Waterboarding

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I cannot believe how this administration has managed to make an "issue" out of the grey area of whether or not waterboarding is torture. This is a technique that has been defined as torture for 50 years! Our own military people are saying it is torture and we've court marshalled our own soldiers for doing it. And we certainly don't want to suggest that somebody else should do it to OUR guys once they are captured.

 

The question as to whether torture is effective, too seems pretty clear cut: ChucK points out that somebody must think it works but in all of the debate over the last couple of years since the Abu Ghraib scandal was on our newscreen I don't recall seeing a single interrogation expert state that torture is either effective or necessary.

 

What's up with this discussion?

 

I can't believe how leftie, America-hating lawyers want to completely tie the hands of our government to deal with murdering scum. It's not just about waterboarding. YOU want to treat these guys like US citizens with full rights to an attorney, and a court system, as if international terrorism is "just a crime" and these guys are equal to US citizens. Sorry, they aren't.

 

[chucK]

There you go with your specious argument again about Hitler, spanish inquisition, Khmer Rouge, etc...

 

Just cause Hitler said something doesn't mean it's wrong. Think about it, Hitler probably had a beer now and then, does this imply that beer is evil? Probably drank milk as a kid too, etc.

 

ETA my comment refers to Lizard Brain's, not Tvash's. I am not attempting to excuse Hitler's invasion of Poland

 

Oh, okay. Hitler's disregard for human rights was completely worthwhile. Executing the handicapped, retarded, and homosexuals in the name of the good of Reich was a wonderful idea. You are indeed right. I stand corrected. I apologize.

 

:kisss:

 

You seem to have a problem with logic. But you do seem nice

:kisss: back at ya

[tvashtarkatena]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

I think you speak from a very lonely podium, here.

 

Perhaps you can open up a 70's theme park, you know, so patrons can return to the America's Golden Age; disco, Dusters, and Dirty Harry, if only for an afternoon.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I don't know what part of "I'm ignoring you" trashtalkingkong doesn't get. Boy he's dumber than a bucket of shit.

 

[lizard_brain]

There you go with your specious argument again about Hitler, spanish inquisition, Khmer Rouge, etc...

 

Just cause Hitler said something doesn't mean it's wrong. Think about it, Hitler probably had a beer now and then, does this imply that beer is evil? Probably drank milk as a kid too, etc.

 

ETA my comment refers to Lizard Brain's, not Tvash's. I am not attempting to excuse Hitler's invasion of Poland

 

Oh, okay. Hitler's disregard for human rights was completely worthwhile. Executing the handicapped, retarded, and homosexuals in the name of the good of Reich was a wonderful idea. You are indeed right. I stand corrected. I apologize.

 

:kisss:

 

You seem to have a problem with logic. But you do seem nice

:kisss: back at ya

 

Hint: It's not logic - it's way too subtle facetiousness.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I can't believe how leftie, America-hating lawyers

 

BLAH, BL-BLAH, BL-BLAH (rewind) BLAH BLAH, BL-BLAH!

 

want to completely tie the hands of our government to deal with murdering scum. It's not just about waterboarding. YOU want to treat these guys like US citizens with full rights to an attorney, and a court system, as if international terrorism is "just a crime" and these guys are equal to US citizens. Sorry, they aren't.

 

No, we want detainees to be treated according to our own laws. Or do you not believe in the rule of law? Direct question, you can answer that one simply, can't you?

 

Given that 400 out of 800 Guantanamo detainees were released after years of torture without be charged for any crime, I would also doubt your characterization of that population as being "murdering scum". Of those 800 original detainees, only 10, count them, 10, have been charged with any crime. Um...if we "know" they're "murdering scum", why aren't we charging them? Because, perhaps, we have no evidence against them? If not, then, how do we know they're "murdering scum".

 

The purpose of the rule of law is to determine whether or not they are, in fact, "murdering scum". Given our less than 50% error rate at Guantanamo, I would say a little due process, which after all, is a basic human right (not just one reserved for US citizens) is long overdue.

Edited November 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[chucK]

I can't believe how leftie, America-hating lawyers want to completely tie the hands of our government to deal with murdering scum. It's not just about waterboarding. YOU want to treat these guys like US citizens with full rights to an attorney, and a court system, as if international terrorism is "just a crime" and these guys are equal to US citizens. Sorry, they aren't.

 

If we had perfect foresight as to everybody who was an evil terrorist this would hold water. But we don't. All the evil terrorists are not telegraphed to the world as obvious bad guys as in Dirty Harry movies, and all the people turned over to the US or Pakistani Army for huge indiscrimant bounties are not high-level terrorists with access to Al Qaeda's organizational chart. Also, not all personnel overseeing US detainees are all-knowing, and some even are probably sadists and/or mentally unstable due to being in a war zone.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, works for us, why not them? I think you should have a very high standard when you're talking about the, if not inhumane, then very close to inhumane treatment we are subjecting many of these detainees to.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't know what part of "I'm ignoring you" trashtalkingkong doesn't get. Boy he's dumber than a bucket of shit.

 

Can you post that picture of me on the summit of Storm King for the 16th time for me? It just gets funnier with every repetition.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. You've got me on ignore.

[prole]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the personal appeal that vigilantism, open contempt for law, easy dismissal of civil rights, racist overtones, and general barbarism present in Dirty Harry holds for you. Please don't attribute such an appeal to the rest of us or the American people as a whole.

[tvashtarkatena]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the personal appeal that vigilantism, open contempt for law, easy dismissal of civil rights, racist overtones, and general barbarism present in Dirty Harry holds for you. Please don't attribute such an appeal to the rest of us or the American people as a whole.

 

Pretty simple. Small dicks like Big Guns.

[chucK]

Perhaps you'd like to explain the personal appeal that vigilantism, open contempt for law, easy dismissal of civil rights, racist overtones, and general barbarism present in Dirty Harry holds for you. Please don't attribute such an appeal to the rest of us or the American people as a whole.

 

KkkKk is a little slow on the draw for this one, so I'll attempt to explain the general (though possibly not KkkKk's peronal) appeal for these popular films.

 

People in our society are faced with vexing complicated problems. Almost universally, they wish that if only would their problems have quick easy solutions. The Dirty Harry films cater to escapism in the form of McDonald's-quick problem solving via the trigger of a big gun. Escapism is greatly valued in the theatre (remember all those movies about rich people in the depression, and, hell, even now?), as is prowess in gunplay.

 

In real life the vigilante justice glorified in Dirty Harry movies is not as highly praised, because often it is anything but just. In the world of the theatre-goer enjoying a DH flick though, the moral quandary is not present as the film makes us, the viewer, fully aware of who is deserving. We are presented with numerous scenes in which these people commit heinous acts, any one of which would be deserved to be repaid by a slow agonizing death. We are also clued in that Harry is omniscient about who does and who doesn't deserve to be sentenced. Moral dilemmas thus avoided we are free to enjoy the movie in great suspense until the final joyful climax of "problem solved" accompanied by memorable witty tagline.

[prole]

The American social context in which Dirty Harry originated and held some appeal is an interesting one. Defeat in Vietnam, racial unrest, women's lib movement, Hippies, free speech movement. These all contributed to a reactionary fear of "social decay" and the notion that democratic liberal society had "gone too far". It's not surprising that such ideas might make a comeback these days and become socially relevant to immigration issues (particularly in Europe) and legal treatment of (real or perceived) threats to the American state.

[lizard_brain]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the personal appeal that vigilantism, open contempt for law, easy dismissal of civil rights, racist overtones, and general barbarism present in Dirty Harry holds for you. Please don't attribute such an appeal to the rest of us or the American people as a whole.

 

I blame society.

[lizard_brain]

I certainly don't know anything about the "appeal" of Dirty Harry. Who are you people?

 

We're not like you. Thank God.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain the personal appeal that vigilantism, open contempt for law, easy dismissal of civil rights, racist overtones, and general barbarism present in Dirty Harry holds for you. Please don't attribute such an appeal to the rest of us or the American people as a whole.

 

Pretty simple. Small dicks like Big Guns.

 

And Corvettes.

[prole]

Dirty Harry spotted in LA!

[ClimbingPanther]

I don't know what part of "I'm ignoring you" trashtalkingkong doesn't get. Boy he's dumber than a bucket of shit.

 

Can you post that picture of me on the summit of Storm King for the 16th time for me? It just gets funnier with every repetition.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. You've got me on ignore.

 

i'm just here to lend a helping hand

[olyclimber]

... :kisss: sickie

[chucK]

[tvashtarkatena]

 

 

[olyclimber]

its a bit hard a first, but soon you'll be reading these hieroglyphics with the best of them.

the above reads "push me, and then just touch me, till I can get my satisfaction".

[mattp]

I disagree, ChucK, if you are suggesting every prisoner of war should be entitled to the exact same civil rights and civil procedure as a suspect in a domestic criminal proceeding. You wrote that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard applied - though I'm not clear you meant it should be the standard for simply holding prisoners or perhaps the standard for applying torture. Anyway, there can and almost certainly should be different procedural protections in different contexts.

 

I think it is clear, though, that what we've seen in pictures or verified reports from Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib, or what we are told has taken place at the secret prisons, is wrong. As to effectiveness, you say that GW says it worked in three cases but it doesn't prove very much where Chief Chimpy says torture has worked three times. He'll say just about anything if he thinks it sounds good at the time and most of what he says is a lie or twisted oversimplification. I may have overstated the case when I said I don't think a single expert has said torture works -- and I'm sure it probably HAS worked once or twice -- but the experts both civilian and military have been overwhelmingly against it and very clear that it generally doesn't yield high value intelligence.

[archenemy]

 

Pretty simple. Small dicks like Big Guns.

 

And Corvettes.

Wrong.

[Off_White]

I don't know what part of "I'm ignoring you" trashtalkingkong doesn't get. Boy he's dumber than a bucket of shit.

 

Can you post that picture of me on the summit of Storm King for the 16th time for me? It just gets funnier with every repetition.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. You've got me on ignore.

 

Sorry, I think you mean Fairweather...

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't know what part of "I'm ignoring you" trashtalkingkong doesn't get. Boy he's dumber than a bucket of shit.

 

Can you post that picture of me on the summit of Storm King for the 16th time for me? It just gets funnier with every repetition.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. You've got me on ignore.

 

Sorry, I think you mean Fairweather...

 

They're apparently interchangeable. Although not the originator (actually, FW, in his signature stalking style, took the trouble to sort through quite a few of my Flickr photos to find it), I believe KKK has posted it more times. Hard to keep track, though, after so much repetition. In their world, repetition (WMD, WMD, WMD....) is mother's milk. Oh well, humor (unless limited to the stale variety) isn't exactly their strong point.

Edited November 10, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

I'd say when they chained him to the truck engine, it qualified as torture. Even if someone disagreed with that, I am sure they would agree that sawing his head off definately qualifies as torture.

 

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, big old horrible terrorists doing really bad scary things.

 

So we should, too. Or so your logic goes.

I don't think you know my logic. You dismiss whatever I say out of hand too quickly to consider it. But that is okay, you are going to be right no matter what the conversation is, so bringing up other options is a pointless excersize with you.

 

'Exercise'. I only dismiss the really stupid stuff you post. Step up to your intellect.