Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

If you think it all begins and ends with bin Ladin, you're mis-informed. Catching him won't stop the terrorism.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Here are the facts

The guy was in our custody
The body had marks on it indicating he had been beaten. Just look at the pictures.
He is dead

I dont think what I am saying is too much of a stretch.

But this is an oversimplification.

What you'd need to know is what was done to him, was his constitution such that it couldn't handle mainstream methods, what is it he was suspected of knowing, how was that potential information weighed, and how time-sensitive was it.

True, we'll never have this info and so there's room for abuse. But we don't have a history of abusing human rights.

Until that case emerges where the evidence clearly indicates abuse that goes above and beyond, the military, the intelligence services and this nation have earned the right of several million doubts.

Further, let's assume some % of these people were mistreated.

How do we go from that to ending valid methods of torture?

All we should do is punish those who crossed the line.

The report I found first was from MSNBC. NBC is not a fringe news organization.

If only we held the mainstream media to 1/10 the standard they're holding the current Administration, and anyone who dares show even a modicum of independence.

And on waterboarding, doesnt it give you pause, at least a little bit, to be on the same side as the guys who ran the Spanish Inquisition?

Hitler was fond of dogs. Should good people give up dogs?

The method isn't the whole issue -- the context in which it's used is usually the defining element.

Most history books seem to think they went too far, even though they were convinced God was on their side.

Again, the popularity of an idea, or how many historians espouse it tells us nothing Re the idea. We need the argument. Then, assuming it's valid, we can look at those who evade it an label them accordingly.

[Sailormon6]

sck5, you blame President Bush for the fact that the US is hated, but that didn't begin with the election of President Bush. Throughout the Clinton administration, hate-filled people carried out terrorist attacks on US military and civilian institutions. During the Clinton administration, in 1993, the people of Somalia did not show us their love when they attacked our troops and desecrated their bodies. Hatred for the US was demonstrated during the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration and now current President Bush's administration. President Bush hasn't been able to dissipate the long-standing hate, but he has stopped the terrorist attacks. President Clinton was unable to dissipate either the hate, or the terrorist attacks. I happen to believe that the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are beneficial to our fight against terrorism. You can't expect your enemy to like you.

Regarding the death at Abu Ghraib, the US government has established a practice of criminally prosecuting soldiers who abuse prisoners. The prosecution has to be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Punishing people without meeting that burden would not be consistent with our standards of justice. If a crime can be proven and the culprit can be determined, I have no doubt a conviction and punishment will ensue. That's the way President Bush has established for handling such things.

The prisoner at Abu Ghraib wouldn't be the first prisoner in the world who was ever beaten to death. It isn't right, but it has happened in City jails, in State prisons, and in Federal institutions all over the world. When it happens, it isn't because the Mayor or the Governor or the President ordered it. It's an unauthorized criminal act by an individual. In this world, people sometimes commit crimes. If you have any proof that President Bush ordered or authorized the killing of the man, bring it forward, and we'll go after the scoundrel.

If someone committed a crime, and the authorities are investigating and prosecuting the offense in the ordinary course of business, what's your complaint?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

Why? You LIKE torturing people? I just dont get it. Neither, apparently, do most of the military who are dead set against it because they know that if we torture people they will be vulnerable if/when they are captured.

I love to torture people!

Give me a break, sck5.

Besides if wether we like or don't like a program is the standard, I don't like 99% of what the US/West is currently doing Re taxation, wealth redistribution, apologizing for being better that the rest, appeasing animals, treating others like actual human beings, etc.

Apart from that, it squanders one of our most important assets - being perceived as the "good guys".

Another Left obsession.

How people evaluate is a function of their beliefs. If the world at present holds a series of beliefs that only likes those who sacrifice their security, then the hell with the world. (You can never escape the need to act in the objective context, sck5.)

It is a lot easier to accomplish our goals when we have allies and people want to help us than it is when they hate us.

First, that's just not true. We can take any region off the map within hours, with either nuclear or conventional weapons -- no help needed.

Second, no one has ever been much of help -- the net debt is to us.

Third, if the conditions for getting help to eradicate these animals is tolerating the continuance of the environment that enables them, who needs that help?

Even if you dont care about humanitarian concerns, what we lose is far greater than what we gain from torturing people.

If only the Left could substantiate this International Consciousness is Reality platform.

And please dont start telling me we are threatened by the worst enemy in history - The Communists and Hitler were far more dangerous to us than a bunch of guys hiding in caves, bad though they may be.

Then why are you and yours asking us to build up the current enemy with suggestions that mirror the enabling the West offered to these corrupt enemies?

We didnt use torture then and in fact when I was growing up I was always told that "Americans dont do things like that.

I'm not sure that we didn't torture.

Further, everything has a context. In this case, the differentiator is that those being tortured aren't fighting under a flag. They're persona non grada -- BY CHOICE!!!!!! They actually hope to thwart our fight by assuming such status, knowing that you and yours will defend them by paralyzing us.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"To place three cases of waterboarding (though you want to think there's more) in the same context as the Spanish Inquisiton, is not merely ludicrious, but completely disingenious as well. There is no comparision."

They invented waterboarding, so I am told. They certainly used it. Nice company we are keeping.

You've conveniently equated the discovery of a method with the motives and context of the use of said method.

I have to say that I'm finding you more and more circular and intellectually dishonest.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

We dont know who may be doing torturing now. But I have yet to hear any clear condemnation of waterboarding from the administration or from republicans outside (e.g. this site) It is beyond me why anybody feels they ought to defend this in any way whatever.

But the argument is that under specific conditions, torture is acceptable.

As for going beyond your limits: that's not a standard. WE NEED THE ARGUMENT!

And the people we need to please is US. I am not advocating being the "good guys" just because I am a touchy feely liberal. It is also because having the good will of the people is a MILITARY ASSET. Just ask anyone who has fought in a guerrilla war whether it is a good idea for the population they are hiding in to hate us and want to give them shelter.

If we have to pull back our efforts to get people on the ground to like us, people on the ground whose opinion only matters because we're fighting this war with at least one hand tied behind out backs, then to hell with what htey think.

Did you see us extending such courtesies to the Germans of Japanese? Did we accept offers of surrender?

Hell no!

We decimated them, breaking their will, showing the consequences of their acceptance of corruption. Only then did we ease up.

That's how you win against an enemy that insists on a statist approach. On all the death and destruction it takes to defend against them is the responsibility of those who put the free nation in that position.

I believe that for better or worse, the Iraq war is an important component of our current national security situation. I also believe that the fight there has many elements common to guerrilla wars everywhere.

That's because of our approach. There's nothing inherent in the situation that makes it so.

Why is this so hard? You wont find me defending the Dems when they behave like idiots (which, like all politicians, they do sometimes). Why on earth would you defend THIS? Even when the guy you elected to be your candidate wont? Again, I just dont get it.

First, you have to at least acknowledge that we support some aspect of hte current effort because we agree with it -- not because of party affiliations.

Second, The Dems aren't idiots -- they're nihilists, and so they will always act like idiots, though being a nihilist is far worse.

You're not getting that you're objections are invalid.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"Pray tell how you equate actions in the pursuit of dogma, with actions in the pursuit of intelligence of enemy operations?"

Because the actions themselves are identical. It doesnt become OK to do just because your reasons for doing it are different.

But the action, qua action, isn't the context.

This is another common epistemological error on the Left.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

SCK...
1.In my view, waterboarding is NOT torture...it is an interrogation technique that lasts for several minutes and causes no physical harm only psychological panic...and it WORKS.

We've disagreed on this before, Cam.

Compelling someone by either manipulating his environment or through the use of force in order to get him to tell you something he doesn't want to tell you and/or to behave in a way he'd rather not, is torture.

The damage need not be longterm, physical or psychological. The compulsion is enough to qualify the act as torture in this context.

The question should be:

Under what conditions do republics have the right to extract information through such means?

So far, I've yet to hear of a case where the guidelines were immoral. We hear of incidents where those torturing under these guidelines have gone overboard. If this is the case, those that took it upon themselves to violate the guidelines need to be held accountable. That's a long way from denying ourselves these methods -- even if there's an unacceptable number of violations.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

"actions in the pursuit of intelligence of enemy operations"

Oh, and that was the excuse the Japanese used in WW2. Again, nice company.

It would just kill you to acknowledge that the context is crucial in the assessment of a given act.

The Japanese built designed great weapons, showed a certain level proficiency, ate food, wore clothes, had families, etc. Should we give all that up to, just because our enemies exhibited these behaviors?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by sck5

But you might be interested to know that Mr. Mukasey, our new Attorney General, first defended waterboarding but then said if it were done to HIM he might consider it to be torture.

His confusion is his problem. Again: Give us the argument, not a list of people that are for or against.

Also, if you believe that, then you must believe some of those people the US convicted of torture at the end of WW2 were mistakenly convicted

CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really think its OK to waterboard US soldiers? Really?

I'm OK with waterboarding anyone who is guilty of what these people are guilty of -- regardless of profession and nationality.