Amazing.  I wouldn't have thought it would have been over that fast.  Either Mancow is an uber-pussy or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the Iron Sheik.  Shit, after 183 waterboardings he only looks a bit hung-over...

Let's not forget Rummy.  I want stress positions and sleep deprivation for him.

NO.  Why not have your kids or wife do it for you?  Report back.  Thnx.

I get a bit wound up on the torture thing, my apologies and all that.  Having lived with a survivor... never mind.

Dmtdust wrote:

I get a bit wound up on the torture thing, my apologies and all that.  Having lived with a survivor... never mind.

While I am truly sorry about your stepfather, are you (and all the other libs on the board) subscribing to the "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" line, or is it just anything connected to Bush/Cheney, et al, that sets you people off?

That's why Keith Olbermann's ratings have been tanking this year:  the American public are seeing that he's an hysterical "Johnny one-note"; if he can't go on a batshit crazy rant about Bush/Cheney/Rove, MSNBC might as well air their "acclaimed" crime/prison documentaries hosted by Keith Morrison...


************************************

Lest some of you think that I was in lockstep with the Bush administration, let me point out that: 1)I definitely didn't care for his cozying up to Chris-chun Right, and, 2)I think that his administration's lack of interest in policing the financial markets helped get us into the mess we're in now.

Last edited by AladdinSane (2009-05-23 00:40:44)

AladdinSane wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

I get a bit wound up on the torture thing, my apologies and all that.  Having lived with a survivor... never mind.

While I am sorry about your stepfather, are you (and all the other libs on the board) subscribing to the "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" line, or is it just anything connected to Bush/Cheney, et al, that sets you people off?

That's what I admire most about the Right: the ability to only see things in black and white. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the reason many people are angry about the torture issue is that torture is wrong, and that the minute the United States stoops to that level, we are no longer any better than those we're going after?

Until the Bush/Cheney debacle, the US did not endorse torture and - to the best of my knowledge - did not engage in torture. Why? Because for all our foibles/fuck-ups/and outright crimes of the past, we strove to be better than that. I still believe - despite evidence to the contrary - we're better than that.

And, borrowing from my esteemed Right-wing compatriots, if there are Americans who believe torture is justified, I'm happy to offer a list of countries where they might be happier living: China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran... well, it's a long list, but I'm sure if you're looking for a place where everything is black and white and torture is A-OK, you'll be very happy in any one of them.

Taint wrote:

AladdinSane wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

I get a bit wound up on the torture thing, my apologies and all that.  Having lived with a survivor... never mind.

While I am sorry about your stepfather, are you (and all the other libs on the board) subscribing to the "If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us" line, or is it just anything connected to Bush/Cheney, et al, that sets you people off?

That's what I admire most about the Right: the ability to only see things in black and white. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the reason many people are angry about the torture issue is that torture is wrong, and that the minute the United States stoops to that level, we are no longer any better than those we're going after?

Until the Bush/Cheney debacle, the US did not endorse torture and - to the best of my knowledge - did not engage in torture. Why? Because for all our foibles/fuck-ups/and outright crimes of the past, we strove to be better than that. I still believe - despite evidence to the contrary - we're better than that.

And, borrowing from my esteemed Right-wing compatriots, if there are Americans who believe torture is justified, I'm happy to offer a list of countries where they might be happier living: China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran... well, it's a long list, but I'm sure if you're looking for a place where everything is black and white and torture is A-OK, you'll be very happy in any one of them.

Now this is where the liberals and conservatives are both off track; the reason we are categorically against torture is that we cannot trust any government who institutes torture as a policy to not eventually use torture against it's citizenry.

You know...for the safety of the public, to win the drug war and to teach those pesky jay-walkers a lesson.

Last edited by Emmeran (2009-05-23 10:27:35)

Dusty wrote:

and, he really wasn't even restrained.

Not only that; But, his head wasn't angled lower than his chest (So, his nose wouldn't have filled), and they didn't cover his mouth.  That was not a proper "water-boarding" at all.

Pale wrote:

I imagine I'm not the only person who wishes Cheney would return to his Undisclosed Location.

Except, thanks to Biden and his big fucking mouth, that location is no longer "undisclosed."

Taint wrote:

I still believe - despite evidence to the contrary - we're better than that.

You can believe that if you want, Dude; But, you'd be wrong.  Just sayin'.

ah297900 wrote:

I'll tell you what it is for me. I grew up with all those Cold War movies about us prevailing over the Russkies . . .

< RobertZimmerman > But, the Russians now too have . . .  God on their side. < /RobertZimmerman >

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

That's what I admire most about the Right: the ability to only see things in black and white. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the reason many people are angry about the torture issue is that torture is wrong, and that the minute the United States stoops to that level, we are no longer any better than those we're going after?

Nothing black and white there, huh Taint?  We waterboarded one guy who was one of the masterminds of the 9/11 massacre of over 2,700 people and we automatically are no longer any better than him.  Nope, nothing black and white about that at all...

Oh, was it just one person? Silly me.

Torture is Torture.  It's obvious that you approve of it, and shan't be moved.  Move along nothing to discuss here.

I like this juxtaposition:  "It's okay to waterboard, but don't download pirate software."

Dmtdust wrote:

Torture is Torture.  It's obvious that you approve of it, and shan't be moved.  Move along nothing to discuss here.

Another black-and-white statement.  There are gradations and, while I won't deny that waterboarding belongs in the torture category, it's about the mildest form of torture I'm aware of.  US special operations personnel  undergo waterboarding as part of their survival school training.  Off hand I can't think of any other form of torture that we would subject our troops to as a training exercise.  Given a choice of being subjected to waterboarding vs. just about any other form of torture (having bones broken, being subjected to burns, having my fingernails pulled, having electrodes put to my genitals, being disfigured or permanently disabled, etc.) I'd opt for waterboarding.  I imagine most would as well.  Furthermore, how waterboarding is implemented can make a huge difference.  Did US interrogators go about it the same way as the people who interrogated your step-father?  Was it qualitatively the exact same  experience?  I doubt it.  This isn't to defend waterboarding.  It's to put it in perspective when the practice is being used generically as "torture". 

Sorry, but the assertion that waterboarding some of the folks behind the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 makes us no worse than them is just plain bullshit.

Decadence wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

How many was it?  The point remains the same.

So, Zookie, as you seem to be so approving of the act,

Nice piece of non-sequitur bullshit there...

Decadence wrote:

when would be a good time for Dusty and I to "water-board" you?

Right after I murder over 2,700 innocent people, you catch me and have reason to believe I've got information on more attacks.  You can put that on your schedule if you like.

Frankly, I can think of very few likely instances when I think waterboarding might be defensible.  But your reasoning is idiotic.  If I defend a practice that is applied to mass-murderers then I should be willing to endure that same practice even though I'm not a mass-murderer?

ah297900 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Taint wrote:

That's what I admire most about the Right: the ability to only see things in black and white. I don't suppose it's occurred to you that the reason many people are angry about the torture issue is that torture is wrong, and that the minute the United States stoops to that level, we are no longer any better than those we're going after?

Nothing black and white there, huh Taint?  We waterboarded one guy who was one of the masterminds of the 9/11 massacre of over 2,700 people and we automatically are no longer any better than him.  Nope, nothing black and white about that at all...

The question isn't whether we're better than the worst terrorists, the question is whether we're being as ethical as we should be. Saying torture is okay because it's better behavior than that shown by terrorists is not only a terrible argument (it makes anything we do okay, as long as it's arguably better than what the worst people on earth do), it's a miserable standard to hold your country to.

I agree.  I was replying to Taint's bullshit reasoning that he read on some bumper-sticker.

Zookeeper wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

US special operations personnel  undergo waterboarding as part of their survival school training.  ...
Sorry, but the assertion that waterboarding some of the folks behind the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 makes us no worse than them is just plain bullshit.

They undergo that training in case they get caught by the bad guys, who have no scruples and use torture.

Would it have been just as objectionable if some of the other forms of torture had been used instead of waterboarding?

Yes, but less defensible. Listen, we're supposed to be the force that can drag the rest of the world into a better, more just place; this is something that we shouldn't even be sticking our toe into. What is it exactly that we gain from doing this? Is it really worth it for what we're losing? Your arguments about why we ought to be doing this have so far seemed to center on the idea that the terrorists have it coming--this does not speak to the morality of torture, or the strategic value of endorsing it.

Brb, bbq.

ah297900 wrote:

Yes, but less defensible. Listen, we're supposed to be the force that can drag the rest of the world into a better, more just place; this is something that we shouldn't even be sticking our toe into. What is it exactly that we gain from doing this? Is it really worth it for what we're losing? Your arguments about why we ought to be doing this have so far seemed to center on the idea that the terrorists have it coming--this does not speak to the morality of torture, or the strategic value of endorsing it.

I've enjoyed your argument, and you brought up a great point earlier when you noted that a government that condones torture against its enemies is - in a manner of speaking - free to do so against its own citizens should it perceive them as enemies, as well. That's the reason I've always opposed any sorts of limitations on free speech. Once the government can determine what is and what is not an acceptable form of speech, it's all over. I'm embarrassed that I didn't make that connection between torture and speech.

I can't help but notice, though, that your statement above isn't much different than what I've been arguing: I believe the US has the moral high ground - at least in its ideals - when it comes to issues such as torture, or human rights, and stooping to that level makes us little better than those we're opposing. It is rather Polly Annish, and possibly indefensible, but it's that same level of idealism that has forced us as a society to acknowledge our errors in the past and to change them, occasionally kicking and screaming while doing so.

Is that bullshit, as Zookie said? I don't think so. It is idealistic. But as I said, it's our ideals that make us strive to be better. That's one of the reasons why I'm so frustrated with Obama's seeming backpedaling on these very matters (although, as one commentator noted, Obama's also being forced to find a graceful way out of a shitty situation).

Zookeeper wrote:

I have made no argument that we should be employing waterboarding.  There is a difference between saying "we ought to be doing this" and challenging the level of hysteria there is over it.  There's a difference between saying "we ought to be doing this" and objecting to treating waterboarding like it's equal with every other form of torture.  There's also a difference between saying "we ought to be doing this" and having no sympathy for the mass murderers it was applied to in recent years.

I would suggest, then, that perhaps you need to word your arguments and statements a little more precisely. I often feel in discussions and arguments with you that you reply with additional information and nuance that wasn't stated in your initial argument, and then become frustrated when people don't understand you.

Decadence wrote:

Zookie wrote:

Nice piece of non-sequitur bullshit there...

Throwing your previously stated opinion back at you was a non-sequitur?

Yes given that one had nothing to do with the other either in principle or in practice.  If it makes you feel better I'd have all kinds of sympathy for someone who was waterboarded for engaging in software piracy.

Decadence wrote:

Zookie wrote:

If I defend a practice that is applied to mass-murderers then I should be willing to endure that same practice even though I'm not a mass-murderer?

Dude . . .  Seriously?  Are you seriously going to claim that the only people who have been "water-boarded" by the United States were mass-murders?  You're really going to make that assertion?  Do you need a bit of time to re-think that one?

The three people it was used on were all al-Qaeda leaders:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Abu Zubaydah
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

let me think... My step father had 3 of those done, plus having his lower spine smashed with rifle butts, fingernails jammed with slivers of bamboo etc, etc.   I

seem to recall all of these are against the Geneva conventions.  If they all are listed within the conventions, why are you so quick to dismiss the standing rules of law, or to bend the law?

I am not thick but just trying to light that small flame of humanity that might be lurking inside of you.

Taint wrote:

I would suggest, then, that perhaps you need to word your arguments and statements a little more precisely. I often feel in discussions and arguments with you that you reply with additional information and nuance that wasn't stated in your initial argument, and then become frustrated when people don't understand you.

Seconded!  What you're saying now is in complete contrast to what you previously stated.  Either work on your communication skils, or make up your mind as to what your "position" is going to be be-fore you start "clacking it out."  < Fluffy > Just sayin'. < /Fluffy > *

Zookier wrote:

b) having electrodes attached to your genitals?

Hey, it's not my place to judge.

What?  Like you didn't see a bad S&M reference coming out of that comment?

* Speaking of whom:  Has any-body heard from that girl?  Where in the hell did she "get off to?"

Last edited by Decadence (2009-05-23 17:23:36)

We used and/or condoned water torture in Vietnam, and what difference did it make to the outcome?

Not a fucking bit. Not one tiny fucking bit.

sigmoid freud wrote:

We used and/or condoned water torture in Vietnam, and what difference did it make to the outcome?
http://media.npr.org/news/waterboard/vietnam540.jpg
Not a fucking bit. Not one tiny fucking bit.

The use of torture could be argued to have worked the same in Iraq as Vietnam, we were ultimately successful in both conflicts - although I would have a tough time applying the term victory.

The true issue at hand is not the use of torture, torture occurs daily in every corner of the globe.  Rather the issue is the acceptance of torture as a national policy.

It's very easy to say "he's an ass and deserved it" as a way to explain why it was ok, however the fact remains that outside of confessions obtained while being tortured most have yet to admit to or be convicted of what they are acused of.

The constitution prevents this sort of behavior because it was used as policy in the countries our forefathers fled.

Emmeran wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

We used and/or condoned water torture in Vietnam, and what difference did it make to the outcome?
http://media.npr.org/news/waterboard/vietnam540.jpg
Not a fucking bit. Not one tiny fucking bit.

The use of torture could be argued to have worked the same in Iraq as Vietnam, we were ultimately successful in both conflicts - although I would have a tough time applying the term victory.

Successful at what?

Creating dead people, damaged psyches, and amputees?

Go USA.

No, really. Just go.

Taint wrote:

Ah, see. I didn't realize people were being given a choice.

You know the point I was making and you are simply choosing to ignore it.  What's the matter?  Is the world just to black-and-white for you to deal with such a simple concept?