torture by your definition.
Now none of this should be construed as advocation of such techniques, but let’s not be naive about the past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1704 hrs
Freedom carries risk. Those who don’t have the courage for such freedom may find themselves more comfortable in one of several totalitarian regimes available around the world.
Strange words by one who undoubtedly is against the US policy of fighting terrorists and the spread of Islamo fascism. In any case, I’d wager your view of freedom is closer to the ACLU version than anything else. Evidently your view of freedom includes having the courage to allow Americans to die unnecessarily.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1721 hrs
Strange words by one who undoubtedly is against the US policy of fighting terrorists and the spread of Islamo fascism. In any case, I’d wager your view of freedom is closer to the ACLU version than anything else.
I knew it would come down to this eventually. You ACLU liberals don’t even want to fight the terrorists/want the terrorists to win/don’t care if the Islamofascists rule the world. If you ACLU liberals had your way, we’d all just be lined up to get our heads chopped off. When you don’t have a leg to stand on, pull out the ACLU card.
Well hey, I’m a proud member of the ACLU. The question is, why aren’t you? What part of the Bill of Rights is that you hate? You hate freedom of religion, don’t you. No wait, I’ll bet you want to be forced to testify against yourself. I’ll bet you’re pissed that the government can’t just take your property without compensating you for it, aren’t you? No, don’t tell me…you hate it that people can own guns!!! That’s the one. I knew it. You hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1739 hrs
I think it was Dans24106 who wrote earlier: ...expressions of outrage from a cliche Lefty such as yourself.
I’m no lefty, but I happen to agree 100% with what Scott has written here on this issue.
People want some sort of “Jack Bauer exception” to our own laws when it comes to these 1-in-a-million hypothetical scenarios. What you don’t realize is that it never stops at the 1-in-a-million hypothetical scenario. You nullify the spirit and and intent of the law by taking that approach.
If we had a commander in chief who had once ounce of guts or integrity, who instead of saying, “We don’t torture”, but instead came out and said “Yes, I broke the law and authorized torture because it was the only way to protect our country”, we (the United States) might actually be able to have a worthwhile debate on the topic and on what to do when the Prez violates the law in that manner.
Instead we get him lying to us about it, the CIA destroying evidence of it, and and Justice Department and Congress would rather ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen.
Our laws say we don’t torture. Until we have elected officials who are willing to go on record and state what kind of torture they would like to legalize, then those who order it, conduct it, and put up with it, are criminals. Period. And they’re criminals of the worst kind because they’ve been entrusted with power that most of will never have, and they use it to shield their cowardly asses.
Torture is wrong. It should remain illegal. But hey, the law doesn’t seem to matter on this topic anyway when it comes to the executive branch, so you Jack Bauer wannabes can sleep peacefully at night.
Posted by David on December 17, 2007 at 1739 hrs
Dan and ltm let’s kick the BS up a notch as long as we are talking hypotheticals.
What if that suspect is one of your family members?
Your wife, brother, son?
How should I proceed?
What makes you think its a hypothetical? Right now many peoples wives and sons have been tortured by our enemies.
It ultimately comes down to this. Bush and Tenet both have stated publically “We don’t torture”. So clearly they dont define waterboarding as torture. You dont agree, no surprise there. I would guess Democrats would be very familiar with the problems with defining terms, seeing as how they had little problem with their President quibbling over the definition of “is”.
And that really brings us to what its all about. Democrats have been perfectly willing to avert their eyes when its their guys but now theyve got their outrage glands on overdrive over what cynically is really only a political opportunity. To be fair the same could be said of the GOP but in this case with troops in harms way, with the stakes being the life of innocent civilians in Iraq as well as the US, then I think we have to err on the side of caution, which is to say if you have to dunk an arab terrorist a few times to get them to divulge information which will help speed the end of violence and war then do it.
What the Lefties will read into this is no doubt I am cool with things that are unmistakenly to any observer considered torture. That of course would be hyperbole. But I am glad I am not the person who has the responsibility of protecting American lives, because I dont know how far Id go to do it. A question which is never honestly pondered by the Lefty backbiting holier than thou cyber quarterbacks on this forum. If we are to beleive them, theyre ok with Americans dying so they can feel theyve held up a principle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1743 hrs
What makes you think its a hypothetical? Right now many peoples wives and sons have been tortured by our enemies.
This BS was supposed to answer my question?
Do you even have the courage to sleep with the light off?
I did not ask you about “many peoples wives and sons “, I asked what if the suspect were a member of your family, would you want someone to follow the rules about how they should be treated or close the door and get creative.
Oh and in case you forgot most of the thread has been about torture conducted by us, not them.
But I am glad I am not the person who has the responsibility of protecting American lives
Not as glad as I am. And it’s probably the only intellectually honest statement you have made in this thread.
then I think we have to err on the side of caution
So now it cautious to openly violate international treaties and the laws of this country?
you have to dunk an arab terrorist a few times to get them to divulge information which will help speed the end of violence and war then do it.
You really don’t have a clue do you Dan.
These are people who are willing to strap on an explosive vest and blow themselves up.
All this “dunking” does is get them a few hundred or thousand recruits by showing them we are no better than the next boogeyman around the corner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1916 hrs
*brushes scott under the carpet with all the other irrelevant things in life.*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2007 at 1316 hrs
What is torture?
Being a Grandmother and watching helplessly as your 30 year old grandson binds you, bags your head and kills you.
Being the mother of Natalee Holloway (or any missing child) and knowing that someone knows but refuses to provide you with information as to what happened to her and where she might be found so that you might at least have some closure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1129 hrs
One need not be named Holloway to experience that. Just ask the mothers of anyone currently held in Guantanamo.
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 1147 hrs
You really don’t have a clue do you Dan.
These are people who are willing to strap on an explosive vest and blow themselves up.
All this “dunking” does is get them a few hundred or thousand recruits by showing them we are no better than the next boogeyman around the corner.
Thats got to be one of the more idiotic things youve said. How do you account in your appeasement philosophy for WTC 1? or The Cole bombing? Or the bombing of our embassies in Africa? Or 9-11? After countless unanswered acts of terrorism, one of them that killed 3000 people caused billions of dollars in economic turmoil internationally, now youre worried about US creating terrorists? Amazing feat of logic.
Newsflash. The terrorists are already there and have been killing Americans for 20 years. Theres only one conclusion that jibes with your statement that we are creating terrorists and the reality of 20 years of terrorism, and that is you think we brought all these acts on ourself.
Let me see if I have your foreign policy correct. Never respond to acts of aggression because our response might make them mad? Is that what youre saying? The fact is Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds waterboarding did result in something concrete, more than 100 missions to prevent more killing by Al Qaeda terrorists. Contrast this to your vaporous theory that more terrorists are being created by this. Include the fact that as time goes by the people of Iraq realize exactly who is the cause of the violence and are finally beginning to stand up to them.
It seems you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the mind of those who are radical Islamic fundamentalists. They dont need actual provocation (as has been proven) and the fact that they use our response to them as justification after the fact proves nothing except that some people (you) will believe anything and ignore reality.
Worrying about creating terrorists after they have already killed thousands of Americans strikes me as I dont know…..ignorant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1422 hrs
Thats got to be one of the more idiotic things youve said.
Just customizing my message to suit the audience. You
How do you account in your appeasement philosophy
So now not torturing someone is “appeasement”?
You are ill.
And you still have not answered my question;
I did not ask you about “many peoples wives and sons “, I asked what if the suspect were a member of your family, would you want someone to follow the rules about how they should be treated or close the door and get creative.
You just change the subject and continue with the same old tired BS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1509 hrs
And you still have not answered my question;
I did not ask you about “many peoples wives and sons “, I asked what if the suspect were a member of your family, would you want someone to follow the rules about how they should be treated or close the door and get creative.
You just change the subject and continue with the same old tired BS.
BS you didnt address. Your opinion clearly is that America deserves these terrorists attacks because terrorsits are only created apparently when we do something bad to them.
Your hypothetical is meaningless. The issue is not about how American citizens may be interrogated but terrorists. If they are American then they have a different set of protections guaranteed them.
I am going to assume my children have not renounced their citizenship not have they plotted to kill American civilians or military.
You present your hypothetical in this way because intrinsic to your assumptions is the unfounded belief this will lead to similar treatment of Americans. You also use the term “suspects” even though terrorists are considered unlawful combatants and have none of the protections the word “suspect” carries for Americans in our legal system. Their guilt is not an issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1545 hrs
Your opinion clearly is that America deserves these
terrorists attacksMy opinion is that you’re an asshole.
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 1602 hrs
If they are American then they have a different set of protections guaranteed them.
Not any more. Not under this regime. When George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he took away all the rights you think you still have. All it takes is someone saying they suspect you might be an “unlawful enemy combatant” and it’s all over. Habeas corpus no longer applies to you. You see, thanks to George W. Bush, you no longer live in the America you think you live in. Idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1619 hrs
I apologize. Being completely wrong doesn’t necessarily make you an idiot. That was uncalled for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1622 hrs
Your opinion clearly is that America deserves these terrorists attacks
Really. When did I state that?
intrinsic to your assumptions is the unfounded belief this will lead to similar treatment of Americans.
Tell me Dan why did we sign the Geneva Convention in the first place?
Your habit of attacking the individual rather than being able to argue the validity of position, other than stamping your foot and because you say so, shows the lack of ethical and moral highground you mistakenly claim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1630 hrs
Really. When did I state that?
Maybe you were just agreeing with the two far-left, America-hating, libbo-commie jerkfaces who said it way back in 2001. You know—Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 1638 hrs
Torture is wrong. It should remain illegal. But hey, the law doesn’t seem to matter on this topic anyway when it comes to the executive branch, so you Jack Bauer wannabes can sleep peacefully at night.
Yeah hate to disappoint you, Ive never seen even one episode of that program. I guess anyone can be guilty of pigeonholing people.
Despite the fair amount of discussion occurring in more than just this forum, waterboarding is not universally seen as torture. Congress was briefed on exactly what techniques would be used. Now by fiat apparently, you and others have decided it is in fact torture, and that the CIA destroying records under which there was no obligation to keep them constitutes a cover up and that this goes right to the WH. Sorry the only wannabe in this situation is you who apparently think youre another Woodward and Bernstein.
What gets lost in all of this is how no one including you has the stones to explain exactly what techniques can be used to get information from terrorists who care not for their own lives and live to kill others indiscriminately, that won’t be taken by political opportunists and blown up into something. Seriously name one form of compulsion used on prisoners who are being interrogated that the same exact things couldnt be said of.
The self serving hypocrisy has become stultifying. The CIA pushed for clarification on these techniques specifically worrying about what you saints are doing now, which is taking this as just another Bush outrage of the week.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1855 hrs
Tell me Dan why did we sign the Geneva Convention in the first place?
The Geneva Conventions were written to protect lawful combatants in a War. Its a mutual agreement. Al Qaeda doesnt recognize it nor abide by its provisions. If you want to be technical about it. But once again here, your baseline assumption is that there is torture going on which is actually in dispute.
Your habit of attacking the individual rather than being able to argue the validity of position, other than stamping your foot and because you say so, shows the lack of ethical and moral highground you mistakenly claim.
Strangely I havent claimed any highground. In fact Ive stated I accept that war is hell and that I think the best ones are ended quickly. All the moralizing has come from the hate Bush crowd. But if you want some interesting reading, try St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas on the concepts of “just war”.
Really. When did I state that?
Your statement is that it is our actions that creates terrorists. If I apply your reasoning to the multiple acts of terrorism that have already occurred 9-11 included, then one can only assume you believe we created those terrorists as well and are therefore reaping what we sowed. If A then B, fairly simple logic actually.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 1916 hrs
waterboarding is not universally seen as torture
Oh really? Who is on record as saying it isn’t? What government? What human rights watchdog group? Who?
Congress was briefed on exactly what techniques would be used.
And therefore, what? That they “approved” it? Tell me. Were those briefings classified, by any chance? Were these members of congress able to just step up to the podium and decry them publicly? Not that it matters, it doesn’t change the fact that waterboarding is torture and that we should not be doing it, period.
and that this goes right to the WH.
Perhaps you should read the news more carefully. White house lawyers were in fact in on the decision to destroy them.
from terroristsFrom suspects. And besides, so fucking what if they’re terrorists? I don’t care if it’s Osama bin fucking Laden. The United States of America SHOULD. NOT. TORTURE.
The Geneva Conventions were written to protect lawful combatants in a War.
Geneva my butt. There are international laws protecting every person everywhere from torture. It doesn’t depend on any state of war or any persons participation in it “lawful” or otherwise.
your baseline assumption is that there is torture going on which is actually in dispute.
So as long as you continue to ‘dispute’ what is obvious to everyone, you’re safe. Nice.
Your statement is that it is our actions that creates terrorists. If I apply your reasoning
There’s a difference between being the sole cause of something and simply aggravating it and making it worse. Are you going to be deliberately obtuse and pretend you don’t know the difference, or shall we move on?
You’re a morally crippled sadistic motherfucker. As I said before, I wouldn’t let you walk my dog, let alone make any decisions of importance. If I saw you torturing someone I’d kick your ass from here to Washington DC, and if need be I’d use deadly force to stop you.
I rarely attack people so vehemently, but christ. Torture?? You rise to defend state sanctioned torture?? Fuck. I’m sorry, but there’s a time to be collegial and polite and there’s a time for a good old fashioned’ ass whuppin.
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 1950 hrs
Wow Scott… You are putting in some work on this guy. I literally laughed out loud reading your last post. You are right, those that condone torture need to be shouted down. Keep up the good work.
Shouting down shouldn’t include threats of physical violence though. I thought the whole purpose of a taking a principled stance was to prevent ourselves from stooping to their level.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 2014 hrs
Oh, hell, I’m not threatening anyone. Who am I, superman? But i’ll tell you this. If I ever did see someone torturing someone else, I would not a) join in, or b) walk away, or c) watch. I’d stop it. Period. Stop it cold.
I don’t think there’s any stooping involved in saying that I’d be willing to use violence to stop torture. I’m no pacifist. I believe there’s a time to kick butt. If that’s not the time, then when the hell is?
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 2018 hrs
You’re a morally crippled sadistic motherfucker. As I said before, I wouldn’t let you walk my dog, let alone make any decisions of importance. If I saw you torturing someone I’d kick your ass from here to Washington DC, and if need be I’d use deadly force to stop you.
I rarely attack people so vehemently, but christ. Torture?? You rise to defend state sanctioned torture?? Fuck. I’m sorry, but there’s a time to be collegial and polite and there’s a time for a good old fashioned’ ass whuppin.
Ha ha I get it, youre going to use violence to stop my using violence. Great stuff I dont think I could have presented a better example. Apparently it doesnt occur to him thats exactly what torture is.
I have to chuckle that you think the time to whup ass would be one me. This lulu is only moved to violence when he thinks the guy who wants him and his family dead might be getting too rough a treatment. Leave the nice terrorists alone of course. You lefties pick the funniest times to decide force is necesary.
Seriously Scott, less caffeine. Maybe youll be less tempted to play cyber hero.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 2055 hrs
youre going to use violence to stop my using violence
You’re damned right I would.
I’m not playing a game here. i’m not interested in whether you think all violence is created equal or not. I’d kick your ass and let you explain it to me later.
As far as when I choose to exercise such force, i’ll tell you this: next time bin Laden is participating in an online discussion, see if I don’t bust out with it again.
Until then, YOU are the one here torturing people. All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. You can count on me doing something. Every time.
Posted by scott on December 19, 2007 at 2130 hrs
As far as when I choose to exercise such force, i’ll tell you this: next time bin Laden is participating in an online discussion, see if I don’t bust out with it again.
But you wouldnt torture him. Yeah I get it.
Until then, YOU are the one here torturing people. All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. You can count on me doing something. Every time.
I hate to break it to you Captain America, but I’m not torturing anyone and youre not kicking anyone’s ass.This is a discussion forum btw, if you can’t express your ideas without resorting to threats of violence at those with whom you disagree, perhaps you should stay on forums where only your views will be reflected. Ironic that its always the ones usually shrieking about civil rights that are the first to try and intimidate others into being silent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 2207 hrs
I am going to assume my children have not renounced their citizenship not have they plotted to kill American civilians or military.
Oh so if they did it would be OK with you to strap them on the board or whatever else might be needed?
I guess I would always want my son to be treated according to the rules even if he broke them.
How would you like to play the Jack Lemon’s role in “Missing”
for real?Didn’t think so.
one can only assume you believe we created those terrorists as well and are therefore reaping what we sowed.
There you go with that assumption stuff again.
Here’s the thing, we invade Iraq and come up with this hearts and minds free the people stuff.
We are exporting the American dream, the whole democratic ideals inalienable rights apple pie schtick.
What hits the airwaves on Al Jazeera, Abu Graib, American soldiers raping and murdering and officially sanctioned kidnapping (sorry, rendition) & creative interrogation.
Ya, I know it is all ginned up but to the guy on the street in Tehran or in a refugee camp that is his evening news.
That’s when they start wondering about the apple pie stuff.
terrorsits are only created apparently when we do something bad to them.
No, it is a cumulative thing with a lot of different triggers & motivations for each individual. Kind of like a fruitful interrogation.
You get it, “If A then B,” then C, then…until somebody convinces them that strapping on an explosive vest will make a difference.
Fairly simple logic actually.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2007 at 0232 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134056
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:20 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:24 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).