Ground rules. A favorite discussion tactic on the web is to say "Well the other side is hypocritical too, especially Bushitler/Cheney." If you want to write about some other hypocrisy, write your own post.
For the past couple of weeks the news has been full of demands from the left that Bush administration legal advisors be tried and jailed for their opinions on enhanced interrogation techniques. Our country was in an apparently novel position.
If we capture a soldier fighting our nation while wearing a uniform, we have rules about how that Prisoner of War is treated. All that the soldier has to provide is his name, rank and serial number. It is our obligation to provide the prisoner with a clean, dry place to stay, and adequate food and medical care.
If we catch a US citizen trying to help an enemy of the US while in this country, then that person receives full rights under the constitution of the United States, and must be proven guilty in a court of law. Once the suspect invokes their Miranda rights they can't even be questioned without their attorney present.
But suppose some of our soldiers are in Iraq conducting a security sweep. They raid a house that is suspected of being a headquarters of a terror cell. In the house they find bomb making equipment, and a spot on the floor where it is obvious that 5 completed car bombs had just been moved out. We catch a guy in civilian clothes running out of the house, and it turns out he is Abdul bin BadGuy, a known bomb maker from Yemen, and reputed head of the local Al-Qaeda cell.
What rules apply to this guy? He clearly isn't automatically entitled to POW protection. He was not a soldier in uniform performing a military role. He doesn't seem to be entitled to a trial in US courts. Heck, there isn't any evidence you could use in a court of law to convict him. He was just leaving a house that happened to have bombs in it. No actual proof that he was involved in any way.
This is a military operation. It's part of an act of war in a war zone. So the troops go up through their chain of command and ask for guidance. The prez goes to his legal staff and asks for opinions. His legal staff says - you can question them aggressively, but you can't torture them. OK, so what is torture? The answer comes back, you can cause them pain. You can make them afraid. You can lie to them. You can't do any physical damage. Put them in a cold room and let them shiver? OK. No pulling out fingernails. Let them think they are going to drown, but don't actually deprive them of enough air that they actually pass out. Make 'em cry, but don't let 'em bleed. After all, it is reasoned, these are the things we do to our own troops when we are training them.
The left disagreed with this assessment. Some on the left probably opposed the practice solely because the Bush administration was in favor of it. Doubtless there were many reasons for this. Some believe that this treatment can be defined as torture. Seems to me that this devalues the term. It's kind of like the bumper sticker "War is terrorism." For most the difference is obvious. Terror is the deliberate attack of civilian targets. War, at least these days, is an attempt to compel by force, but done in a way to minimize civilian damage and casualties. All civilian death is not ethically equivalent. But that is a side issue. I really don't want to get into a discussion of the definition of torture. This is going in a different direction.
It seems to me that that this exemplifies one of the more interesting differences between left wing brains and right wing brains. People on the left care less about law and order, are more likely to engage in "ends justify the means" thinking, disobey the law, and even cheat on their taxes. There are lots of studies out there that support this. About a year ago I saw a couple of studies that tracked kids who cheated on tests and adults who stole from work or cheated on taxes. The scofflaws and cheaters were much more likely to come from the left side of the political aisle.
But it's not just the anti-social acts, it is the attitude toward authority. This was unusually well documented earlier a few months ago when a study was done on the case of Scott v. Harris. I commented on this phenomenon in an earlier post Create a Crisis.
In this case the police were chasing a drunk driver (Harris). The high speed chase was caught by the dash cameras of the police cars. Eventually the police considered this chase too dangerous, and one officer (Scott) attempted to run the drunk off the road. The drunk's car rolled, and he was paralyzed in the crash. He sued the police officer for using unnecessary force. The Supreme Court watched the dash video and, except for the most liberal member of the bench, found that the police acted lawfully. The drunk could not collect medical expenses, and pain and suffering damages, from the police.
As a generally conservative person, I thought "Right On!" It seemed absolutely obvious to any reasonable, thinking person. But my opinion was not universally shared. A research group asked 1,350 people what they thought of the police actions. The original study can be found here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081227
A good summary and analysis of the study can be found here:
http://volokh.powerblogs.com/posts/1199994070.shtml#
To my dismay and amazement lots of people think that the cops were wrong - That they should have just let the dunk keep driving. And the people who felt that way were more likely to be politically on the left and members of racial minorities. They apparently just don't think breaking the law and running from the police is all that bad. That the criminal's life should not be put at risk, even when they are putting the lives of others at risk.
Now we get to the tricky bit.
These very same leftists - the ones who oppose three strikes laws, who want felons to be allowed to vote, who think that immigration raids should not be allowed, who think Harris should have gotten big bucks for being run off the road while running from police, who think the bro should NOT have been tazed - want mere THOUGHT with which they disagree criminalized.
And THAT is the hypocrisy of the left that I find so troubling.
I was listening to the Medved show the other day (a conservative radio talk show), and he was talking about how MUCH the left wants to put Bush's legal advisors in jail. The gave their opinion that aggressive interrogation was legal, but in the eyes of the left, because they believe torture resulted, that the legal scholars are apparently guilty of torture. They were never in the same room as the prisoners. They didn't pour a teaspoon of water on the face of a terrorist. They didn't watch it. They didn't order it. They just said they thought it would be legal. And for this the left wants them tried and jailed.
One caller to the Medved show was just sputtering with outrage. He sounded like a white, gay male. And he was so utterly convinced that the enhanced interrogation techniques were torture, that he believed the legal advisors were deliberately lying about their belief that the interrogation techniques were OK. It was just not possible to him that anyone could have an honest opinion that disagreed with his. So they MUST have been deliberately committing the crime of torture.
And this was almost certainly a guy who fits my liberal "weak-on-law-and-order" profile. Let the criminals go, take power away from the police, but jail those damn right wing Bush administration conservatives for THINKING that waterboarding was not torture.
Ya know, I might find it difficult to fathom how he could possibly be so foolish as to hold his opinions, but I don't want him slammed into prison for having them. Apparently another difference between the left and right. The right is generally more tolerant of alternate opinions.
Diversity on everything except thought. The battle cry of the left.
Pure hypocrisy.
Hairy
Cross posted on Hairy Thoughts.
What the average, traditional Democrat voter doesn't get is that their party has been taken over by leftist, intolerant, behavior police.
All those peace loving hippies from the 1960's and early 1970's turned out to be controlling nasty creeps. If you're my age you avoid political discussions with your old liberal friends (who now call themselves "progressives") at all cost.
But the most laughable part here, though, is that crack about diversity of thought! There is NO talk about imprisoning people because they think that torture is a good idea. We're talking about investigations and prosecutions because the legal opinions given by an administration were illegal, and pretty much flew in the face of international law and common decency.
Posted by: demo kid on April 26, 2009 10:48 AMWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
When some scum tries to take Life or Liberty from anyone else, they forfeit their own same Rights. They lose those Rights, often forever by virtue of capital punishment.
"Human rights" exist only when both sides agree to acknowledge them; you refuse to recognize my human rights, you forsake your own.
We're talking about investigations and prosecutions because the legal opinions given by an administration were illegal
Really? Can you point to a law or treaty (as amended by the Senate on ratification) that was broken? Can you point to a conviction that makes them illegal?
Or are you comfortable taking away fifth and sixth amendment rights, too? Guilty until proven innocent?
I submit that YOU do not understand what being an American is, as you show - no, PROVE - that you have zero comprehension of the foundational rights of these United States and are willing to subvert our Constitution for your own demented ideals.
pretty much flew in the face of international law and common decency
Yes, to you Slaver Marxists "international law" trumps the Constitution. Further proof you haven't a clue about what being an American is!
And common decency? Common decency is not attacking the previous administration, blaming them for all your own failures. You know, like your triune god of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
Speaking of Pelosi, when are you going to come out and condemn her approval - and subsequent cover-up - about the interrogation techniques used? Silence is golden for a Slaver, when its their own that are the hypocrites.
You really are a sad excuse for an American, and a human...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 26, 2009 11:08 AMAs far as you go, I find people like you to be quite vile, and worthy of no respect whatsoever. But hey, I don't know you personally, so I can always be wrong with that assessment! Still, the opinions here are so foul, I seriously need to choke back the vomit here.
But let's review. You're proposing that folks should lose their rights under the law because you find them in your own opinion to be "scum", not because of due process of law. You're suggesting that assault should be legal by an occupying power, because they might find it convenient. You are complaining about international law, when the same international law was the basis for trials of Japanese and German soldiers that used exactly the same techniques to torture American POWs. You're defining "common decency" as not attacking the previous administration, when plenty of folks on the right get tremendous mileage out of complaints about Bill Clinton.
If this is the America that you love, then you don't love democracy. You love a thug state that does not respect the rule of law.
And let's not let the original fool that wrote this post off easily, either. Apparently for him, the police should be allowed to shoot and kill drunk drivers, killing civilians is okay in some situations, and government employees are not accountable for their actions. Not to mention he's just a plain ol' bigot.
Do I have everything? Or have I missed some other foul thing you've spewed out?
Posted by: demo kid on April 26, 2009 08:36 PMFirst of all, I've pretty much demolished this fool's argument.
Not even close. Nothing but your "it's ILLEGAL!" claim - nothing backing it up.
See, they problem with Marxist Slavers like you is you have no backbone, no intellect, and no basis in reality. You say you've demolished his argument, where? Your entire screed consisted of you whining about how upset you were, slandering the poster as anti-American, and of course your claim that there were illegal actions.
So where's your demolition, other than your feeble mind? Is that what passes for reasoned debate in the mind of a Slaver?
You're not just a pathetic excuse for an American and human, you're a sad example of a functioning intellect...
Oh, and Failed Abortion?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 26, 2009 08:59 PMThe rest? Gravy.
So read the damn thing next time before spouting off.
Posted by: demo kid on April 26, 2009 10:25 PMYou want it to be illegal to deliver an opinion with which you disagree.
And of course the inevitable hitler/nazi comparison. The Germans and Japanese certainly used many of the same interrogation techniques that we do. Like asking questions. Offering a more comfortable captivity in exchange for cooperation. Isolation. Those things are not torture. Problem is they also did the pulling out of fingernails, deliberately breaking bones, etc. Those are torture.
The question the CIA asked the Bush administration was: "Where is the line drawn between harsh interrogation and torture?" The Bushies answered - "You can do the same things to the prisoners that we do to ourselves when we train our own troops."
Hardly vile crimes against humanity. Expressing that belief is clearly not a criminal act. But YOU want to criminalize it.
Among other childish insults you called me a bigot. I am not entirely sure why, but I am guessing it was because I reported the findings of the Harvard researchers. They said that liberals, low income people, and racial minorities (some people fitting all three demographics simultaneously), were less likely to approve of the police doing a PIT maneuver on a drunk driver during a high speed chase. It wasn't ME saying that, it was the Harvard study. Your enmity is misplaced. At best.
I also did not suggest that drunks should be shot if trying to escape. Not sure where you came up with that one. I do think that the police should apprehend people who try to escape. Running a car off the road is a reasonable technique. If that makes me a monster, so be it.
But I DO have a label for you. You fit my model to a T. Oppose the police using the PIT, but want to jail constitutional experts for expressing an opinion that differs from you.
I name you Hypocrite.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on April 27, 2009 01:34 AMSo let's see... if these lawyers wrongly proposed an illegal act could be performed legally, and the administration used that as a basis for illegal policy, who exactly should be held accountable? Do you believe that illegal acts should be just brushed aside, perhaps? Ignored? The buck has to stop somewhere.
I should add that personally, I think that this is too big of a mess to untangle. The whole thing was quite vile, but the idea of dragging folks into court would seem more like political retaliation no matter how good the reasons for doing it at this point. Still, it sickens me to think that folks could support something that flies in the face of respecting basic human rights.
You want it to be illegal to deliver an opinion with which you disagree.
No, what I'm saying is that arguments and evidence could support an investigation. Unlike you, I don't quite want to execute folks before they're tried!
And of course the inevitable hitler/nazi comparison. The Germans and Japanese certainly used many of the same interrogation techniques that we do. Like asking questions. Offering a more comfortable captivity in exchange for cooperation. Isolation. Those things are not torture. Problem is they also did the pulling out of fingernails, deliberately breaking bones, etc. Those are torture.
The "inevitable" comparison was made because it was a period when the US relied on international law to try and convict war criminals. No Godwin's Law at play here. But yes, at that time there were Japanese soldiers executed for waterboarding prisoners, not simply for pulling out fingernails or something.
The question the CIA asked the Bush administration was: "Where is the line drawn between harsh interrogation and torture?" The Bushies answered - "You can do the same things to the prisoners that we do to ourselves when we train our own troops."
What relevance does that standard have? Using measures against troops for training is a fundamentally different thing than using measures against prisoners for torture. Again, one is voluntary and the other is assault.
And if fools like you think that this equates to being "soft" on folks, that's completely untrue. Have I said that these folks shouldn't be tried and convicted? Nope. But the dishonorable and thuggish behavior you propose have no place in an American system.
Hardly vile crimes against humanity. Expressing that belief is clearly not a criminal act. But YOU want to criminalize it.
"Vile" is assuming that a prisoner has no rights. And expressing YOUR belief is not a criminal act, but providing legal support for an illegal act CAN be considered criminal. It would be better for a jury to hear the evidence if there are questions of wrongdoing, than to rely on your own biased opinion.
Among other childish insults you called me a bigot. I am not entirely sure why, but I am guessing it was because I reported the findings of the Harvard researchers. They said that liberals, low income people, and racial minorities (some people fitting all three demographics simultaneously), were less likely to approve of the police doing a PIT maneuver on a drunk driver during a high speed chase. It wasn't ME saying that, it was the Harvard study. Your enmity is misplaced. At best.
No, I'm calling you a bigot because of this priceless comment: "One caller to the Medved show was just sputtering with outrage. He sounded like a white, gay male." But then again, when you state:
They apparently just don't think breaking the law and running from the police is all that bad. That the criminal's life should not be put at risk, even when they are putting the lives of others at risk.
you simply prove that you haven't read this paper, and you're interpreting it to suit your own twisted ends about what "they" think. Nowhere in this paper does it say that "breaking the law" isn't bad, nor that "running from police" isn't bad. The issue was whether the behavior of the police was justified. That to me is still a subjective opinion. In fact, the paper argues that the judiciary doesn't properly take into account the subjective opinions of a range of different groups in society when making value judgements, and in doing so, subverts the democratic system.
I should add that the paper notes specifically that there are liberals that agree with your sentiment, and conservatives that disagree. Making a blanket statement is simply wrong.
I also did not suggest that drunks should be shot if trying to escape. Not sure where you came up with that one. I do think that the police should apprehend people who try to escape. Running a car off the road is a reasonable technique. If that makes me a monster, so be it.
No, what you're claiming is that the police should have a completely free hand to stop a drunk driver, without oversight or review, because he "deserved" it. In fact, the case specifically talks about "deadly" force. So in that case, why not shoot him? If to you, he "deserved" being crippled, why not just kill him with a bullet to the head? That's what you're advocating for here. Execution without review.
But I DO have a label for you. You fit my model to a T. Oppose the police using the PIT, but want to jail constitutional experts for expressing an opinion that differs from you.
These situations have nothing in common, so connecting them is quite irrational. In fact, by your unwillingness to explore the possibility of wrongdoing by these legal advisers or by the police shows that you only give a crap about the law and human rights when it is to your own advantage.
I name you Hypocrite.
And I name you absolutely crazy and irrational.
If we all knew that there was a good chance that we would be harmed by attacking our fellow citizens, we'd all tread a lot more lightly.
What folks like demo kid don't want to admit, is that the most basic human right is the right to life. We have a government to extend our individual rights to life to the protection necessary to protect our lives en masse. Dickering over what is and what is not torture at a critical point in time with a dangerous foreigner is like dickering over how much force to apply when a criminal invades your home.
At some point, a decision has to be made. And for the three guys who were water-boarded, the decision to use what was thought to be legal action, was certainly justified given the knowledge they had of imminent attacks and grander destructive plans.
There is simply a refusal to acknowledge that certain very bad people, contain knowledge of very bad imminent plans that justifies a greater interrogation or an immediate use of force. In the hypothetical situation where demo kid's immediate relations were in imminent life threatening danger, I highly doubt he would suddenly be moved to consider the humane implications of the techniques used to defend himself.
We grant that use of extreme force to our government to extend the right of self preservation to ourselves and the larger group. This is why we dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan. This is why we water-boarded KSM. This is a fine line, but that's what happens in reality with very bad people and the lifeboat calculus of preserving a greater number of human lives. No government has a perfect record in this area, just as not every act of self defense was justified and well executed. But the US has done an admirable job compared to almost all other governments given the enormity of her charge, power, and role within the world.
It's easy to blog comment about the high roads we might have taken, especially when it gains one political points for their side.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 11:18 AMAside from the fact that this is irrelevant to the current discussion, you're just spewing hyperbolic garbage. Equating modern progressives with Stalin because of concerns about gun violence is like equating modern conservatives with the Inquisition because of their fixation on religion and intolerance.
The simple solution to more civility is for the populace to arm itself to whatever degree of force each can handle. Don't know how to operate a gun safely? Fine, then get some pepper spray. But don't wait for the police to save your life or you are as good as dead.
Again, irrelevant to the current discussion, but you're just wallowing in Rambo fantasies, nothing more. If you actually think that pepper spray or a gun are effective deterrents to crime against your own person, you're really overestimating your ability to act in a crisis. Trust me... in the real world, real people are not gunslingers. Conservatives need to get over their gun fetishes, and start thinking rationally about what weapons can and cannot do, and reasonable policies related to those weapons.
If we all knew that there was a good chance that we would be harmed by attacking our fellow citizens, we'd all tread a lot more lightly.
And just think... you harass someone on the bus, you get shot in the chest! Hurrah for proportional response in a civilized society.
What folks like demo kid don't want to admit, is that the most basic human right is the right to life. We have a government to extend our individual rights to life to the protection necessary to protect our lives en masse. Dickering over what is and what is not torture at a critical point in time with a dangerous foreigner is like dickering over how much force to apply when a criminal invades your home.
Sorry? Basic human rights and the notion of a right to life and liberty have everything to do with this situation. You're arguing that we can eschew those rights for "foreigners" for the sake of expediency, in order to use techniques to "gather information" that have been proven not to work. Support of torture in this case is less about getting actual, practical intelligence, and more about conservatives getting their rocks off with revenge fantasies, and punishing folks without due process.
Again, using other methods to gather information that is not torture? Fine. Convicting and punishing these folks through a judicial system? Fine. But there's a difference between civilized society and thuggery, and conservatives seem all too willing to cross that line.
Regardless of what the conclusions are, though, the discussion IS an important one to have. Who knows? Perhaps there are certain situations where this approach is merited. But allowing the government carte blanche to extend that definition without review or criticism because your own party is in power is a scary, scary thing.
At some point, a decision has to be made. And for the three guys who were water-boarded, the decision to use what was thought to be legal action, was certainly justified given the knowledge they had of imminent attacks and grander destructive plans.
It's like you're speaking, but all I'm hearing are the interrogators of American POWs during the Vietnam War.
There is simply a refusal to acknowledge that certain very bad people, contain knowledge of very bad imminent plans that justifies a greater interrogation or an immediate use of force. In the hypothetical situation where demo kid's immediate relations were in imminent life threatening danger, I highly doubt he would suddenly be moved to consider the humane implications of the techniques used to defend himself.
Which is exactly why we need rules and structures in our society to prevent such things. I know that to protect my "immediate relations", I might go to some extreme and law-breaking lengths to protect my friends and family, lengths that probably would be very destructive to society as a whole and would trample the rights of anyone that got in my way. Unless you advocate some sort of rampant vigilantilism though, I'm sure you'd agree that having everyone operating in that kind of way would be destructive to society as a whole.
We grant that use of extreme force to our government to extend the right of self preservation to ourselves and the larger group. This is why we dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan. This is why we water-boarded KSM. This is a fine line, but that's what happens in reality with very bad people and the lifeboat calculus of preserving a greater number of human lives. No government has a perfect record in this area, just as not every act of self defense was justified and well executed. But the US has done an admirable job compared to almost all other governments given the enormity of her charge, power, and role within the world.
Lifeboat calculus? You're stating that American beliefs in life and liberty are conditional to some fantasy about the effectiveness and justification behind torture. Assuming that this is "lifeboat calculus" is completely overstating the context.
And don't get me wrong... other countries aren't necessarily that much better. But is that a real excuse?
It's easy to blog comment about the high roads we might have taken, especially when it gains one political points for their side.
No, it's easy to comment about the "high road we might have taken" when it is actually the road we should have taken. Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 12:24 PMIt's a simple fact the the 19th Century German collectivist philosophy is the basis for Communism, Fascism, Socialism and what you call Progressive. Classically liberal, individualism is much more the province of today's right, and if not the right, then possibly the libertarians, but certainly not today's statist left. I don't condone religious conservatism any more than I condone Environmental Worshiping Progressives. Neither is the basis for a free society.
And just think... you harass someone on the bus, you get shot in the chest! Hurrah for proportional response in a civilized society.
I didn't say that there should be a mandatory concealed carry gun law. And you'd be surprised if you knew how many people around you were carrying, but wouldn't jeopardize their life to shoot you just because you harassed them on a bus. The point is that we have a victim, wait-for-the-police-to-help mindset. There are a lot of sitting ducks. If you are not prepared with some minimum form of self defense technique, then you shouldn't be surprised when you are just another crime victim. The point is that there never will be enough police. We'd be better with a society of personal self defense knowledge and protection just like we would be better with a society with more personal responsibility.
Sorry? Basic human rights and the notion of a right to life and liberty have everything to do with this situation. You're arguing that we can eschew those rights for "foreigners" for the sake of expediency, in order to use techniques to "gather information" that have been proven not to work. Support of torture in this case is less about getting actual, practical intelligence, and more about conservatives getting their rocks off with revenge fantasies, and punishing folks without due process.
I see of lot of fantasy here, but more on your part than on conservatives. I am not even a conservative, and I certainly don't care about revenge as much as I care about defense. And I am not talking about entrusting the interrogation of foreginers to angry mobs of vigalantes, so I don't know where you get that. Nor am I talking about torture. I don't think waterboarding is torture, but I'll ask again, if your family would die if a plot was not uncovered from a foreign detainee, would you be for more leniency, and some absolute limitation due to a definition of human rights, or would you condone the use aggressive, yet in no way permanently injuring methods to get information? And I am not talking about what you personally would do, or what we know doesn't work, because that's why we have the FBI, CIA, military, etc. and I presume they have been in the business long enough to know what works and doesn't work. I am talking about what you would allow others to do for you, if your family were dead otherwise as a result. Because it is some American's family that gets blown up by the terrorist bomb, even if not yours. Where do you draw the line? If there's no permanent injury, I don't call it torture. Pulling tonails is torture in my book. Loud music, sleep deprivation are not torture. What's your call or is this about the politics to get Bush and Cheney? It's easy to have one standard for some vague detainee you don't know but who helps you build your political case, and another for the detainee that might harm you personally. That's my point. That to me is why I am paying tax dollars to DC and not Paris. I expect our government to take self defense to level that will put the lives of thousands of Americans or even one American ahead of a foreign detainee's comfort.
Lifeboat calculus? You're stating that American beliefs in life and liberty are conditional to some fantasy about the effectiveness and justification behind torture. Assuming that this is "lifeboat calculus" is completely overstating the context.
Fine reduce the severity of the hypothetical to what ever level suits your imagination. Given that you imagine Rambo wingnut conservatives blowing away people on buses away for bumping in to them, I suspect you have an active enough imagination to envision a very dangerous plot to do harm to a large number of people.
The point is that the US government is there to protect Americans first, and the comfort of foreign detainees second. Especially if the detainee is known to be of a significant enough position as to possess knowledge that might lead to the deaths of Americans. We only waterboarded a few guys for a reason. There's no point in interrogating some low level AL Qaeda fighter who knows nothing. But if we caught an atomic bomb mastermind, I would expect that we would use significant measures up to just below any point of torture, and possibly some technological, yet painless methods to make darn sure we were not about to lose an American city to a bomb. And I don't consider scaring a guy pretty badly torture. What would you expect? Do the detainee's "rights" matter more and the city that gets obliterated matter less if you or your relatives don't live there?
No, it's easy to comment about the "high road we might have taken" when it is actually the road we should have taken. Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Exactly, and the liberty of an American citizen trumps that of a foreigner.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2009 04:00 PMAnd then she went on the record 7 years later when it wasn't politically correct to be for waterboarding and LIED on national TV about her involvement.
So come on, Failed Abortion, lower your hypocrisy rating a few points and call your fellow Slavers out for their war crimes!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 27, 2009 05:41 PMThen that implies that you support working down the list of people to blame. Receiving a briefing isn't exactly the same as actually crafting and implementing policy, and it's a stretch to assume that there's the same level of culpability there.
But tell you what... I'll support that, if you support bringing charges against every single Bush administration official even tangentially related to this affair, including the former President and Vice-President.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 07:38 PMPoint? You can trace any philosophical branch of thinking as far back as you like, but you didn't do that. You're equating modern progressives with Stalinists, and the only thing that you use to support your claim is your overblown and hysterical opinion. Should we start judging each other by historical opinions on bimetallism?
If you are not prepared with some minimum form of self defense technique, then you shouldn't be surprised when you are just another crime victim. The point is that there never will be enough police. We'd be better with a society of personal self defense knowledge and protection just like we would be better with a society with more personal responsibility.
Yet again: NOT relevant to this discussion.
I see of lot of fantasy here, but more on your part than on conservatives. I am not even a conservative, and I certainly don't care about revenge as much as I care about defense. And I am not talking about entrusting the interrogation of foreginers to angry mobs of vigalantes, so I don't know where you get that.
State-sponsored sadism can be very organized. No mobs required.
Nor am I talking about torture. I don't think waterboarding is torture, but I'll ask again, if your family would die if a plot was not uncovered from a foreign detainee, would you be for more leniency, and some absolute limitation due to a definition of human rights, or would you condone the use aggressive, yet in no way permanently injuring methods to get information?
You've been watching too many episodes of 24. By the CIA's own admission, waterboarding doesn't work. Inventing some kind of random doomsday scenario doesn't change that fact.
Simply put, the application of pain and extreme discomfort is assault, and assault is a crime. You haven't avoided that issue, and according to international law, foreign occupying powers need to respect the law, and a foreign citizen's rights need to be respected. Now, I don't really know if you've been extensively waterboarded, but your personal hair-splitting still doesn't justify it. It is effectively punishment without due process.
And I am not talking about what you personally would do, or what we know doesn't work, because that's why we have the FBI, CIA, military, etc. and I presume they have been in the business long enough to know what works and doesn't work.
Those are agencies with civilian oversight. We "have" them so that they can serve us, not so that they can decide policy.
I am talking about what you would allow others to do for you, if your family were dead otherwise as a result. Because it is some American's family that gets blown up by the terrorist bomb, even if not yours. Where do you draw the line? If there's no permanent injury, I don't call it torture. Pulling tonails is torture in my book. Loud music, sleep deprivation are not torture.
First of all, I'm not going to play the "what if it's your family" game. I could rattle off a number of draconian and evil policies that would keep my friends and family quite safe, but that would sacrifice someone else's liberty and rights for my own ends. Coming up with a far-fetched scenario and a single option is simple-minded and unrealistic, and it doesn't do justice to the issue.
But I would go further, and say that loud music and sleep deprivation IS torture. Psychological damage is still damage.
What's your call or is this about the politics to get Bush and Cheney? It's easy to have one standard for some vague detainee you don't know but who helps you build your political case, and another for the detainee that might harm you personally. That's my point. That to me is why I am paying tax dollars to DC and not Paris. I expect our government to take self defense to level that will put the lives of thousands of Americans or even one American ahead of a foreign detainee's comfort.
I'm not talking about giving them goose down pillows, and I'm not talking about the US government favoring "foreigners" over "citizens". Use regular interrogation techniques, and convict them if they are suspected of some crime. But an American policy that neglects human rights for the sake of expediency? That's the topic of discussion here. You provide alarmist scenarios, but the end result is the same: you advocate taking away someone's inalienable human rights based on a very narrow and far-fetched scenario straight from TV.
Fine reduce the severity of the hypothetical to what ever level suits your imagination. Given that you imagine Rambo wingnut conservatives blowing away people on buses away for bumping in to them, I suspect you have an active enough imagination to envision a very dangerous plot to do harm to a large number of people.
No, actual case! Read the newspaper. But again, you're diverging and blending two different topics together. I'm not going to get dragged into an extensive conversation about gun violence.
The point is that the US government is there to protect Americans first, and the comfort of foreign detainees second. Especially if the detainee is known to be of a significant enough position as to possess knowledge that might lead to the deaths of Americans. We only waterboarded a few guys for a reason. There's no point in interrogating some low level AL Qaeda fighter who knows nothing. But if we caught an atomic bomb mastermind, I would expect that we would use significant measures up to just below any point of torture, and possibly some technological, yet painless methods to make darn sure we were not about to lose an American city to a bomb. And I don't consider scaring a guy pretty badly torture. What would you expect? Do the detainee's "rights" matter more and the city that gets obliterated matter less if you or your relatives don't live there?
Do a detainee's rights matter? Hell yes. I'd argue that they are key to international relations, but beyond that, these situations are key in figuring out whether we practice what we preach in terms of human rights.
Overall, though, your argument is based on a number of very particular suppositions. You're assuming that there is an immediate, specific threat to a large number of people, that torture will be able to extract the necessary information, and that the person in particular has the knowledge needed to stop the plot. None of these things are guaranteed. Heck, if someone knew that an American city would be "lost to a bomb", I'd expect that would harden their resolve in the face of torture!
So what if all these things weren't in play? Would you argue that making someone think that they're drowning is appropriate if you're just trying to figure a few things out? If you don't think that they'll talk? If they probably don't have the information you're looking for? Would you advocate it then? Would it really be an "intelligence-gathering approach" then? Likewise, why stop at foreign detainees? Why not start waterboarding as a regular practice in police investigations? I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where getting a confession would be quicker and easier that way, and would make the legal system much easier.
Finally, if there really is an imminent threat according to your scenario, why should torture be *legal* for you to use it as a tool to extract information? If I had a choice between your doomsday scenario and being convicted of assault, I know which I'd pick in a heartbeat. In fact, I'd argue that saying that it is "legal" means that it has the potential for abuse outside of the fantasy scenarios you're devising in your own head. The threat of conviction is one that would make it harder to abuse.
Exactly, and the liberty of an American citizen trumps that of a foreigner.
Human rights are human rights. The welfare of Americans does come first, but protecting human rights is a different issue.
Posted by: demo kid on April 27, 2009 08:11 PMYou see it throughout the little troll's writings. Some drunk tries to outrun the cop's "old chevrolet", and he can't see a difference between a pit maneuver and shooting a suspect in the back of the head.
The CIA waterboards a limited number of pretty clear terror subjects, and he can't see the difference between that and pulling out fingernails or deliberately breaking bones.
The US Army picks up a known terrorist in civilian clothing on a foreign battlefield while engaged in acts of terror, and he can't see the difference between his rights, and the rights of a crime suspect in the US.
Kid, in war the civil rights of soldiers on the battle field are different from the rights of criminals in the US. POW's don't have a right to a "trial", they have a right to decent treatment and can be held until the conflict is over.
When an enemy soldier takes off his uniform and becomes a spy or terrorist, they lose many of the rights they might have had as a POW in uniform.
Frightening and causing pain to a terrorist in an attempt to prevent future terror attacks is not the same as frightening and causing pain to a criminal suspect in the US.
Just as police can't use deadly force on a suspect unless lives are directly threatened, but a sniper on the battlefield can shoot a sleeping enemy in the back of the head without warning. And that soldier is not committing a crime. Different circumstances, different rules.
But Kid, you are still a Hypocrite. You would criminalize the attorneys who draw the line torture line in a different place than you. But you would have a drunk driver go free if he runs from the police.
Oh yeah, and you think I'm a bigot because I thought a sputtering liberal sounded like a gay white guy? Was it because I thought he had a "gay" accent/speech pattern? Are you suggesting that there isn't a "gay" accent? Not all gays sound gay. Not all people who sound gay are gay. But there IS a pattern of speech that is more common among gay males. And gay males are more likely to be liberal than conservative. If you think making such an obvious observation is bigoted, you are even more screwed up than I thought. And I think you are plenty screwed up.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on April 27, 2009 10:56 PMFrom your position, it's pretty clear you think the driver of the car deserved to be crippled. So what is the difference for you if they shot him in the head instead? He "deserved" it, right?
The CIA waterboards a limited number of pretty clear terror subjects, and he can't see the difference between that and pulling out fingernails or deliberately breaking bones.
Torture is torture. Aside from the fact that it doesn't work, using pain as a means to extract information is barbaric, compromises human rights, and is a great example of the moral relativism that you are so eager to lay at the feet of liberals.
Besides, the clearest test of our ideals is not when we can defend them regarding an easy subject, but when we can uphold them in difficult situations.
The US Army picks up a known terrorist in civilian clothing on a foreign battlefield while engaged in acts of terror, and he can't see the difference between his rights, and the rights of a crime suspect in the US.
No, my argument is that if you're making the case that these detainees have no rights, the next logical step is to assume that you can do the same thing without due process to any other subject the government might have in custody. Especially if you think they "deserve" it.
Kid, in war the civil rights of soldiers on the battle field are different from the rights of criminals in the US. POW's don't have a right to a "trial", they have a right to decent treatment and can be held until the conflict is over.
On that, we agree.
When an enemy soldier takes off his uniform and becomes a spy or terrorist, they lose many of the rights they might have had as a POW in uniform.
The rights specifically outlined in the Geneva Conventions for POWs do not strictly apply. Assuming that they then are allowed to be tortured is an illogical leap from that.
Frightening and causing pain to a terrorist in an attempt to prevent future terror attacks is not the same as frightening and causing pain to a criminal suspect in the US.
Again, the idea that you can use waterboarding as a means to prevent future terror attacks is absurd. It's just conservatives indulging in torture porn instead of developing reliable intelligence gathering capability.
Just as police can't use deadly force on a suspect unless lives are directly threatened, but a sniper on the battlefield can shoot a sleeping enemy in the back of the head without warning. And that soldier is not committing a crime. Different circumstances, different rules.
Relevance? We're not talking about engagement tactics, nor an active combatant. It is illegal, for example, to shoot an enemy prisoner of war or a civilian on the battlefield, correct?
But Kid, you are still a Hypocrite. You would criminalize the attorneys who draw the line torture line in a different place than you. But you would have a drunk driver go free if he runs from the police.
It's like I say things, and they don't penetrate into your tiny brain. Did I say that I would let a drunk driver go free? No. I'm arguing that the amount of force they used should be under scrutiny, and shouldn't just be assumed to be correct because you want to punish the driver or you want to give the police carte blanche. Different people will have different definitions of appropriate force, and different interpretations of the situation.
Oh yeah, and you think I'm a bigot because I thought a sputtering liberal sounded like a gay white guy? Was it because I thought he had a "gay" accent/speech pattern? Are you suggesting that there isn't a "gay" accent? Not all gays sound gay. Not all people who sound gay are gay. But there IS a pattern of speech that is more common among gay males. And gay males are more likely to be liberal than conservative. If you think making such an obvious observation is bigoted, you are even more screwed up than I thought. And I think you are plenty screwed up.
I find you to be a bigot because you thought it was relevant.
Posted by: demo kid on April 28, 2009 12:14 AM"Torture is torture."
And in your definition of "torture" you include "assault". "Simply put, the application of pain and extreme discomfort is assault, and assault is a crime."
What about sever emotional pain? In the legal system "assault" is a verbal threat or intimidation. It's battery that makes for a good case of "Assault and battery".
You probably think that making a fundamentalist muslim listen to Donny and Marie albums endlessly is assault and torture. Anything that creates psychological trauma, is that torture by your definition? If Abdul bin BadGuy starts getting nightmares and wetting the bed every night, has he been "tortured"?
But even the police in this country can lie to a suspected criminal to convince or trick him into a confession. So is yelling at and intimidating suspects. If our police can yell at a suspect, and tell him some horrible thing, and that elicits both a confession and psychological damage, has he been tortured?
I would say no. Even if the police convinced him that, say, his wife or child would die if he didn't confess. Even if he had nightmares for the rest of his life about the death of his family.
With the "torture is torture" argument, anything beyond polite questions can be labeled as torture. That's why your position has no merit or value.
There is no simple (simplistic? simple minded?) answer to the definition of torture, and what should be allowed under the most extreme interrogation circumstances (ie, the ticking bomb, or pending terrorist attack).
The Bush legal team was asked to give a definition of where the dividing line exists. And you want them prosecuted for giving their legal opinion. The only "criminals" you want to be hard on are your political opponents. Hypocrite.
Oh yeah, and the caller probably being gay WAS relevant to the discussion. He was a member of a minority included in the study, and so an explanation of where he fit in the demographic was warranted. But your knee-jerk reaction says a lot more about you, than my in context remark says about me. Could it be that you are a bit of a bigot when it comes to conservatives.
Hypocrite AND Bigot. Yeah, that fits.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on April 28, 2009 04:04 PMYou've been watching too many episodes of 24. By the CIA's own admission, waterboarding doesn't work. Inventing some kind of random doomsday scenario doesn't change that fact. Simply put, the application of pain and extreme discomfort is assault, and assault is a crime. You haven't avoided that issue, and according to international law, foreign occupying powers need to respect the law, and a foreign citizen's rights need to be respected. Now, I don't really know if you've been extensively waterboarded, but your personal hair-splitting still doesn't justify it. It is effectively punishment without due process.
Andrew, this is incorrect, and you know it. Or you should know it. Waterboarding was used on three guys. They were not Americans, and not entitled to due process. KSM being one of them. He divulged the library tower plot as a result, so it worked. You can dicker on about your definition of torture, but there is a new Gallup Poll that shows that 55% or Americans support tough interrogation techniques. Not torture. Tough interrogation. And the number goes up to 61% amongst those more familiar with this memo release story. But you don't trust those of us on the right to know the difference do you? Politically, it's in your best interest to try and paint this as some Wingnut issue, or about Fox News or 24, which by the way, I don't watch. But the reality is that there is some degree of warranted tough interrogation that the majority of Americans believe in, and don't call torture, and would use to find out really bad plans like the Library Tower terror plot. You won't answer the question, because you want to stay focused on distracting the discussion in to what is and what is not torture so you can try to paint this as a human rights issue, and about Law And Order instead of the reality that there are evil guys out there that are willing to cause mass terror.
The fact, that there is nothing that you are willing to acknowledge that would allow us to defend ourselves in what you call far fetched scenarios that have actually occurred several times in the last few years.
You just can't go there, because it will undermine your argument, and so you keep hiding from the fact that at some point, we might actually have to do something above and beyond reading someone Miranda rights. When you see cops wrestle a bad guy to the ground, that falls under your definition of torture, because I am sure that doesn't feel good and causes some pain. But you ignore the context of the situation. The guy probably drew a gun, or put himself and many others in fatal danger in a high speed chase, or whatever and has then decided to continue fleeing. Should cops not try to stop him from getting away? The point is, that the military and law enforcement are not dealing with the clean courtroom human rights etiquette that you wish, it's messy and dirty and full of real life grit. And the same is true of interrogation in a battlefield sense.
I know you've got your blogger talking points marching orders to keep these kind of threads going with obfuscation. But four former CIA directors, and the current Obama appointed director advised not to release the terror memos, knowing that it would subject their agencies to unrealistic scrutiny that will hinder their ability to do their jobs and protect Americans. But the political opportunity was too great to pass up. I know you get that, because you lefties have done a great job of jumping on every political opportunity.
So what if all these things weren't in play? Would you argue that making someone think that they're drowning is appropriate if you're just trying to figure a few things out? If you don't think that they'll talk? If they probably don't have the information you're looking for? Would you advocate it then? Would it really be an "intelligence-gathering approach" then? Likewise, why stop at foreign detainees? Why not start waterboarding as a regular practice in police investigations? I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where getting a confession would be quicker and easier that way, and would make the legal system much easier.
A great example of your obfuscation. No one mentioned drowning. Waterboarding is simulated drowning, there is a difference. And to answer your question, which you are afraid to do in return, yes, if none of these factors were in play, there would be no reason to use any tough interrogation. Figure a few things out. ? Yeah, a few things like flying planes into buildings. And you are putting forth another straw man designed to distract by suggesting that anyone on the right would advocate for a regular course of torture for anyone detained by our local police. We are talking about the memos with respect to the CIA and what happened to certain foreign detainees with direct knowledge that presented a danger to Americans. The only time we should use tough interrogation, is when it is called for in such wartime or quasi wartime situations such as terror plots. And again, I wholly reject and laugh at your pretense of not understanding that the CIA, FBI, Military and law enforcement in general don't know exactly what does, and does not work. You make an offhand statement as a civilian which is basically your guesstimate of what they should and should not do, even though that is their expertise that they have spent their careers studying and training about. Not to mention that methods would vary by detainee.
And then just after that, you agree that the Welfare of Americans should come first. So which is it? Are you passing summary judgments against the CIA as baseless torturers of foreign detainees who should be explicitly focused first and foremost on human rights. Or are you agreeing that foreign detainees do not have the same rights as Americans, and that if they do possess knowledge of something horrific, that highly trained government entities like the FBI, CIA and Military ought to use their best judgment to do something, and that might entail more than just pleading with the detainee to tell what he knows?
The simple fact is that if someone is not an American citizen, and they threaten us in a credible and possibly large scale manner, we should use all effective means to protect Americans. Can you say that? Or do you need to launch in to another long thread of obfuscation, and downplay, twist semantically, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2009 12:34 PM