Even if Michelle Obama had never been proud of her country before this year, most of us are, as shown in this video from the WSRP.
Posted by pudge at July 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Email ThisLOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 17, 2008 11:56 AMWe hope his successor will somehow be able to undo the damage.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 17, 2008 12:22 PMAs for the war in Iraq, we won, which is why you
must be so ashamed.
So, he is ashamed of that, and of winning the war.
@4: Unkl, what personal liberty have you lost?
For all intents and purposes, the liberties lost in practice have been minor. I'll be the first to admit it. Liberals have not been rounded up and placed in camps, no matter how many fascist-leaning conservative wingnuts would like to see that.
But it is less the practice, and more the concept. It is pathetic that conservatives (who should be far more paranoid about government intrusions on personal privacy!) are incredibly lackadaisical when these ideas are brought up. How hypocritical is it that you would decry the Democrats as "socialists" intent on tight control of the country, when there are government agencies that have the potential to exert a remarkable amount of control that could be used against the people of the US as we speak?
Even if it is just the principle behind these notions that is of relevance here, why are you so trusting of government officials in this case, and not in others?
Posted by: demo kid on July 17, 2008 01:05 PMIt's the usual FISA whining. Can there be any doubt that in the computer age, where cell phones can be used to trigger remote bombs, etc. that there is a need for better surveillance techniques? Progressives will fret over FISA as a loss of freedom, but when the CAO limits what you can do with your own property, that's far closer to home and more realistic than some NSA computer listening in to an international phone call to a suspected terrorist. And no one is excusing the government for overreach. I am sure most here found the Koresh compound destruction in Waco to be highly suspicious and disturbing, but there is a balance between civil liberties for terrorists and government goons storming your house, that must be struck to protect the country.
We often hear Progressives whine that we should be focused on terrorists and not Iraq, but they then fret about FISA. Technology is fast paced. It's tough for all of us to keep up with the implications. Doing nothing is not an option.
But when our Progressive majority Democrats in Olympia and Seattle are more concerned with plastic bag bans and taxes then they are with security, educational costs, energy policy, property tax assessments, transportation, etc. then you know something is wrong.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 17, 2008 01:16 PMSitting down and talking with terrorist sponsors (as Obama wants to do) ain't gonna get it done. The measures put in place by the Bush administration have been reasonable, with adequate jurisprudence.
Posted by: Palouse on July 17, 2008 01:19 PMYou complain about dead horses, while defending the candidates of the party whose mantra against EVERY Republican is "Bush Bush Bush"? Pull the other one.
Anyway, most of us here, and most conservatives, are NOT "lackadaisical" about personal privacy at all. I just heard, for example, David Boze the other day commenting that the DHS represents too much concentrated power. Most of us here express similar views on a wide array of government programs.
"If there is a conceptual, abstract discussion of personal liberties and you're arguing that we should have *less* liberty, how is that a good thing?"
That is a fine point, demo kid, for a libertarian to make, but not for a Democrat. The majority of the party platform is dedicated to "less liberty." Say what you will about the current Republican Party, but at least they start with mostly good free principles, even if they abandon them at the gates of Congress.
If you truly believe we should not be arguing for less liberty, then you are on OUR side, in the general case, even if you disagree on individual points like warrantless wiretapping (which many of us Republicans actually disagree with the President on).
Why do you think that Congress' approval rating is less than half that of the President?
How proud are you of Congress these days?
Posted by: Smoley on July 17, 2008 02:03 PMWhat a proud time to be a Republican.
Posted by: Splinter on July 17, 2008 02:15 PMDepends on your definition of "sanction" I guess. Perhaps you should watch this.
Regulations based on common law dealing with trespass and nuisance, versus a potential threat to the freedoms we enjoy around communication and speech.
But in the end, that's a complete distraction. Disagree with property use restrictions all you want, but to use what you find to be power unreasonably granted to the government as an excuse to give OTHER power to the government is absurd. These are two different issues.
@12: Without using any Ben Franklin quotes, how do you prevent terrorism in this country?
Law enforcement. Domestic intelligence gathering. No one is disagreeing that terrorists should be found... just that there are freedoms that should not be violated for expediency's sake.
And again, assuming that the steps that Bush has taken are "reasonable" is just blatant partisanship on your part. With a Democrat in office, you'd be whining about the loss of your civil liberties a hell of a lot louder than liberals are now.
@14: That is a fine point, demo kid, for a libertarian to make, but not for a Democrat. The majority of the party platform is dedicated to "less liberty." Say what you will about the current Republican Party, but at least they start with mostly good free principles, even if they abandon them at the gates of Congress.
Wow... bringing up all of the fearmongering stereotypes that just aren't true! Democrats are no more opponents of liberty than Republicans eat babies.
@18: d'emo kid, let me remind you that it was a Democrat-led Congress that passed the FISA bill. And yes, even Obama voted for it (after he promised he wouldn't).
I like the fact that more safeguards are in place, but I'm not happy with the way that everything went down. Don't confuse me with a mindless party hardliner... unlike y'all, I actually have opinions outside of the party platform.
Why do you think that Congress' approval rating is less than half that of the President?
With a narrow split in the Senate, the Democrats do not have the votes to reach cloture. Gridlock is an intentional design element of Congress, and the inability for the Republicans to play ball on certain issues certainly hasn't contributed to an easy session.
@19: What a proud time to be a Republican.
There has never been a proud time to be a Republican in recent memory. That's why so many candidates are "GOP" now.
Posted by: demo kid on July 17, 2008 02:41 PM"...making fun of a candidates name..." comes from a small minority of Republicans, unlike the "Bush lied" / "Bush is stupid" garbage that comes from the majority of Democrats.
"...picking on his wife..." is a legitimate action on our part. If you're going to campaign actively and publicly for your husband you're representing him and just as legitimate a target as anybody else campaigning for him at that level. If you can't stand the heat, baby, get out of the kitchen. And Barack: buck up, man up, and quit whining about it.
Nice non-answer. First, "law enforcement" doesn't prevent terrorism. And if you have to notify the terrorists that you are tapping their phones, "domestic intelligence gathering" doesn't work either.
assuming that the steps that Bush has taken are "reasonable" is just blatant partisanship on your part.
No, I actually believe they are reasonable. They have judicial review, by a special court that will not compromise the intelligence gathering.
Posted by: Palouse on July 17, 2008 02:49 PM"The first American administration to sanction the use of torture against our enemies ..."
In fact, that never happened. You've been lied to.
"... led by a party that now resorts to making fun of a candidates name and then picking on his wife to score political points."
I never made fun of anyone's name, and the video doesn't pick on "his wife," it picks on one of his top campaign representatives. To lay off her because she is his wife is terribly sexist and unfair.
demo kid:
"Wow... bringing up all of the fearmongering stereotypes that just aren't true!"
False.
"Democrats are no more opponents of liberty than Republicans eat babies."
Um. Shall we go down the list?
Taking resources from the people, by force, to push their favored agricultural, environmental, and social systems. Rejection of freedom of religion in those social systems. Rejection of the right of free association in any workplace. Rejection of the right to life of literal, undeniable, humans in the womb. Rejection of the right of free trade. Rejection of the right of free speech on television and radio. Rejection of the right of equal protection of taxation laws. Rejection of the right to work (without paying someone for the privilege). Rejection of freedom of religion in schools.
I could go on, but it is too depressing.
"There has never been a proud time to be a Republican in recent memory. That's why so many candidates are "GOP" now."
More myths. "GOP" has been the way many Republicans have self-identified all along. You only notice it more now because of I-872. There has been no actual change.
Well, if you use the Administration's definition, anything goes as long as it does not amount to near death or organ failure. Interesting though that civilized societies hang as war criminals those that invented and perfected the torture techniques some Republicans are now defending as "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Honestly, those that are willing to sacrifice basic American principals (that we should not torture our enemies, regardless of how barbaric they are) in return for the feeling of short term security, are cowards.
Posted by: Splinter on July 17, 2008 02:59 PMThis Administration debated and approved techniques that were perfected during the Spanish Inquisition. If you don't believe waterboarding is torture, you are simply buying into the semantic word games of the Administration. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit the facts when they are in front of you.
Posted by: Splinter on July 17, 2008 03:16 PM"Well, if you use the Administration's definition, anything goes as long as it does not amount to near death or organ failure."
False. The Congress defines torture. The Congress is controlled by Democrats. All the Congress has to do is say "waterboarding is torture" and poof, no more waterboarding. The Democrats didn't do that until this year, and when they did it, they put it in a larger bill that was going to be vetoed anyway, too ensure its veto so they could use it as a campaign slogan.
So let's not pretend the Democrats are virtuous here. If the Congress passed a simple bill saying "Waterboarding is, in U.S. law, defined as torture, and is illegal for all U.S. military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel," Bush would sign it. They have not done that, because they do not WANT Bush to sign it.
And note that the administration stopped all waterboarding several years ago, so it's not like there is any serious disagreement on whether it should be banned.
"Honestly, those that are willing to sacrifice basic American principals (that we should not torture our enemies, regardless of how barbaric they are)"
Question-begging fallacy: once again you are assuming anyone is defending torture, which is untrue. They are legitimately questioning whether it is torture.
"If you don't believe waterboarding is torture, you are simply buying into the semantic word games of the Administration."
Oh, do grow up. The definition of torture is not "whatever Splinter says it is." It is not about semantics, it is an undeniable fact: torture is, as far as our military and law enforcement personnel are concerned, what the law says it is. We cannot expect everyone to agree on it without the law. You will think some things are torture that the CIA doesn't. Duh. So you put it in the law.
The Congress can do that now. It could have done it before. It has not done it.
"At least have the intellectual honesty to admit the facts when they are in front of you."
No, that is my line.
"The Congress defines torture"
The American congress has never had to specifically ban torture techniques in past wars. Under every other Administration, it was good enough to simply adhere to the basic laws of war, ratified in 1955 in the Geneva Conventions.
I can understand your cowardice in wanting to torture the bad guys so you can have a false sense of security when you go to bed at night. But don't try to blame the Congress when it was your elected Administration that invented the legal justification to use these barbaric tactics that have never been authorized by an Administration in our 200 year history.
"it's not like there is any serious disagreement on whether it should be banned"
Actually, if you did even the slightest bit of research, you would see quite a bit of the right wing establishment very much defending the right to waterboard. Even in the hearings today in Congress when Ashcroft was testifying.
"They are legitimately questioning whether it is torture."
It's not a legitimate debate at all. These are the same techniques used in the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi German, North Vietnam (used on the current Republican candidate actually) and the Russion Gulag. It's interesting that this Administation now is having a hard time finding out where the line is between interrogation and torture. Maybe because the previous Geneva Convention understanding of "any form of physical or mental coercion is prohibited" was always good enough for America during the conflicts in the past.
So maybe it's not intellectual honesty your lacking Pudge (but I think that's part of it), maybe its more a matter of common decency and respect for American values.
Posted by: Splinter on July 17, 2008 04:22 PMAnd if anybody gets to redefine 'torture' it should be the members of this board who are constantly subjected to your nonsense.
Posted by: jimg on July 17, 2008 04:45 PMSo no Republicans voted for the Farm Bill, for example? Okay.
Rejection of freedom of religion in those social systems.
Name me one example where Democrats (or the ACLU, for that matter!) took away your right to practice your religion. Just one.
Rejection of the right of free association in any workplace.
Because union-busting by Republicans doesn't count, right?
Rejection of the right to life of literal, undeniable, humans in the womb.
When life starts is open to debate. Assuming that your religious definitions should apply to everyone is foolish.
Rejection of the right of free trade.
So, I was mistaken when I heard that a Democratic president signed NAFTA, I guess? Similarly, the "right of free trade" isn't the "right to export pollution and poor working conditions".
Rejection of the right of free speech on television and radio.
Again, proof?
Rejection of the right to work (without paying someone for the privilege).
The "right to work"? Hmmm... didn't quite see that in the Constitution! I thought you weren't supposed to be a strict constructionist! (Or maybe that's just when the federal government does something that you don't want it to do.)
Rejection of freedom of religion in schools.
Bull. That's a pathetic, cowardly lie from the right. In fact, the oft-demonized ACLU has done more to protect those rights than most conservative organizations that bleat about them so often.
I could go on, but it is too depressing.
It IS depressing, because I'm convinced that the only way that conservatives can look like they're anything but pathetic losers is to lie about their opponents.
Posted by: demo kid on July 17, 2008 04:57 PMThe American congress has never had to specifically ban torture techniques in past wars.
Whether it HAD to or not, it did so. And yes, the law has mostly been general, but so what? If there is debate about a technique, then ban it specifically. This is how law works.
Under every other Administration, it was good enough to simply adhere to the basic laws of war, ratified in 1955 in the Geneva Conventions.
And we still follow the Geneva Conventions today. In no way have they been abridged. You are believing The Lie. Try to actually investigate the crazy claims you are regurgitating.
I can understand your cowardice in wanting to torture the bad guys ...
You're a liar. I never, in any way whatsoever, condoned actual torture, nor even what YOU call torture. I defy you to come up with a single example of me saying that I support anything remotely like torture.
... it was your elected Administration that invented the legal justification to use these barbaric tactics
Nothing was invented. Perhaps you are referring to the infamous "torture memo," but a. it was perfectly sound and well-grounded legal reasoning, and b. the President ordered that we would not do what the memo said we were allowed to do, so it is irrelevant anyway.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Actually, if you did even the slightest bit of research, you would see quite a bit of the right wing establishment very much defending the right to waterboard
First, I never said we do not have the RIGHT to waterboard. We do. Absolutely. The question is whether we should deny ourselves that right, by defining it as torture. Most people, including myself, agree that we should.
Second, please actually pay attention to context, Splinter. It will serve you well in life. The context of my statement was Congress and the President. And in that context, there is no serious disagreement. A small minority of Congress wants to keep waterboarding, a huge majority wants to ban it, and the President would sign such a bill.
It's not a legitimate debate at all.
False. Of course it is.
These are the same techniques used in the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi German, North Vietnam (used on the current Republican candidate actually) and the Russion Gulag.
Oh come on. Do you really think that is a rational argument? Hey, they used guns too, so I guess our military shouldn't use guns! It's called the genetical fallacy.
It's interesting that this Administation now is having a hard time finding out where the line is between interrogation and torture.
Please stop lying. The administration banned waterboarding years ago.
Maybe because the previous Geneva Convention understanding of "any form of physical or mental coercion is prohibited" was always good enough for America during the conflicts in the past.
So why do we have additional laws to further clarify that? Oh right, because you are either ignorant or lying.
So maybe it's not intellectual honesty your lacking Pudge (but I think that's part of it), maybe its more a matter of common decency and respect for American values.
You made up lies about me, you clearly misstated many facts, and you have not shown a single example where I was wrong.
Shrug.
As soon as I see any sign of folks on this board not attacking the opposition as "defending terrorism" or "hoping for defeat", I'll be happy to drop the rhetoric too. But frankly, I have no problem standing behind my coward remark. Torture should disgust any decent American no matter who is doing it; not only when it happens to Americans.
Posted by: splinter on July 17, 2008 05:07 PMAs soon as I see any sign of folks on this board not attacking the opposition as "defending terrorism" or "hoping for defeat", I'll be happy to drop the rhetoric too. But frankly, I have no problem standing behind my coward remark. Torture should disgust any decent American no matter who is doing it; not only when it happens to Americans.
Posted by: splinter on July 17, 2008 05:08 PMThe diehard libs relish in posting and are simultaneously horrified as individual liberties are curtailed by the evil Bush Administration.
Gee, wouldn't you bozos be incarcerated and without keyboards if your fantasies are true??
The ultimate objective of parents is to civilize children and turn them into responsible adults with judgement about the real world.
Uncl Witz, Duffless, etal are obvious examples of the failure of parents to instill an ability to reasonably view the world as it is...the real world is sometimes not pretty, and that has been the case since man arrived on this earth.
I, for one, am just peachy with frying the testicles of some moron terrorist if only to save the life of........oh say, Uncl Witless or the Duffinator.
Apparently, the terminally liberal have a death wish at the hands of the jihadists. Apparently, the terminally liberal are covetous of the 72 virgin concept as in real life, they are amorous failures. Bummer, dude.....
Posted by: Hank on July 17, 2008 05:14 PMSo no Republicans voted for the Farm Bill, for example?
Straw man. I do not know what you think my argument is that this question of yours could harm my argument, but in fact, it does not.
Name me one example where Democrats (or the ACLU, for that matter!) took away your right to practice your religion. Just one.
Straw man. I never said they took away my right to practice my religion. I said that they restricted religion in a particular context, which is obviously true.
Because union-busting by Republicans doesn't count, right?
What union-busting are you referring to? I know of none in this century. There is opposition to unions, but that is part of a free exchange of ideas and free association. Nothing anti-liberty about that, unless it is codified in law, and I do not recall seeing any significant prohibitions or limitations on unions from the GOP (except where there is no right to work, where unions are unconstitutionally forced on workers by the government, and then of course unions should have significant limitations in those situations).
When life starts is open to debate.
Actually, no, it is not. Biologically speaking, it is absolutely clear: it begins at, or shortly before, cell division. Period, end of story.
What IS open to debate is whether we should respect rights of these humans at such an early age. And my religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it. My philosophy on this is derived much more from Hippocratus and Socrates than Saint Paul: first, do no harm, which means that -- since we do not collectively know whether this life deserves rights -- we err on the side of life, until such time as we know otherwise.
So, I was mistaken when I heard that a Democratic president signed NAFTA, I guess?
Another straw man. I never said EVERY Democrat agrees with EVERY point I was making. I was talking about the Democratic party as a whole, and opposition to free trade is in their platform.
Similarly, the "right of free trade" isn't the "right to export pollution and poor working conditions".
Straw man.
Again, proof?
Oh, you have not heard of the Fairness Doctrine, that the Democrats are trying to bring back? This was in the King County Democratic Platform.
The "right to work"? Hmmm... didn't quite see that in the Constitution!
It's sad that you don't see it. It is, quite obviously, in Amendment IX.
But you appear to be conceding that in fact the Democrats do not believe in the right to work, which is, of course, true. It is a simple fact that in this state, if you want to be a public school teacher, you are required -- by law written by the Democrats -- to contribute money to Democrats.
Bull. That's a pathetic, cowardly lie from the right.
False. It is right there in the WA Dem platform. "We oppose ... Organized prayer in public schools." Now, if they had said school-sponsored prayer, fine. But organized prayer is an absolute constitutional right. The ACLU is on my side here, and against the WA Dems.
It IS depressing, because I'm convinced that the only way that conservatives can look like they're anything but pathetic losers is to lie about their opponents.
You have not provided a single example of it.
Maybe I am being overly simplistic about this, and you're right that I've never seen you defend these techniques, but it does seem simple to me: if an American were subjected to waterboarding, longtimestanding, temperature extremes or any of the other ways we have tortured our captives, I'd want those people tried for war crimes. I think it's reasable to hold ourselves to at least those standards. we all know what torture is
Posted by: splinter on July 17, 2008 05:25 PMMore lies. Not a single person in this discussion accused you of "defending terrorism" or "hoping for defeat," either explicitly or implicitly.
Posted by: pudge on July 17, 2008 05:27 PMonly buy Japanese cars, foreign planes, get your kids an education of any value whatsoever.
Take your pick.
Dah.....
Only libs think reality and economics can be repealed.
Posted by: Hank on July 17, 2008 05:37 PMI do not know what you think my argument is that this question of yours could harm my argument, but in fact, it does not.
Lie. You mean to tell me that you think that the bipartisan Farm Bill was not pushing a "favored agricultural system"? Damn... you're blind.
I said that they restricted religion in a particular context, which is obviously true.
And? Proof?
What union-busting are you referring to? I know of none in this century.
Naming an airport after the president that busted the air traffic controllers' union doesn't seem odd? Interesting that you have such a selective memory... doesn't quite help your case, though.
Actually, no, it is not. Biologically speaking, it is absolutely clear: it begins at, or shortly before, cell division. Period, end of story.
Biologically speaking it is NOT that clear, and you haven't provided a lick of proof. You seem to like to make up "facts" here, but that also doesn't really help your case.
I was talking about the Democratic party as a whole, and opposition to free trade is in their platform.
No. An opposition to unreasonable free trade deals that don't include labor and environmental standards. There's a difference. Wrong again.
Oh, you have not heard of the Fairness Doctrine, that the Democrats are trying to bring back? This was in the King County Democratic Platform.
So let's see... on political issues, the person with the most money, that owns the most broadcast stations, wins? I'm not keen on repeating the example of Italy with Berlusconi. Still, I'll concede the point that it is a knee-jerk reaction to a number of right-wing jerks on the radio, and a more nuanced debate needs to exist.
It's sad that you don't see it. It is, quite obviously, in Amendment IX.
The Ninth Amendment doesn't do anything of the sort, and it is one of the vaguest of the amendments. Nice try, though.
But you appear to be conceding that in fact the Democrats do not believe in the right to work, which is, of course, true.
Wherever is that said? That's a pretty big leap, even for someone from the reality-challenged community.
False. It is right there in the WA Dem platform. "We oppose ... Organized prayer in public schools." Now, if they had said school-sponsored prayer, fine. But organized prayer is an absolute constitutional right. The ACLU is on my side here, and against the WA Dems.
Organized prayer by the students, outside of regular school activities, not sponsored by the school? Just fine by me. I agree with you on that point.
So you agree that schools should not sponsor prayer, then?
You have not provided a single example of it.
Hey, the party is a big tent, and I'm more than enough of a man to admit when a few members are off the edge. However, you haven't proven any of this either... just that you like spouting the term "straw man" a heck of a lot.
Posted by: demo kid on July 17, 2008 06:34 PMMaybe I am being overly simplistic about this, and you're right that I've never seen you defend these techniques
Thank you for admitting your error.
we all know what torture is
You again commit the question-begging fallacy.
BTW, Pudge - George Bush is Hitler was a verifiable gem. Would like to be a fly on the wall if it was played at the Democratic convention..
Posted by: KS on July 17, 2008 07:05 PMLie.
False.
You mean to tell me that you think that the bipartisan Farm Bill was not pushing a "favored agricultural system"?
Nope. I mean to tell you this does not in any way impact my argument. Would you like to re-read what I wrote?
That is a fine point, demo kid, for a libertarian to make, but not for a Democrat. The majority of the party platform is dedicated to "less liberty." Say what you will about the current Republican Party, but at least they start with mostly good free principles, even if they abandon them at the gates of Congress.
(Emphasis added.)
I already, in the very beginning, conceded the point that Republicans sometimes abandon those principles. So, again, you are committing the straw man fallacy.
I said that they restricted religion in a particular context, which is obviously true.
And?
And that takes away liberty.
Proof?
"We believe ... In the separation of social services from faith-based requirements."
Naming an airport after the president that busted the air traffic controllers' union doesn't seem odd?
Um. Reagan never busted the air traffic controllers' union. He simply asserted the fact -- which should be a fact for EVERY business on the planet -- that they could be fired if they didn't show up for work. Saying Reagan did any union-busting was a lie told at the time by the unions themselves, but no one believed it.
And even it was union-busting -- which it obviously wasn't, any cursory examination of the facts shows it clearly -- I said "this century." I am more concerned with what is happening NOW, not in relatively ancient history.
And again, Reagan was on the side of liberty. Employers -- including the federal government -- have every right to fire anyone at any time for any reason (except for, of course, things like refusing to participate in illegal activity, or firings that amount to breaches of contract). That is the right of association.
Biologically speaking it is NOT that clear
Um. Yes it is. Cell division can only occur in a live organism. I don't have time to teach you Biology 101. Perhaps you are thinking that this life is merely a part of the mother? No, that is obviously untrue, as it has its own unique DNA. Biologically speaking, it is a unique and individual human life. There is no doubt on that point, whatsoever.
No. An opposition to unreasonable free trade deals that don't include labor and environmental standards. There's a difference. Wrong again.
Incorrect. The Democrats oppose free trade not just because of those "standards," but also whenever they might result in loss of domestic jobs.
So let's see... on political issues, the person with the most money, that owns the most broadcast stations, wins?
Sorry, I do not see a "unless you have too many broadcast stations" clause in the First Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment doesn't do anything of the sort
Actually, it does. The Ninth Amendment is essentially about common law: there were existing common law rights, and the Ninth Amendment asserts they still exist.
Back in the 18th century, for example, William Blackstone said, "At the common law, every man might use what trade he pleased." Common law clearly shows this. Requiring people to pay to work is absolutely contrary to the Ninth Amendment.
Wherever is that said? That's a pretty big leap ...
Not at all. Did you not read the part where I noted that all public schoolteachers are required to pay for that privilege?
Organized prayer by the students, outside of regular school activities, not sponsored by the school? Just fine by me. I agree with you on that point.
And the WA Dems disagree with you.
So you agree that schools should not sponsor prayer, then?
I go back and forth on it. On the one hand, I absolutely agree the government should not coerce religion. But on the other hand, I imagine a public school where every student is, for the sake of argument, Mormon. Should they be allowed to sponsor prayer? I do not know. But in the general case, where it could be possibly coercive -- which is, of course, most, if not all, the time -- it should be disallowed.
However, you haven't proven any of this either...
Quotes from Dem platform statements are not proof?! Come on.
One of the lowest points in the history of the Republican party is that we have come to support and excuse torture.
Posted by: nj on July 17, 2008 10:03 PMThat we need to outlaw specific methods of torture is one of the most naive arguments I've ever heard.
Incorrect. In fact, it is naive to think we don't.
Do we need to specify every possible method?
Nope, and no one ever said we did. Only those methods where it is unclear whether it necessarily falls under existing statutes.
One of the lowest points in the history of the Republican party is that we have come to support and excuse torture.
Even if you were not committing a clear logical fallacy (look up "begging the question"), I'd still say that what you're angry about is not even CLOSE to the low points of slavery, institutionalized segregation and racism, the trail of tears, Roe v. Wade, Japanese internment, and "the Great Society."
Republicans ended slavery, and have on some level tried to end Roe v. Wade. Nevertheless, torture belongs on this list, unfortunately.
Posted by: nj on July 17, 2008 10:32 PMYou're simply not that dense, Pudge.
Sorry, but that is MY line.
There are an infinite number of torture methods, and you'll find legal apologists for every one of them.
See, a non-dense person would recognize that this actually contradicts what I have been saying: I have not in any way whatsoever come out in favor of waterboarding or any other method that anyone in here has claimed is "torture," so you are, in fact, telling a clear untruth when you say I would do any such thing.
Further, it is also quite clear that MOST methods you could possibly come up with are already clear one way or the other. There are relatively very very few gray areas here.
Republicans ended slavery, and have on some level tried to end Roe v. Wade.
My point was about society at large.
Nevertheless, torture belongs on this list, unfortunately.
There you go with your question-begging fallacy again ...
I never said you favored waterboarding, but rather that you argue we need to specify that waterboarding is a method of torture if we want it to be illegal.
You directly implied that I, personally, would be in favor of requiring specific legislation for an infinite number of interrogation methods. Not only is this logically impossible, but it is patently false in its metaphorical sense as well.
Under your logic, incremental steps within these gray areas could perpetuate the legality of methods of torture indefinitely.
Incorrect. Under my logic, legitimate disagreements require legal clarification. Which is, you know, a fundamental principle of law.
Loser.
Posted by: hinton on July 17, 2008 11:22 PMWe don't define every specific method of murder for similar reasons. Prosecutors and judges make a decision on the category based on broad parameters. Once you start defining specific methods, you start a neverending game of trying to catch up to new criminal methods, which is a game the criminals would prefer to play and have a much greater chance of winning.
Posted by: nj on July 18, 2008 09:00 AMThe implication was that you didn't understand the consequences of what you were arguing or that you were willing to excuse torture in certain circumstances, not that you support it.
To claim those consequences are to specifically address an "infinite" number of interrogation techniques in the law is obviously false. Just because you keep claiming it doesn't make it true. I have already given you an argument against your claim, but you have ignored it. Until you address that argument, it is dishonest to continue making the claim. If you do not wish to address arguments against your claim, we should just stop now, because I am uninterested in having an argument with someone who doesn't wish to actually argue.
And in order for you to claim that I would ever, in any way, excuse torture is -- AGAIN -- the question-begging fallacy. You are assuming that a given method is torture, when that is precisely the object of the debate. So this is simply a fallacious, and therefore incorrect, argument.
We don't define every specific method of murder for similar reasons.
Wow. No, in fact. Murder is very specifically and clearly defined: the intentional killing of another person, except in those few cases where allowed by law. That's it. If you intentionally kill someone, you have committed murder. You do not need to address the methods, because they are entirely beside the point.
This is not, at all, like torture, where the method used IS the point.
There are several categories of murder, and most other crimes. I understand your point that the method of torture is the point, but ironically, that makes it all the more important to avoid specifying particular methods by statute and leaving the door inevitably open to those methods and sub-methods that have not been specifically outlawed.
Posted by: nj on July 18, 2008 09:33 AMSo are you saying that there aren't an infinite number of torture methods, or that we only have to define some, but not all, of them?
I am saying what I said: "Further, it is also quite clear that MOST methods you could possibly come up with are already clear one way or the other. There are relatively very very few gray areas here."
There are several categories of murder, and most other crimes.
Yes, but that is irrelevant: all of them require intent to kill, and the result of death. Torture requires only the intent to cause "severe pain or suffering," and then the resulting act, whether it actually causes such pain or suffering or not.
I understand your point that the method of torture is the point, but ironically, that makes it all the more important to avoid specifying particular methods by statute and leaving the door inevitably open to those methods and sub-methods that have not been specifically outlawed.
No, it doesn't do that at all.
This is a very simple point. What constitutes "severe pain or suffering" is not always clear to many people. Where it is not clear, we define it in the law. That does not mean every time where some person somewhere disagrees, that we need to define it in the law. It also does not mean that every similar method needs to be also defined in the law, as it is simple to write the law to imply similar methods.
Statutes need to be drafted broadly to encompass the acts that the statutes address. If clarity is needed, that is an appropriate criticism (not really in this case, though, because we'll be hard-pressed to come up with language that is much clearer and sufficiently broad) but specifying methods would simply open the door to criminal behavior. Courts, on the other hand, can, in retrospect, intrepret the statutes narrowly and specify particular methods. The common law would therefore address the methods prospectively, but criminals would not be let off the hook for their past crimes.
Posted by: nj on July 18, 2008 10:41 AMMore question-begging. Times two.
Statutes need to be drafted broadly to encompass the acts that the statutes address. If clarity is needed, that is an appropriate criticism (not really in this case, though, because we'll be hard-pressed to come up with language that is much clearer and sufficiently broad)
Um. You do not REPLACE the existing statutes, you ADD TO them. So, no.
... but specifying methods would simply open the door to criminal behavior.
Incorrect.
Posted by: pudge on July 18, 2008 10:45 AMRegarding torture - mental coercion is a technique often used in interrogation even in civilian court settings. Is Splinter suggesting that mental coercion should not be allowed as a technique for it is torture?
Will someone please explain in general terms what constitutes coercion and torture?
Posted by: Snuffy on July 18, 2008 01:13 PM