Friday Open Thread
Crazy weather here in the North East. The snow storm is pretty bad. In fact I had a mild accident today while driving to work, smacking into some trees with fortunately almost no damage :) Damn...
I watched some of the debate last night. Hillary is all substance while Obama is mostly beautiful speechifying. The superficial wins.
Al-Sadr extends Mehdi Army cease-fire - which is good news. Turkey launches incursion into Iraq
- which is not so great.
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2008-02-22 10:21
Tags:
Comments :
also
I am sorry I've been mostly absent the last couple of weeks. Lots of work and personal stuff going on. Will probably be mostly absent for a bit. Have a lot of stuff to do. Trying to catch up on reading though.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Soooo, wha cha reading? Hi Ender ... Happy Friday all :)
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
Hey Oksana
Why, reading SC of course :)
I did start reading "Hyperion" for sci fi, but that's specifically for airport reading when I actually have the time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Aha! I'm trying to read a Deepak Chopra book, but I nod off ;)
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
sounds pretty boring... :)
I rarely read anything outside of fiction, and then again rarely fiction that's not science fiction. I am one of those sci fi dreaming geeks at heart!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You should pick up a copy of...
The Audacity of Hope!
It actually is an interesting book, and very easy to skim. And it will give you all the inside information you need to help defeat him in November ;-)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
haha
yeah... I am already mildly resigned. I'll let republicans work on defeating him with the oldster :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How much money do you think we are bribing Al-Sadr with?
Mushariff is reportedly getting a $1 billion a year for the past six years
.
What could a Shite Iraqi Sheik hold out for? If you think it's good will or political positioning, back away from that airplane glue. It's cold hard cash.
Paying everyone off
is a sound, time-honored strategy that actually works.
qui tacet consentire
And I agree with you,
I was just wondering how much Al-Sadr is costing?
But, ya know....isn't bribery supposed to be wrong? That's what I was taught. Those damn naive liberal public schools!
I agree that it's not good will,
...but that doesn't mean he's getting a big payoff. It could easily be that he was fearing for his own hide and simply has opted for self-preservation. He personally was a stated target of our military at times before this cease-fire:
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Seemed to me that
Obama gave more specifics to most answers.
I think Hillary's best zinger ("change you can xerox") turned out to be a mistake when her closing rhetoric matched Edwards' and Bill's. Nobody would care if her campaign wasn't making such a big deal about Obama re-using lines, but as it is it smacks of hypocrisy.
Overall a reasonably solid debate on both sides. No knockout blow for Hillary, but it's hard for her to attack Obama without hurting herself (see above). Obama avoiding any glaring errors and didn't take many chances. I think he needs to work on explaining his health care plan better, although obviously if he wins McCain will attack it from a different angle.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Tragic accident in motorcade
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Add another tally to the Clinton Body Count :-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
GoRight no doubt
will have to update his series.
I'm only half stupid
Yep, this is a good one.
I suspect that the behind the scenes story is pretty juicy. Perhaps he was having an affair with Mrs. Bill and things went sour?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey SC East Coasters...How's that blizzard coming?
Got your dog sleds waxed & readied?
it wasn't too horrible
and in the end it was hovering right above freezing and most stuff melted :) Especially on the highways.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Remeber that whole Protect America Act/FISA update?
Well, the (misnamed) Protect America Act lapsed (thank god) last week. Now we are back to just the FISA standards to go by.
If it's so important and so imperative to have these changes in the FISA set-up...Why is the bush43 administration & the Republican leadership more interested in using this as a propoganda tool than actually doing anything about attaining concensus on updating FISA?
Now, you all know my point of view and beliefs, so I'm only saying this with a little tongue in cheek.
The Administration's idea of compromise is to get everything they want without offering any actual accomodation to competing interests. The Republican Leadership obviously thinks this will be more valuable as a campaign aid to bash those weak kneed, radical loving commie Democrats, than as actual legislation to actually do something important...like maybe actually Protecting America.
The routine worked flawlessly in August of 07. The same act has been used for every single issue of substance since the beginning of the bush43 Adminstration. Namely, use fear. Make the citizens piss in their pants and shoot for the moon.
The real issue here isn't actually protecting America more. This is especially true when seen in the light that bush43 had asked the telcoms to spy on Americans & the world at large beyond the limits of the FISA standards in the spring of 2001, well before 9/11 even happened.
The problem Republicans & bush43 are facing is that they've cried wolf so many times, people aren't believing them much any more. Now bush43 in particular probably know this, but they'll never admit to it because it completely undercuts their whole framing of the issue...which is if we don't allow this administration to act without regard to the laws of the land, each and every one of you is going to be killed by one crazy group or another.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox again. Sorry if this is boring, but it is fundamental to what kind of government we as a people want to have. One that is ruled and bound by laws that apply to EVERYONE, or one that is ruled by imperial fiat.
Justice Dept. actually doing something?
NY Times reports
:
I suppose they'll find some low level scapegoat, or just conclude that it is all perfectly fine, but you never know. Good job, Senators Durbin and Whitehouse, for pushing for this investigation.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Can you say
WHITEWASH, boys and girls?
qui tacet consentire
Yes I suppose some won't be happy...
...until America gets what's coming to her -- blasted back to a third world country and we're all equally miserable.
Investigate the three times we waterboarded our enemy (which by the way leaves zero physical damage) for information in which we gleaned actionable info that saved lives. Waterboarding saved lives
Nice!
If you want to take on the CIA for the destruction of video tapes I'm right there with you but this is ridiculous!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It's not about punishing America
It's about punishing those responsible for the damage they have done to America. It's about being the best country in the world and leading by example. It's about spreading freedom and democracy by showing how great freedom and democracy really is. It's about not compromising our ideals for a quick fix. It's about winning the war on terror by not being terrorized into changing our values.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And while you're trying in vain...
...to live up to this idealized theoretical Utopian version of the world the rest of us are left to deal with the reality of the situation.
The reality is saving American lives is paramount and takes precedence over the appearance of impropriety (which in this case is imagined by the weak) when your enemy is threating you!
You can keep repeating this theoretical idealism to yourself over and over to make yourself feel better and to create for yourself a sense of moral elitism and enlightenment but the fact is, that's not how the world works!
We have been showing the world our Ideals for over 200 years and Americans are still beheaded and dragged through the streets!
So you'll excuse me if I don't share your theoretical view of the world.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You're just being impatient is all
I'll repeat, it's about not compromising our ideals for a quick fix.
I won't deny that America has done good in the world via the use of force (WW II being the most obvious example). Do you deny that we have done good in the world by being an example of freedom and democracy?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
C'mon...
...America is free because of the threat of and or use of force. If you can show me an example of a time where peace and diplomacy has had any effect on the rest of the world (where it clearly wasn't backed up by the threat of force) I might take this seriously.
The problem with real world democracy is that more often than not -- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice Doggie' until you can find a rock. -DocJ
I find the idea that we lose all credibility for attempting to spread freedom and democracy because of a questionable interrogation technique, ludicrous!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Countries are made up of people
I suspect a large part of our disagreement may be because you are looking at the world as a collection of countries, and I am looking at it as a collection of people. Both views have their place, and clearly diplomacy (and war) is something that takes place at the country level. But I would argue that in the long run, our best and closest allies will be those countries whose people respect and admire us. And respect and admiration is not something you earn through force.
As do I. Good thing I never said that. I find the idea that we lose no credibility because of our use of waterboarding equally ludicrous!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
In that case I think the problem here...
...is that you seem to view enemy combatants the same as uniformed members of an opposing army. These are completely separate situations and subject to different treatment.
your case only holds water if we start waterboarding unformed army opponents and operatives. Under this scenario (if you classify waterboarding as torture - I don't) then we would be tarnishing our name and compromising our values...setting a bad example for other nations. That's not the case here!
As for this:
I beg to differ -- it's only through our threat of force that affords us a voice at the table and though that threat of force that any nation stops long enough to listen.
If we didn't back up our diplomacy with sufficient threat of force other nations would have swallowed us whole long ago!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yep
They are the same in that both are human beings. Obviously there are legal differences, and there is no denying that many of the enemy combatants in this case are reprehensible human beings. Still don't see how that makes it okay to treat them as anything other than human beings, though.
You seem to think that I am putting forth the idea that we should never use force. Unfortunately it is necessary in some cases. I said that respect and admiration is not something you earn through force, and I stand by that statement. Force may be necessary to maintain the conditions that allow you to earn it, however, as you correctly point out.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Then I will leave it at
-- we differ on what constitutes inhumane. I don't beleive waterboarding to be inhumane and you do.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Specifically waterboarding....
is just a symptom of of America's loss of credibility in it's goal of trying to spread democracy and freedom.
This idealistic dogma has become so trite and overused......
......The US is spreading democracy and freedom.....
as if just saying the words is enough. But what is the reality?
Democracy and freedom are are ideals. They may mean different things to different people and how they are achieved in established or establishing a government is a debate that is not settled in our own country.
Ask the people of Afganistan how the use of torture to spread of democracy and freedom through force is going for them.
IF the US torturing someone has brought freedom to the citizens of Afganistan..... well it might take you a while to explain how wonderful spreading democracy really is to the Afghans who are suffering under a rabidly corrupt government, brought to them by the US. A government that doesn't even come close to meeting the needs of the people. Should the Afgani's be grateful that the US has tortured people to spread freedom and democracy to their country?
I'm only half stupid
The way the world works
I'm curious as to how many times waterboarding wasn't used in situations where it might have appeared that high-value prisoners had time-sensitive information (in other words, where it could reasonably be believed that American lives were at stake).
Why didn't we use this interrogation technique more often?
I think SL's point is that there's a genuine cost to utilizing overly harsh methods, and the apparent reluctance to use waterboarding more frequently indicates that the CIA agrees.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think you may be giving SL...
...too much credit here. His OP smacked of "hate America first" and "watch how this administration weasels out of it"
but maybe I'm a bit touchy
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Touchy
You are being touchy regarding the "hate America first" bit, that is for sure. But you interpret the "watch how this administration weasels out of it" correctly!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Disagree.
You can't say something like "watch how this administration weasels
out of it" without implying you "hate America first". The premise clearly intones that the administration is "weaseling out" or something that you (1) hate and consider reprehensible, AND (2) that America is responsible for. You can't separate these two despite how much you might want to divest yourself of the clear implication drawn from your premise.
See cognitive dissonance
:
In other words, what you hold to be true (i.e. you "don't hate America first") is incompatible with what you know to be true (i.e. you "do hate America for what it has done") and, therefore, you blindly cling to the former while refusing to ackowledge the latter.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not sure there's a contradiction
because the waterboarding isn't something that America did, it is something that specific people did acting on directives that authorized such methods.
If I were to say, for example, that I hate something for which I hold the Bush administration primarily responsible, I don't think it requires I hate America =)
I think you have a reasonable point when people start talking about how they hate that America did XYZ, but I'm not convinced it applies to this case.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Winning WWII isn't something America did ...
it is something that specific people did acting on directives that authorized such methods. Right? (Not to belittle the efforts of the other allies, of course.)
This is always the case. Who's military was running Abu Graib? Who's military is running Gitmo? These are official actions of the US government. You can't separate Bush or the military from "America" when it comes to official US policy and US actions.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Works both ways
If you believe that, then it must also have been true of the Clinton administration. I'm pretty sure you have disparaged the "bombing of the aspirin factory" incident. Therefore you must hate America?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't believe that I have ever disparaged Clinton for
taking affirmative military action against Iraq. I may have made fun of him for being so stupid as to "flex the US military muscle" and only have a bombed out aspirin factory to show for it, but that's not the same thing as saying that I, or anyone else, hates America.
I am not running around claiming that the world hates us because he bombed the aspirin factory. The reverse is obviously not true. The blame America first crowd is constantly saying that the world hates us because of our handling of the GWOT.
Are you saying that "America's actions" have caused "other people" to hate America, but somehow you don't have the same reaction that you are claiming others have?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes.
Do you see this as a contradiction? My relationship to America is much closer and more involved than anyone who is not a citizen of this country. I see how great America is every day. Someone living in Iraq has a view of America that is influenced almost entirely by our foreign policy. How could you possibly expect our reactions to be the same?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Silly argument
America allows the abortion of millions of unborn children, something you hate and consider reprehensible. Does that mean you hate America?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Not really
"hate America first" refers to a default position some people have which blames U.S. actions and policies abroad for the way others view us. Unfortunately some Americans have adopted such a view.
Abortion like many internal issues in the U.S. doesn't carry the same inference the two are not analogous!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Spectrum
Have you never disagreed with any aspect of American foreign policy? If you have, does that mean you hate America? It is a silly argument. It is a "my country, right or wrong" mentality that stifles rational discussion of policy, and is complete B.S.
The two extreme views would be that
1) The way others view America is solely a result of American actions and policies abroad. This would imply that if others hate America, it's because we have done something bad.
2) The way others view America has absolutely nothing to do with American actions and policies abroad. If others hate America, it's because they are stupid/ignorant/evil/whatever.
Do you think either one of these is true, or that maybe the reality of the situation is somewhere inbetween these two extreme views?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, it's not THAT at all.
It is a you can't separate "America" from its official policies and actions mentality. If you hate the official policies, yes you hate America by definition.
Why are you calling it "American foreign policy" if it isn't "America" that enforces it and is thus the target of your hate? Why do you claim "America" has lost credibility in the world community if "America" is not the source of the problem in your eyes and, presumably, those of the world community in this statement?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why does disagreement require hate?
Answer: it doesn't. If your wife says "I hate it when you smoke" does that mean she hates you? Or maybe, just maybe, she loves you and is trying to help you become even better.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well ...
When you are smoking, most likely yes.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Convoluting this with questions...
...that have no real relevance to my statement is a waste of time
If you can't see the point I made there's little I can do for you!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Do for me?
Let me assure you that there is no argument you can put forth that will suddenly make me realize that, oh my, I really do hate America!
If you can't understand that wanting to improve something more strongly implies love than hate, then there's little I can do for you, either!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Again you completly miss the point
I have no interest in convincing you of anything and certainly not that you hate America.
My point was that your analogy was and remains to be wrong!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yeah I got that
Which is why my subsequent responses involved only foreign policy examples. The concept of "disagreeing with foreign policy equals hating America" is still wrong, whether my first analogy was flawed or not.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Steven...... a simple question
How do you feel about Congress. Do you approve or disapprove of the job they are doing. If you disapprove, does that mean that you 'hate America first'.?
Do you love or hate our country's government? If you hate it, then do you 'hate America first'.
Trying to improve or change things does not imply that you hate your country. Your rhetoric is way way way overboard.
I'm only half stupid
Just keep that in mind, Steve...
The next (and every) time the right complains about socialism, communism, activist judges, high taxes... I'll just say "and while you're trying in vain to live up to this idealized theoretical Utopian version of the world the rest of us are left to deal with the reality of the situation."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You can say taht all you want...
...but you'll still be wrong!
Time tested, proven, common sense results are not a idealized theoretical Utopian version of the world.
But thanks for playing -- feel better now?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What does...
"time tested, proven, common sense results" have to do with the right? :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
taht
There I said again...... :)
I'm only half stupid
You mean like ...
the value where we stand up against evildoers and the enemies of civilized society? Where we do what is needed to end their reign of terror?
Oh wait, you (liberals in general) seem to want us to change those values ... hmmm.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Civilized societies do not condone torture
...except, apparently, when they have been unduly influenced by terror.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Here we have to tackle the question
of what exactly constitutes torture...
I've read the statutes but there's still room for interpretation. I think it's perfectly fair to demand we clarify whether specific techniques are allowed or not, and why.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Fair enough
But when a close ally like Canada puts the U.S. on a watch list of countries that may commit torture against its citizens, it is pretty clear that we have damaged our credibility, however you define torture.
For the record, I don't see any way that waterboarding could not be considered to cause severe suffering. And, sticking with my initial point, I think that any "clarification" of the definition of torture which would exclude waterboarding as a form of torture is compromising the ideals that America should stand for.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Funny, I see it exactly the opposite...
I don't see any way that waterboarding COULD be considered to cause severe suffering, especially in light of the FACT that everyone knows that the subject is never really in danger of drowning. Add to that the fact that we subject our own military personnel to the technique as part of their survival traning
and it is hard to believe that this truly is a form of torture.
Is it unpleasant? Of course. Does it cause severe suffering? Not by any reasonable definition of the term severe suffering. There is no long term physical or mental loss or damage. There is no disability or handicap produced by the technique. The simple fact is that the liberal establishment wants to make this into more than it is for political gain and nothing more.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who's condoning torture?
Not Bush or anyone in the government that I know of. Do you have some quotes to substantiate your charge that people are "condoning torture"? I don't mean someone saying the waterboarding is OK, but rather where some US official is advocating the use of torture under ordinary circumstances. In other words, something they say "I think we should torture people."
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nobody supports torture!
You just define torture to be what other folks do.
If the Iranians had done this to the British troops, you'd call it torture, just like we did when the Japanese did it in WWII.
Here is a conservative's
experiment with self-waterboarding.
Fascinating read.
One interesting section of many
And yet ...
we subject our own people to it as a training exercise.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Consent being the relevant difference
People have sex all the time. Withdraw consent and it becomes rape.
People box and spar as self defense training. Take the consent away, and you have aggravated assault. I've seen boxing matches that would constitute torture if they hadn't consented. Just imagine if the ref refused to end the fight until the one getting beaten confessed to a crime (whether they did it or not).
I would argue that nobody would consent to anything ...
that could be properly termed torture, so your premise is moot. The very fact that people do consent is a de facto argument against calling it torture.
(Masochists and the insane not withstanding, of course.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This kind of ignores
the psychological aspects, though -- torture works because the subject gets scared.
If you know exactly what is coming and you know that you won't be harmed that intimidation factor isn't the same.
Two questions. First, suppose I could hook up an electrical device to cause pain without doing any permanent damage. Could use of such a device constitute torture? Second, suppose I used technology and trickery to convince a subject that his child was being harmed and would continue to be harmed until he talked. Is that torture?
Some relevant background here
and here 
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Not really.
I would argue that there is no one on the face of this planet that is likely to get caught by US forces AND end up being subjected to waterboarding that doesn't know exactly what to expect in this case. Especially now that the details are so widely known. It basically comes down to whether you believe that the US will outright murder you. If you don't believe that they will go that far then, by definition, you know that they won't use techniques which are expected to lead to your death. This isn't that hard to figure out.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think false flag is permitted
so the subject might be led to believe that he is not being interrogated by US forces and then allowed to draw his own conclusions.
However, I believe staged executions are not allowed, so they can't say "we're going to kill you by drowning."
This is all pulled from memory based on earlier reading so it's possible I'm incorrect on this.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The details of torture
Did they reap any benefits in this case?
Inside the mind of a tortured detainee
The details are chilling, the man is now broken down and insane, after years of grueling torture. The tapes of the interrogation methods were destroyed. The question is did this man provide any evidence that saved American lives?
There is a question as to whether this detainee ever had any information that was valuable to the US, and now his mind is so far gone, there is almost no way of knowing.
The lawyers in this case are fully prepared to be villified for trying to uncover the truth, they maintain that ....
I'm only half stupid
Oh, what a pity ...
What a nice story this is. But that is all it is. Do you have any evidence to support these conjectures? Doubtful. Certainly none is presented as part of the story itself. We have no reason or eveidence to believe that this person is, in fact, insane. Even if he is, we have no evidence that he hasn't been this way all along.
Simply put, you got nothin' but conjecture.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's not a nice story
and it is certainly more than a pity.
But of course, this is what I fully expected you to say.
(Although, the breakdown of the man's mind and soul speak well for the effectiveness of the touchless torture methods that the CIA adopted from the dark hearts of the communist torture agents during the cold war.)
Since the interrogation tapes or the evidence that you desire has been destroyed, of course the case will be very difficult. As mentioned the people that are trying to get at the truth will likely be rabidly villified by those like yourself.
So you can stand tall and beat your chest and scream liberal surrender monkeys while taking great pride in the job America has done to torture the generally unspecified class known as the evil doers.
Team Bush has created another Catch 22, (similar to the Warrentless Wiretapping) to avoid any measure of accountability for their actions.
I'm only half stupid
People consent to acts that would be torture quite often
Watch some Thai Kick Boxing training some time. The damage that they do to the nerves near their shins is permanent and brutal beyond belief. If somebody did that to them, it would be torture.
And of course, there are whole host of sexual acts. Rape or threat thereof is considered torture (you would agree?) yet consent makes it OK. This is because it is the lack of consent that makes it mentally damaging.
The differencee between "We are going to do some bad things to you because it may happen to you in the field and you need to be prepared. If you want to drop out of the program, say the word and we'll stop" and "We will stop doing this when we feel like it. You are ours to do with as we please, so please us or things will go on and on forever" is fundamental.
I refer you back to my caveat ...
Kicking boxing is a sport. It's participatants would argue that they are not being tortured. In other circumstances such a beating on an unwilling participant is called assault, not torture.
I'll stand by my original statement, people would not be willing to submit to anything that could be properly termed torture. Period.
People willingly submit to waterboarding as part of their training, ergo it is NOT torture. I don't believe that anyone would be willing to submit to forcible rape as part of their training, ergo that IS torture.
See how that works? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And 'round and 'round we go
So, beating someone's shins until they bleed and cause permanent nerve damage is apparently an acceptable form of interrogation. (Not torture as people willingly submit to it.
The difference between sex and rape is ENTIRELY based on consent. People consent to sex all the time but they CANNOT meaningfully consent to rape; the concept makes no sense. Therefore it is the sexual (even violent sex act in question) that is the analogy to water-boarding.
Without consent, the sex act becomes rape. Without consent, the training act becomes torture, your definitions not-withstanding.
4
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Fox News play of the McCain story tonight.
I went to my favorite greek restaurant tonight and got a gyro to go. Well they always have Fox news playing on this big screen TV they have in the place and the usual crew was discussing how yesterdays NY Times story affected McCain. They were ecstatic! They were all over themselves with joy because this story has brought together all sorts of conservatives who previously hadn't supported McCain & felt this would get everyone on the bus.
Even that douche bag Alan Combs was into it. Part of the rallying around was trashing the NY Times. They said that they all represented real values and the Times was a rag who prints lies. They of course are all completely above that kind of thing and this is what conservatives need to win the presidency.
On that note, I'm left wondering....this is the same group of media & talking heads that greedily and lustily reported every woman that Bill Clinton could have had sex with, reported it as fact, and pushed that 24/7.
How can these people have such crappy short term memory? Honestly, I think it's just directed memory. They really only remember what they want to remember, not what actually happened. I'm serious, have you ever read Conservapedia?
They rewrite history all the time.
Funny though. Fox's story was all about the sex angle (how surprising!) and never mentioned the lobbyist connections.