Ask Me Help Desk - Torture chapter 47

Hello again, tom:

No, it's from Iran. I guess I should have said it a little clearer.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skell

So Elliot your argument is that since the battle is now being waged on US soil (since 9/11) it is ok to torture?

Because now, its personal?

That would sound really cool if the Governor of California said it.

No... my argument is that we are at war and the rules of war are different from the rules of domestic crime.

Regardless of where the war is being fought, POWs are not supposed to be treated the same way we treat criminals. They do not get trials. They don't get to go home after serving a criminal sentence. They are POWs, and they get to go home either when the war is over, or when they are repatriated by our government (either by granting parole or in a POW trade).

Furthermore, POWs that are unlawful combatants (ei: terrorists who do not wear uniforms and deliberately attack civilians) are NOT subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. To the extent that we grant such protections to them anyway, we are being good people. But we are not required to do so.

Finally, the GC defines torture. So do other historical documents. If we decided to torture the POWs at Gitmo, we would be within our rights to do so under the GC, because those POWs are not subject to the protections of the GC. However, we have NOT done that. Again, because we wish to be the good guys.

Instead, President Bush had his legal staff and the interrogators and psychologists at the CIA come up with a list of interrogation techniques which, despite being harsh, do not fit the GC definition of torture or the definitions cited by other historical documents. Specific rules have been set up as to what techniques may be used, and which ones are off limits. They were set up on the basis of the definitions in those documents and were adhered to precisely. The use of those techniques in three cases resulted in a goldmine of information that has proven effective in stopping terrorist attacks here and elsewhere and in capturing additional POWs.

So, in short, my argument is:

1) We treated the POWs within the bounds of the law. Over and above what the law actually requires, truth be told.
2) We didn't torture them.
3) They are not criminals and are not subject to the rules of law as applied to criminals.
4) The use of EITs was not torture and was not criminal in any way.
5) Those who developed the EITs were not acting in a criminaol fashion in any way and attempting to prosecute them is a waste of time and only helps the enemy by highlighting all the reasons that they should hate us (whether real or imagined) to be used as a recruiting tool.
6) Stopping the use of the EITs takes a useful and effective and LEGAL tool out of the hands of those who we have entrusted with protecting us. This serves only to weaken our defensive ability.

THIS is my argument, Skell. This has been my argument since day one. It is unchanged.

The fact that 9/11 made the war personal only serves to show that those who argue abstractly against the use of EITs because of abstract reasons (as Excon does) are in the wrong for doing so, because the war is no longer abstract.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

No, let's take care of this little bit of business NOW, because if we don't, you'll bring it us again...

I used marijuana under the supervision of my doctor with a LEGAL prescription. I DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!

No, you just advocate it for others. Based on your past posts on the subject of drug enforcement, you A) don't believe that the war on drugs is legitimate at all, B) have no interest in punishing anyone who does drugs, C) believe that mandatory sentencing for drug use and drug possession is unfair, and D) believe that the blatant use of drugs is a legitimate form of protest against unfair drug enforcement. No, you don't break the law, you just advocate it. (If you'd like, I can look up the old discussions between the two of us on this topic, just to prove my point.)

Quote:

But, even if I did, you apparently think that disqualifies me from pointing my fingers at other lawbreakers... It doesn't. I have refrained from mentioning it before in the hopes that you would keep your arguments above board. But, as you said, it's personal, so I guess that means you can get down and dirty. I'm not going to roll in the mud with you.

Excon

You are already rolling in the mud with us. You have already done to us what you have accused us of doing to you. To wit: you have said that anyone who supports EITs is unAmerican, unpatriotic, a liar, immoral, unethical, and complicit in crimes against humanity.

Here are a few of your posts on the matter of torture (Emphasis added by me):

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

The only people debating it are rightwingers who want to justify torture. They wanna do that, probably to stay out of jail. May I remind you that torture is illegal, not because it works or NOT, but because it's offensive to civilized society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

As a matter of fact, your suggestion that torture is ok, BECAUSE it works, is utterly despicable. Clearly, if saving lives is the only criteria we use when determining whether we should torture or not, it's only a matter of time before you wrongwingers introduce legislation to allow torture for drug dealers, kidnappers and sex offenders. After all, wouldn't that save lives??

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

So, we waterboarded KSM, NOT because he knew of IMMENENT attacks. NOT because there was a ticking time bomb, but because he was a leader and we just generally wanted to know what he knew...

That's despicable. It's against the law. It's NOT what we said we were doing. You HAVE given up your soul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

You'da BROKE the law!

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

If one has "principles", does violating them mean one really didn't have them in the first place??? I think it does. America has principles. Some of you, who want to violate those principles, have no idea what I'm talking about - or you're lying. I don't know which.

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in our principles 99% of the time. But, if they're not principles you embrace with all your being, and all your heart, you don't believe those principles in the first place. You're only giving them lip service...

I think you can tell who these people are when they say unpatriotic things, like the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. To them, apparently, there's a BETTER system out there, that will remain nameless until the last minute. I'd really like to know what that system is? I'll bet it starts with F. Why don't those people tell us WHAT system they'd rather have? Wouldn't YOU like to know??? I would!

But, back to principles. Can I grasp, that because you want to torture, you AREN'T, and have never been REAL Americans??? That you've been lurking in the background for just such an opportunity to OVERTHROW our system and institute something else???

I could. Could you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Well, if you wanted to torture, and then wanted to pretend you weren't, you'd just change the definition of torture, which is what you did. You're welcome to accept the WRONG definition, made up by lawyers who wanted to give the dufus cover to torture.

They did, and he's sticking by it. So are you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded. The memos, and the legal argument creating them, have been totally repudiated by the legal community. At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

If it was the latter, that's criminal and they should go to jail. If it was the former, they're just dumb lawyers, and there's no prison for being stupid.

In order to find out, though, an investigation must be undertaken, and let the chips fall where they may.

So you are already in the mud with us, excon. You've been there since day one.

But here's a post of yours that I particularly liked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

That seems to be your position vis-à-vis drug laws. Just not interrogations of POWs.

Glad we cleared that up.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You've gone off the deep end. You, who live in a glass house, should know better than to throw stones - but you don't.

I'm not going to break that glass though. Cause I'm a better man than you.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

You've gone off the deep end. You, who live in a glass house, should know better than to throw stones - but you don't.

I'm not gonna break that glass though. Cause I'm a better man than you.

excon

Don't argue the issue, especially when you KNOW you are wrong on the issue... throw insults instead. Thanks for making my point for me.

The fact is that if you looked at the issue from the standpoint of protecting your family personally, your argument holds no water in the practical world, and you know it. So rather than try to argue from that perspective, you instead throw insults and talk about how I have "gone off the deep end".

Hate to tell you this, excon, but I haven't "gone" anywhere. My position on this issue today is the same as it was on 9/11 and the same as it was back in 1987 when I lived in Israel during the first Intifada. It has not wavered since then. If I seem to have moved further to the right, perhaps it is because you have moved further to the left, and our relative positions have changed. I have not actually changed any of my positions on this issue in over 20 years.

I haven't moved, YOU have.

There was a time, excon, when you were supportive of fighting against terrorists in the Middle East. It was one of the things that you and I agreed on. You certainly would not have granted terrorists the same legal rights as criminals. But over the past 8 years, you caught a bad case of Bush Derrangement Syndrome and your position regarding terrorism changed. Not because we did anything wrong to the terrorists, but because it was BUSH who ordered it, and anything Bush did was wrong, including (perhaps especially) how he treated POWs. Ever since then your political positions have started from that basis... that Bush was wrong and anything he supported is evil, immoral or fattening. The BDS has clouded your position on EVERY ISSUE, foreign and domestic. You made a giant leap to the left. And the crazy part of it is that you can't even recognize the fact that your positions have changed. You think that Tom, Steve and I have gone off the deep end... that our positions have changed over the past few years and that we have gone overboard. But our positions today are, for the most part, exactly what they were 8 years ago. We HAVEN'T changed our positions at all. YOU HAVE!! And as a RELATIVE position, we have moved more to the right, because YOU have moved more to the left. And so we seem farther away from your current positions than we were from your old positions. But that has nothing to do with any movement WE made. It is completely due to movement YOU made.

Really, excon, look up some of your old posts from 2000-2003 and compare them to your positions today. Especially in the case of fighting terrorism in general. I think that, if you are being intellectually honest about it, you will find that I am right on this.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

My position on this issue today is the same as it was on 9/11 and the same as it was back in 1987 when I lived in Israel

I haven't moved, YOU have.

Hello again, El:

Your position is the same. Your demeanor is not. You're mean! You're insulting, and you get personal. I seem to be the subject of your posts, these days. I don't know what happened here other than your personal life fell into the dumper. Maybe if you got that fixed, we'd have the old Elliot back.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Your position is the same. Your demeanor is not. You're mean! You're insulting, and you get personal. I seem to be the subject of your posts, these days. I dunno what happened here other than your personal life fell into the dumper. Maybe if you got that fixed, we'd have the old Elliot back.

excon

Excon,

I want to publicly apologize. If you feel that I have been particularly mean, then I promise to examine that in myself and if I find it to be the case, I will try to correct it. I have not intentionally tried to insult you, and if I have been insulting I apologize.

Yes, you have been the subject of quite a few of my posts. That's because you have said things that I wish to respond directly to. I have TRIED (possibly with less than 100% success) to respond respectfully and without name calling, and only by addressing the issues, and only by addressing what you have said, either presently or in past posts. For where I have failed, I apologize.

Fact is, I like you. I don't agree with you, but I like you a lot. We have been friends in the past, and I would like to be friends in the future as well.

So I apologize if I have been insulting.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So I apologize if I have been insulting.

Hello again, El:

Typical right wing apology... You don't really apologize. You say IF you were insulting, as you apparently don't think you were, you apologize.

Well, STUFF your conditional apology!

excon

Well, I did my part. I can only keep my side of the street clean. If you refuse to accept my apology, that's your deal, not mine.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No... my argument is that we are at war and the rules of war are different from the rules of domestic crime.
.......So, in short, my argument is:

1) We treated the POWs within the bounds of the law. Over and above what the law actually requires, truth be told.
2) We didn't torture them.
3) They are not criminals and are not subject to the rules of law as applied to criminals.
4) The use of EITs was not torture and was not criminal in any way.
5) Those who developed the EITs were not acting in a criminaol fashion in any way and attempting to prosecute them is a waste of time and only helps the enemy by highlighting all the reasons that they should hate us (whether real or imagined) to be used as a recruiting tool.
6) Stopping the use of the EITs takes a useful and effective and LEGAL tool out of the hands of those who we have entrusted with protecting us. This serves only to weaken our defensive ability....

I may be late but I figured I would put my two sense in anyway. I agree with most of it however EIT's are not a useful tool. The use of EIT's causes several pathologies that cause psychopathy. The use of these techniques actually increases the Anti-American sentiment, socially destructive behavior (even within there own environment) and destruction of the victims family. Many would say "what about the protection of our families?" but our families are connected. E.g. If a victim of EIT suffers PTSD and can not function with in his family, the family then shares in the Anti-American sentiment.

Again I strongly believe in medical coercion. Medical Coercion is the most effective way of interrogation. There will always be casualties in a war. The benefits of medical coercion far out way the drawbacks. The 60% fatality rate is acceptable, when weighed against the amount of fatalities caused by terrorist attracts, and infighting. Moreover if used on a consistent basis we can fine tune the compound to be less deadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

....The fact that 9/11 made the war personal only serves to show that those who argue abstractly against the use of EITs because of abstract reasons (as Excon does) are in the wrong for doing so, because the war is no longer abstract.
....

9/11 did not make the war personal. It brought it home but it had been personal for a long time. Just because it was not on our soil doesn't mean it was not personal, it just means that we could ignore it. I am sure if you asked Iraq if it was personal the first time they would say yes.

Make no mistake 9/11 hit home hard I lived in Manhattan at the time and was coming out of the Cortlandt Street station when the second tower was hit. I worked there. But the truth still is a war is personal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, mr,

So, you're post op.

excon

I do not think questioning my gender or posting that in this thread was appropriate, but it does speak volumes of your maturity and character. But I will respond "clear and concise."

No, I am Gay. When I came back from Kuwait my wife was a total , my house was upside down and the funding for the research I was doing was canceled. So in short I went from having a lot to having nothing. You can not use this to throw mud or claim

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

...your personal life fell into the dumper.

during other threads (as I have seen you do) Because I am OK with where I am. For the first time I am able to appreciate and have met a demographic that for many years I have only know in conversation.

But I don't think that has anything to do with a torture thread.

You often write that people are attacking you, making it personal, throwing mud but you consistently do it, and bring up peoples personal lives even when unsolicited. This behavior is unstable. If you are unaware of your actions and the paranoid and projective way you claim various types of attacks you may want to invest in the services of a mental health professional.

The way address people is rude and condescending, it is a testament to your character. Although this is "your thread" as you put it, I have decided not to engage you in conversation because of your childish and unstable behavior. This is the second and last response I believe you deserve from me.

So... "Good Night, and Good Luck."

Hello again, mr:

AGAIN, it's about ME and NOT the issues.

I'm fine if you're gay. I'm not fine if you lie to us, and you did. I don't know why and I don't care... All I know is you lied, and then you expect to be taken seriously.

It ain't going to happen.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No, that is just one of many things he has apologized for in the foreign media and to foreign leaders.

It is OK to apologize for wrongs that our country has made, it is a pompous morally righteous attitude that has made us internationally hated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

No, it isn't.

When the Russians invaded Georgia in December 2008, the issue was seen as a very aggressive move by the Russians, and was CERTAINLY an issue brought up in the international community, and an issue for which Russia was soundly criticized. Have either Putin or Medvedev commented on the issue in the international media, much less apologized for it? Even if they are willing to admit that what they did was wrong (and I believe that to a certain extent even Putin acknowledges that to be true from a military, political and economic point of view, even if he defends the decision) he's certainly not going to comment on the issue in the international media or to the foreign press. That's because you don't take your errors to the foreign public.

I disagree. Just because Putin did not address it in the foreign media does not mean it shouldn't have been addressed. Internationally The United states carries it self as the "higher standard" the platinum standard if you will. We have a lot of pride as a people, our higher education is top notch. We attempt to impart our political ideologies across the world.

If we are going to be the Platinum Standard we have to address our actions when brought up. We must make informed decisions and explain them publicly. If what was done is so outrageous that is can't be defended than it must be acknowledge.

"With great power comes great responsibility" -uncle Ben :cool:

The face reference was made because it was stated by another member that he was fake. I do not agree that he is foolish. I just hope he does not continue to go over board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The foreign press already refuses to take him seriously.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

North Korea is rattling its sabre with nuclear materials on its ships, missile tests and deliberately ignoring international sanctions as soon into this President's administration as it is? They tried rattling sabres at Bush, but Bush was having none of it. He may not have handled N Korea in the optimal fashion, but he handled them AND EVERTY OTHER INTERNATIONAL OPPONENT with STRENGTH, and they backed down (whether you agree with those policies or not, that was the result of those policies). But Obama is placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating... he is showing weakness and the foreign powers are getting the impression that he will not take any action against them.

I am a bit uncomfortable with the level of placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating he is doing that I agree. For now I think he is healing international relations. I do think he needs to make some show of strengths internationally but he must choose that battle VERY,VERY CAREFULLY.

North Korea defied bush as well. In 2006, despite opposition from bush, the UN, and even their ally China, North Korea was doing nuclear materials testing. It took bush a five year negotiation period for north Korea to even be willing to come to the table. It is not a equal comparison until the same amount of time has elapsed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

...Bush may have been DESPISED by the international community (though I question whether that was really the case), but he was seen as STRONG not weak. He was hated and FEARED, not ridiculed as weak.

Bush 1 was seen as strong and maybe despised. But Bush 2 wasn't despised he was seen a an idiot. The international community and many Americans were angry (rightfully so) at a cocaine using frat C student attempting to strong arm and judge the rest of the world.

Obama is not this great genius he just isn't as dumb, ethnocentric and ignorant as Bush 2. It is sad that the bar had been dropped so low by bush and the Republican party. The reasonable, intelligent and pragmatic republicans are ignored of labeled "not true to the conservatives" But that is for another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Really? Have Al Qaeda and the Taliban shown any inclination to end their Jihad against the Great Satan? Have Iranian leaders suddenly decided to stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons? Has North Korea become less militaristic? Has the Muslim Joe (or Yusef) in the street in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt suddenly become a fan of the USA because of Obama's apologies?

Where, exactly, do you see a secrease in Anti-American sentiment? Is it among the French who were never really a threat to us anyway? That's Sarkosy's doing more than Obama's... and the French were never planning on attacking us anyway.

Even under the bush administration Al Qaeda and the Taliban were growing stronger. They had grown way before Obama became president. Between 2005 and 2007 the Taliban gained civilian support, grew and moved into Pakistan. All with out Obama help.

No Iranian leaders did not stop, but that is yet to be seen. And no North Korea is still a threat.

"Muslim Joe (or Yusef)"? WOW :eek: having lived in Tehran I would not expect that. Muslims are not the "other". And I am not a "Fan" of Obama, but I don't hate him either. The Arab Muslims don't have to be our fans but to be at least not hated. And we are on our way to the latter. You know Islam is not a violent religion frankly there are many surah's in the Quran that speak out against killing. It is the extremest that are twisting the word, but every religion has those: Israili (who wounded Huwaida Arraf, a Detroiter non-violent activist organization confronting Israeli terrorists.), American Christian Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. Even Buddhist terrorists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

...they hated us BEFORE we went to Iraq or Afghanistan. 9/11 proved that.

We were in Iraq and Afghanistan before (remember we funded the Taliban when it suited our need) 9/11 which is one of the reasons they hated us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The phrase is by Teddy Roosevelt and it goes like this: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far].

I knew bush did not say it. I called it a Bushism because bush constantly butchers quotes. And I believe I butchered it pretty bad. But you knew what I meant thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Funny, your avatar doesn't look female... Not that there's anything WRONG with that....

Seriously, sorry if I offended. I was just using the generalized term "guy".

I did not know I had an avatar. How do I see it or make one? And no not at all, no offense taken. No apology needed, but thanks.

And nice to meet you as well.

@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

And

@galveston: I am very sorry for the confusion.

Gentlemen I did not go back and reread all of the threads. I have been gone a while and misquoted.

Again please accept my apologies.

Speaking of torture, or at least Gitmo, Obama has apparently drafted an executive order that would reassert the right to hold detainees indefinitely (in another late Friday move of course).

Bet you guys didn't know you were voting for George W. Obama did you?

He may carry that "big stick" after all. Hopefully he will continue to show some strength. All in good time there is something in the middle of being weak and being a war monger. ET & Gal what do you think?

Hello again, mr:

I'm going to switch directions for a bit, because it's MY thread, and I can...

You DO know, mrsinclair, that the rightwingers you're buddy buddy with, have consistently and vociferously denied that you have a right to get married again, assuming that you'd wish to marry someone of the same sex...

I'm one of the few who supports that right. Not that it makes any difference. I still don't like you much.

excon

Quote:

ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

Nah that was me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

nah that was me.

I am so sorry. Really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsinclair

@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

And

@galveston: I am very sorry for the confusion.

Gentlemen I did not go back and reread all of the threads. I have been gone a while and misquoted.

Again please accept my apologies.

To all I am further mistaken in the above.

tomder55 is the one I was referring to. I apologize for al the mix up. I have been away for a while. Hope I did not offend anyone.

I am much more conerned with thie administration's domestic policies than their foreign policies.

Of course, a serious terrorist attack could change that.

[QUOTE=galveston;1825455]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsinclair

@ETWolverine: I am very sorry for the previous misstatement about you living in Tehran. That was Gal.

QUOTE]

Who, me???

I made a misquote assuming it was you. It turned out to be tomber55. Originally I assumed it was ET, but then corrected it and assumed it was you. However I was still wrong and it was Tomber55. Just a big misreference on my part.

We all look alike lol

Tom,

Funny, you don't look Jewish...

Elliot :)

Depends upon which part of my anatomy you look at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

depends upon which part of my anatomy you look at.

Rofl! :D