login
W. on torture: help me understand (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2005-11-07 11:47 AM in reply to: #279656 |
Giver  18427     |  Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understandChuckyFinster - 2005-11-07 11:43 AMSeems pretty lame to me. "Feel Good" legislation. Last time I checked, the comedians in Abu were punished quite severely. Well, a patsy or two was punished, but no higher-ups. |
| 2005-11-07 11:48 AM in reply to: #279648 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand Brett - 2005-11-07 9:35 AM Ah, the first part is what I wanted to hear. I'm not sure if that's the exact wording, but I'm all for specifics. bts The problem with specifics is that people have imaginations. If you say, prohibit putting womens underwear on someones head, someone will say "ok, well its doesn't say we can't put it around their neck". The law here says its against the law to murder, not that its againt the law to stab someone, shoot someone, strangle someone etc... I'm far from an expert on the Geneva Conventions or the field manual. I'm sure there are some mushy areas, but it seems like after this long there should be some consensus on what is and isn't allowed. |
| 2005-11-07 12:02 PM in reply to: #279662 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand drewb8 - 2005-11-07 10:48 AM Brett - 2005-11-07 9:35 AM Ah, the first part is what I wanted to hear. I'm not sure if that's the exact wording, but I'm all for specifics. bts The problem with specifics is that people have imaginations. If you say, prohibit putting womens underwear on someones head, someone will say "ok, well its doesn't say we can't put it around their neck". The law here says its against the law to murder, not that its againt the law to stab someone, shoot someone, strangle someone etc... I'm far from an expert on the Geneva Conventions or the field manual. I'm sure there are some mushy areas, but it seems like after this long there should be some consensus on what is and isn't allowed. And the problem with making broad sweeping statements is that you handcuff the people you pay to make you safe. The same people I might add, who are mercilessly critiqued if something bad happens that they failed to prevent. I concur that flat out hang, draw, and quarter type treatment doesn't fly... some of the beatings that people over there caught were beyond ridiculous. But if doing things that make the prisoners feel uncomfortable or unclean is more likely to get them to give up the information desired... then so be it. And yes, the field manual falls right in with the Geneva Convention (basically). POWs are to be moved away from front lines, supervised by qualified MPs, etc. bts |
| 2005-11-07 12:03 PM in reply to: #279506 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand I'm not that naive that I thikn that this is going to stop torture from happening at deep dark places withiin our government. But it will send a message to the rest of the world that we do actually have values worth exporting. If they can already get torture in their country, why would they need our values? By outlawing torture (which we have anyway - right on Chucky) we aren't saying we have to coddle people and put them in a corner on time out with a glass of choclate milk until they feel like talking. It isn't a choice between either torturing someone or not getting any information. And thats besides the point that torture has been shown to be ineffective anyway. people will confess to anything, or make up false information which can cause us to send our resources to the wrong place. edited to respond to Brett- I have no problem with any techniques if they are ok'd by the field manual/Genev's. There are many coercive techniques that are allowable short of throwing feces on them. Edited by drewb8 2005-11-07 12:05 PM |
| 2005-11-07 12:12 PM in reply to: #279675 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand The interrogators are really the least of our concerns. They know the rules. In the more elite organizations those folks are highly trained in the fine art of information extraction. They know as well as anybody that gratuitous violence will get them close to nowhere. Most of our problems stem from dip$h17 guards who are overstressed and undertrained in that field (hence why they are supposed to be supervised by non-front line troops). The folks taking the pics in Abu Ghraib and the worst of the situations you hear about stem from folks who are too young or combat fatigued or poorly trained or some combination of the three. Enforcement of the standards that we have doesn't require congressional intervention. bts |
| 2005-11-07 1:02 PM in reply to: #279685 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand I find it pathetic that people find the discussion and debate of our national values - not just the ones we profess to have but the ones we actually live by - to be ridiculous. I'm pretty sick of the knee-jerk crowd whining about dissension. Our founding fathers were free-thinking liberals. BEING LIBERAL IS A BADGE OF HONOR. |
| 2005-11-07 1:07 PM in reply to: #279744 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand Renee - 2005-11-07 1:02 PM BEING LIBERAL IS A BADGE OF HONOR. Amen, sister. Anyone see the live West Wing last night? Jimmy Smits dem-nominee character talked about how liberal has become a bad word. He said a liberal freed the slaves, which was countered by Alan Alda's rep-nominee character's "a Republican freed the slaves." To which Smits retorted. "Yes. A liberal Republican. What happened to you?" Sure the show's fiction, but the message is no less true. Good stuff. |
| 2005-11-07 1:27 PM in reply to: #279506 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand The reason congress is geting involved is because the administration is unwilling to enforce and even promoting the breaking of the exisiting standards. |
| 2005-11-07 1:40 PM in reply to: #279660 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand ASA22 - 2005-11-07 8:46 AM Is it "always" impermissible for US personnel or agents of the US to engage in torture? Are there situations in which torture is justified? If 911 could have been prevented by the use of torture on a subject would it have been warranted? What about if torture could have gained knowledge of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor? Yes, it is always impermissable to engage in torture. There seems to be a naivity built in here by some comments. A belief that our current administration invented the use of torture and that it has never occurred in previous administrations, be those administrations Democrat or Republican, is rediculous. The dirty little secret of every administration is that the intelligence community has used various means of "torture" to gain information. Naive, no. I don't think anyone here thinks that the current administration invented torture, unless you count the budget deficit to be torture. Just because it was more widespread before, doesn't make it right. Slavery used to be the norm. People fought for slavery just as people are defending the use of torture. In both cases (slavery and torture), individual rights are violated. There is always an argument against change for the better. Grow up people, the world is a nasty, horrible place. There are people and countries out there that want to kill you. Yes even the liberals that argue that the war in Iraq is illegitimate, the insurrgents our troops are fighting still want to kill you. Whether our country is in Iraq or not. This is not a nasty and horrible place. It is exactly that line of thinking that makes for a nasty, horrible place because you act on your irrational fears. There are very few places in the world that we as Americans can't travel and the places we can't travel, we don't want to go to anyway. There are a few bad apples in every cart. The truth is the reason you don't want to pass a law like this is because it ties the hands of your intelligence community. Its ugly, maybe in a perfect world the US wouldn't use torture to gain information, but the truth of the matter is that we, as a country are safer because of it. And, here's a news flash for you all, it's not a perfect world. Right now, around the world there are people, governments, and organizations that are plotting to kill Americans. Sometimes the only way to get that information is to resort to ugliness. The reason I don't want to pass a law like this is because we already have laws to prevent this. The guards were punished. Why do we need another law on the books when we already have them? It's feel good legislation. You feel better at the end of the day when it passes. I find it an annoyance. In theory, in a perfect world, I agree that torture should never be used. But I've been to far too many autopsies and seen far too much ugliness to believe in a perfect world. If it prevents the bombing of a US embasy, the planting of a "dirty bomb" on a NYC subway, the release of biological agents into a water reservoir, or the assasination of a clandestine US agent, then I am willing to turn a blind eye. Maybe that's the problem, your exposure to ugliness. Why stop at torture, why not institute a secret police agency. To truly be secure, we need a big brother right? I let the professionals that deal with the ugliness in protecting this Country do their jobs. You would have them do their jobs without limits. Every position of power needs a line needs to be drawn. You obviously do not value your rights. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to give them up. By allowing the government to torture suspected terrorists, you are allowing them to torture you... |
| 2005-11-07 1:44 PM in reply to: #279751 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 1:07 PM Renee - 2005-11-07 1:02 PM BEING LIBERAL IS A BADGE OF HONOR. Amen, sister. Anyone see the live West Wing last night? Jimmy Smits dem-nominee character talked about how liberal has become a bad word. He said a liberal freed the slaves, which was countered by Alan Alda's rep-nominee character's "a Republican freed the slaves." To which Smits retorted. "Yes. A liberal Republican. What happened to you?" Sure the show's fiction, but the message is no less true. Good stuff. If "liberal" has become a bad word, the blame lies with those that label themselves as liberals and their entaglement with the vocal ultra-left wing. This ultra-left, that identifies themselves as "liberal", shares about as much in common with a true liberal as the ultra-conservative right shares with a Republican. And just because you're a conservative or Republican and disagree with a liberal or Democrat does not mean you are ignoring the founding fathers or original intent, it also does not mean that you ignore the those things that America stands for. To resort to such arguments is disengenuous, and is simply a way to insert emotional appeal into an arguement, rather than argue the merits of your own position or the lack of merits of the opposing view point. |
| 2005-11-07 1:45 PM in reply to: #279790 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand ChuckyFinster - 2005-11-07 1:40 PM Why do we need another law on the books when we already have them? It's feel good legislation. At face value, it comes off to me like this: Republicans are in a bad place right now, and with elections coming up next year, congressional republicans are probably trying to put some distance between themselves and the POTUS. It's suddenly fashionable for republicans to deviate from the word of W. |
| 2005-11-07 1:51 PM in reply to: #279795 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand ASA22 - 2005-11-07 1:44 PMIf "liberal" has become a bad word, the blame lies with those that label themselves as liberals and their entaglement with the vocal ultra-left wing. Hmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. |
| 2005-11-07 1:58 PM in reply to: #279804 |
| Pro 4040 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 2:51 PM Hmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. Didn't you hear? Hitler was a lefty. Sure, ask anybody. National Socialist.... Socialist, get it? I'm sure somebody here can link you to a site that supports this assertion. |
| 2005-11-07 2:01 PM in reply to: #279804 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 1:51 PM ASA22 - 2005-11-07 1:44 PMIf "liberal" has become a bad word, the blame lies with those that label themselves as liberals and their entaglement with the vocal ultra-left wing. Hmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. I think he missed the part where I wrote: BEING LIBERAL IS A BADGE OF HONOR. Liberal ain't a bad word - it's only bad to the people who dislike liberal viewpoints. |
| 2005-11-07 2:02 PM in reply to: #279818 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand My example was hyperbole, but Hitler was a fascist. And anyway, I like to think of left vs. right as a circle as opposed to a line...the far left and the far right are pretty much the same. Opus - 2005-11-07 1:58 PM run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 2:51 PMHmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. Didn't you hear? Hitler was a lefty. Sure, ask anybody. National Socialist.... Socialist, get it? I'm sure somebody here can link you to a site that supports this assertion. |
| 2005-11-07 2:03 PM in reply to: #279790 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand As with almost everything you have ever replied to me I disagree with this. However, I admit that you make some interesting counter points, and your position is certainly a valid one. Although one I don't necessarily agree with. (Although the use of 'slavery' as a metaphor is one of the 10 cheap ways to win an argument. It's like busting out the 'nazi" card.) I also find the slippery slope arguement a red herring. Either way, I understand your point, and perhaps on a purely moral high ground argument, and a utopian, the way America and the World should be view, you are right. Regarding my world view and seeing ugliness, it's a curse and a blessing at the same time. I've seen things that I never thought I would ever have seen. In my younger days I was a "flaming liberal" but because of the things I've seen and experienced my world view has changed dramatically, and I find the ultra-left view that I used to hold, rooted more in utopianism than reality. And as such I find the ultra-liberal view point unworkable in the real world. My world view is a curse because I tend to discount the utopian view as total BS, which I admit is sad. It's a blessing because I am not ignorant to the way the world really works, I've seen things that most people only read about, it's my reality. So in that way I don't have the ability to turn my head and ignore it. I have to deal with it in real life terms, not theories. I'd love to live in a world where torture isn't needed, maybe you're right maybe it's needed because people like me accept it. But, the realist in me acknowledges that certain evils may be needed in this world. |
| 2005-11-07 2:04 PM in reply to: #279827 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 2:02 PM My example was hyperbole, but Hitler was a fascist. And anyway, I like to think of left vs. right as a circle as opposed to a line...the far left and the far right are pretty much the same. Opus - 2005-11-07 1:58 PM run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 2:51 PMHmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. Didn't you hear? Hitler was a lefty. Sure, ask anybody. National Socialist.... Socialist, get it? I'm sure somebody here can link you to a site that supports this assertion.Actually, the political definitions of left and right can be very easily summarized:
Poli Sci 101. I have always found Herman Goering's quote about leading the citizenry by the nose to be a very piercing insight into government and authority figures: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy...Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Invoking Nazi Germany isn't hyperbole. It's a pragmatic warning: Let's not repeat the mistakes and arrogance of power of our old enemy, Nazi Germany. Talk about a slippery slope... Edited by Renee 2005-11-07 2:08 PM |
| 2005-11-07 2:11 PM in reply to: #279804 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 1:51 PM ASA22 - 2005-11-07 1:44 PMIf "liberal" has become a bad word, the blame lies with those that label themselves as liberals and their entaglement with the vocal ultra-left wing. Hmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. run4yrlif: Well thought out argument...(Please read sarcasim here!!!) I guess if your statement is correct then the fact that conservatives are painted as just right of Stalin by the left is equally true. If "Conservativism" is a bad word the blame lies with themselves and their entanglement with ultra-conservatives and radicals that have as much in common with true conservatives as apparently you and I have in common. The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans view themselves as moderates, the far left as well as the far right are equally out of step with the views of the average American. |
| 2005-11-07 2:13 PM in reply to: #279832 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand ASA22 - 2005-11-07 11:03 AM As with almost everything you have ever replied to me I disagree with this. However, I admit that you make some interesting counter points, and your position is certainly a valid one. Although one I don't necessarily agree with. (Although the use of 'slavery' as a metaphor is one of the 10 cheap ways to win an argument. It's like busting out the 'nazi" card.) I also find the slippery slope arguement a red herring. Either way, I understand your point, and perhaps on a purely moral high ground argument, and a utopian, the way America and the World should be view, you are right. Regarding my world view and seeing ugliness, it's a curse and a blessing at the same time. I've seen things that I never thought I would ever have seen. In my younger days I was a "flaming liberal" but because of the things I've seen and experienced my world view has changed dramatically, and I find the ultra-left view that I used to hold, rooted more in utopianism than reality. And as such I find the ultra-liberal view point unworkable in the real world. My world view is a curse because I tend to discount the utopian view as total BS, which I admit is sad. It's a blessing because I am not ignorant to the way the world really works, I've seen things that most people only read about, it's my reality. So in that way I don't have the ability to turn my head and ignore it. I have to deal with it in real life terms, not theories. I'd love to live in a world where torture isn't needed, maybe you're right maybe it's needed because people like me accept it. But, the realist in me acknowledges that certain evils may be needed in this world. I'm as far from the left as you are, but I'm equally far from the right. As a Libertarian, I often get grouped in with "Liberals" and "Conservatives" depending on the argument. Things like war, I'd probably be grouped in with "Super-Ultra-Concervatives" and I know you wouldn't agree my viewpoint on the subject (as 99% of the country wouldn't) and things like civil rights I'd be grouped in with "Super-Ultra-Liberals" and most don't agree with me on that subject either. So it's all good brother  |
| 2005-11-07 2:14 PM in reply to: #279841 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand You *know* "conservative" doesn't have the same negative cache that "liberal" does. ASA22 - 2005-11-07 2:11 PM run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 1:51 PM run4yrlif: Well thought out argument...(Please read sarcasim here!!!) I guess if your statement is correct then the fact that conservatives are painted as just right of Stalin by the left is equally true.If "Conservativism" is a bad word the blame lies with themselves and their entanglement with ultra-conservatives and radicals that have as much in common with true conservatives as apparently you and I have in common. The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans view themselves as moderates, the far left as well as the far right are equally out of step with the views of the average American.ASA22 - 2005-11-07 1:44 PMIf "liberal" has become a bad word, the blame lies with those that label themselves as liberals and their entaglement with the vocal ultra-left wing. Hmmm. See, I thought liberal got to be a bad word because the right made it such by using it in a derogatory manner to describe anyone left of Hitler. I guess I could be wrong, though. |
| 2005-11-07 2:25 PM in reply to: #279834 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand Renee: Really, you're busting out the Nazi card!!! You're calling the present administration the same as 1930's Germany!!!! Really! Consentration camps, the murder of 100's of millions of inocent individuals, the rounding up of decenters and shipping them off to die, the use of slave labor, the invasion of 15 other sovereign nations, the implimentation of secret murder squads, the whole sale round up of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, writers, jazz muscians. Genocide. Really!!! There's a book, for the life of me I cant remember the actual title, but it's about the 10 cheapest ways to win an arguement/debate, and the #1 cheap way to "win" a debate is envoking the Nazi card. I don't even know how to respond to that. Your definintion of Left and right isn't all that accurate. It's self serving for your argument. You made it up out of whole cloth, tried to pass it off as accurate by saying that it's "poli. sci. 101" to give it an air of credibility. When the Nazi card gets broken out in as a serious metaphor, I'm done. There is no room for rational debate on an issue at that point. |
| 2005-11-07 2:26 PM in reply to: #279844 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 11:14 AM You *know* "conservative" doesn't have the same negative cache that "liberal" does. Actually it does, it just depends on what side of the line you are on. But the funny thing is that there is nothing conservative about being a "conservative." It cracks me up when radio talk show hosts identify themselves as being conservative. |
| 2005-11-07 2:38 PM in reply to: #279860 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand ASA22 - 2005-11-07 2:25 PM Renee: Really, you're busting out the Nazi card!!! You're calling the present administration the same as 1930's Germany!!!! Nice job on the outrage! I give it a 9, 9.5. Lots of passion, strong emotional appeal. Is it my fault that Goering's words are so jolting and fly in the face of the patriotic, liberty-forsaking hyperbole in this country? Nein. If the shoe fits... Speaking of disingenous... why is it that any legitimate comparison to the justifications and rationalizations of the Nazis to the justifications and rationalizations of the Bush administrations is automatically rejected? We're supposed to learn from history, not just blindly and stupidly repeat it. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. p.s. GW's grandaddy did lots o' bidness with Nazi Germany. The obvious conclusion we can draw from that fact is that he didn't have an aversion to the Nazis. Your definintion of Left and right isn't all that accurate. It's self serving for your argument. You made it up out of whole cloth, tried to pass it off as accurate by saying that it's "poli. sci. 101" to give it an air of credibility. I made it up out of whole cloth? Really? Wow. Outraged and omniscient! You are off the charts today! You're right. It wasn't Poli Sci 101. It was PAD (Problems in American Democracy), my senior year history class (high school). You say "Grow up people, the world is a nasty, horrible place. There are people and countries out there that want to kill you" but you seem to miss the entirely plausible possibility that some of the nasty, horrible people might be leading this country, misleading us into ill-conceived aggressive acts because of their stupidity, fear-based world view, utter arrogance and abuse of power. They aren't trying to make the world safe for the US; they are trying to shove capitalism down our neighbor's throats, dominate and bully other countries. That's right - everybody outside the US is BAD and everybody in the US is GOOD. Because we're GOOD and everyone else is BAD, we can justify behaving very BADLY. Edited by Renee 2005-11-07 2:55 PM |
| 2005-11-07 2:43 PM in reply to: #279634 |
molto veloce mama 9311 | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand Renee - 2005-11-07 10:23 AM You can't claim the moral high ground as an excuse to attack and invade another country and then LACK morality. bingo. reminds me of kids at recess making up games, then changing the rules again and again to their own advantage. |
| 2005-11-07 3:35 PM in reply to: #279827 |
Veteran 142 Wichita, KS | Subject: RE: W. on torture: help me understand run4yrlif - 2005-11-07 2:02 PM I like to think of left vs. right as a circle as opposed to a line...the far left and the far right are pretty much the same. No, I'm writing that book. Get your own idea. I consider myself a conservative. I mean that I, generally, like things the way they are in America, and I like everyone being able to live the way they want to. This is the greatest country in the world, and we have far more right than wrong. The things that I would change, however, come after careful consideration. I have no problem with gays getting married. Why? Because it's none of my business. The "personal freedom" part of my personal brand of conservatism outweighs my "wanting things to remain the same" part in this case. I think invading Iraq was the right thing (freeing people from tyranny) to do for the absolute worse reasons (though Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, they were not nuclear, nor would nuclear weapons mean that he could build a missile that could get the bomb here)...but also know that a Democracy will never go to war without being given the reason of self-defense. When pundits try to trap John McCain (I'll admit--I'm a huge fan of his) on torture like they did on Fox last night...well, I know where I stand, and it's with the man who has seen THAT particular elephant. We're either a beacon of light in this world, or we're not. Yes, we have to live by the rules of the real world...but, as John McCain himself said, Israel's high court has repeatedly outlawed torture, and they have had great success at avoiding 9/11 scale attacks. Yes, they have had more attacks, but that has to do with proximity and the economics of putting a bomb in Tel Aviv versus Washington. The fact that Israel does not allow torture shows us that we can't really have an excuse. And we shouldn't need one. We have to define torture our own way, and while I do believe psychological pressure and even deprivation (within reason) are reasonable (this is, after all, WAR), we have to have a definition that we, as Americans, are proud to have. I like to think I do my best thinking when I base my arguments on my beliefs and go forward, rather than the political lines other people have drawn and try to work backwards. In other words, I try to call a spade a spade when I see a spade.  EDIT: Also, I think Renee's quote has some veracity; all quotes that disagree with your ideals (either because you respect the source, or because you despise it) should be looked at most closely. But there is also a reason why the Nazis rose to power: they were very, very smart at the old art of human manipulation. To pretend that both sides of our present national debate don't use the same tactics (as did our national debate before the Nazis, and everyone else in history) isn't very realistic. Edited by goodzen 2005-11-07 3:46 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK