[excon]

Hello Righty's:

Help me out with something. We needed to torture in order to keep us safe... But, releasing the photos of us doing it will make us unsafe??

How's that?

excon

[ETWolverine]

We need CIA operatives to keep us safe... But releasing pictures of CIA operatives makes us unsafe??

How's that?

Same difference.

Elliot

[excon]

We need CIA operatives to keep us safe... But releasing pictures of CIA operatives makes us unsafe???

How's that?

Same difference.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

So, releasing the name of Valorie Plame made us unsafe. I got it.

excon

[galveston]

Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too.
He says he doesn't want the photos released.

He could just issue an executive order to that end.

So:

If the court releases them, he can tell the conservatives that he was opposed to it all the time, so it's not his fault.

To the radical left, he can then say that they got what they wanted, he didn't stop the photos from being released.

I think the argument against releasing the photos is to NOT give our enemies any weapons to use against us if we don't have to.

Propaganda, you know.

[inthebox]

EX

You should know that a war is not only military but political. No war can be won without the will of the people - that is what makes what Jane Fonda did in Vietnam reprehensible. What purpose would publishing pictures of torture have? It would only serve as anti-war propaganda. If the Obama administration doesn't want to continue fighting this war, then Obama should be transparent and just withdraw all troops... yesterday. If he wants to win this war, these photos would only stir up the enemy and undercut the men and women fighting this war for us.




G&P

[excon]

Hello again,

Here's the problem I have with your arguments... At least you're being consistent, though. You blame the messenger, not the message..

Apparently, you have no problem with what we did. You only object to people finding out about it.

I never understood that. I still don't. In fact, if you want to measure wrongs, in my view, DOING something wrong, is 100 times WORSE than telling people about it...

That's just me, of course. Yes, you and me ain't made up of the same stuff.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, releasing the name of Valorie Plame made us unsafe. I got it.

excon

I said CIA agents, not former analyst hack political appointees.

[ETWolverine]

Apparently, you have no problem with what we did. You only object to people finding out about it.

And your problem with that is..

In fact, if you want to measure wrongs, in my view, DOING something wrong, is 100 times WORSE than telling people about it...

Committing national suicide is the greatest wrong of all. But that's what you are advocating.

That's just me, of course. Yes, you and me ain't made up of the same stuff.

Thank G-d for small favors. You're right... some of us ain't suicidal. Some of us understand that winning a war and making sure that our fellow citizens don't die because of your misplaced ideals is more important than those misplaced ideals.

It continues to amaze me that your ideals only go so far as the military and the CIA are concerned. Only they, in your understanding, have the responsibility to follow the law as you interpret it. YOU have no such requirement. You can break any laws that you desire, as long as you can justify that law as a violation of your personal rights, ei: drug laws.

But G-d forbid that any government official, no matter what he is trying to accomplish, no matter what war he is fighting, no matter who he is protecting, should do anything that you interpret as a violation of someone's rights... no matter what kind of terrorist he might be, and what actual laws apply to him.

Forget that your interpretation of the law itself is flawed and has no historical basis whatsoever. Forget the fact that YOU are the only one saying that the terrorists in question aren't really terrorists or that they didn't know what everyone else in the world acknowledges they knew. Forget that the actions in question didn't actually violate any laws. Forget that these actions were previously APPROVED by the very people who are using the revelation of these actions to the public for political gain. NONE of this means anything to you. None of this is important to the issue.

You have made up your mind. The CONTEXT and the facts mean nothing to you.

That is a moral failing on your part, not ours. The inability to re-examine your positions or your actions in light of context is a failure of your morals and ethics, not ours. People with STRONG ethics and morals can adjust their actions to match the situation within a moral framework. Those who ape morals and ethics stick to a position by rote rather than actually examining the position as the context changes. You lack this ability.

Elliot

[excon]

You can break any laws that you desire, as long as you can justify that law as a violation of your personal rights, ei: drug laws.

You have made up your mind. The CONTEXT and the facts mean nothing to you.

That is a moral failing on your part, not ours. The inability to re-examine your positions or your actions in light of context is a failure of your morals and ethics, not ours.

Hello again, El:

I don't know. You say, because I smoke pot, I am, therefore banned from questioning law breakers?? And, because I do question them, it's moral failing on MY part??

Dude! That's silly. You're out to lunch.

Besides, that's the best argument you got for torture - to attack ME?? I'm just the messenger anyway.

excon

PS> Are you telling us, that you've never been cited for breaking the law?? That YOU'RE Mr. Goody Two Shoes, and that's why YOUR arguments are the only ones to be considered here?? I'll bet that's what you ARE saying. That's also why nobody listens to you.

[inthebox]

EX

Let the "truth commisions" begin, and remember to include Nancy in it.

What is the purpose of publishing the photos?


I'll accept your premise that this is torture and this is illegal and should be prosecuted to its fullest - just answer the question.

In other crimes, say serial murder, and the serial killer is convicted - same question What is the purpose of publishing photos of the crime?






G&P

[excon]

What is the purpose of publishing the photos?

Hello in:

Right now we've got people saying, that all we did was dunk 'em in the water for a few seconds... It ain't nothing...

If that's all we did, why are you so opposed to their release?

excon

[speechlesstx]

No matter how grandiose and noble the stated justification may be, wanting to release these photos is pure politics. The harm comes from the lack of context and the point is to tell one side of the story so all those leftist do-gooders can pat themselves on the back and inflate their sense of self-importance.

Is it any coincidence that Obama flopped on this after Pelosi got caught lying through her teeth about what she knew?

[excon]

No matter how grandiose and noble the stated justification may be, wanting to release these photos is pure politics.

Hello Steve:

Of course, you SAY it's politics because you DON'T want them released...

Look, THIS is what America DID in YOUR name. I know, you'd rather wear your blinders. That's OK. YOU don't have to look at the pictures when they're released. But, there are some of us who believe in transparency.

And, I've asked this before, with NO satisfactory answer... Why would releasing these photo's put our military in MORE danger?? How, will finding out that American tortures, make an Al Quaida fighter fight harder??

It makes NO sense. Therefore, I believe you DON'T want them released strictly for political reasons.

excon

[tomder55]

Why don't you ask the President . This is from his statement on the issue.

"My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," .... "The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

Besides ;the photos in question have nothing to do with the issue of EIT . They are a rehash of Abu Ghraib's unauthorized treatment of prisoners .

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

Of course, you SAY it's politics because you DON'T want them released...

Actually I'm not sure I've said one way or the other, I'm just asking what is the point? What is the end goal here? I know what your point is, but what is everyone else's goal in releasing these photos? I suspect it is exactly what I said, and Thomas Sowell makes that point better than I can:

Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be— and have been— shot on sight. Squeamishness is neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt, when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the White House.

That's all this is, moral exhibitionism by a bunch of moral hypocrites.

Look, THIS is what America DID in YOUR name. I know, you'd rather wear your blinders. That's OK. YOU don't have to look at the pictures when they're released. But, there are some of us who believe in transparency.

I'm just not that "squeamish" as Sowell puts it. I believe America did in my name what America had to do given the circumstances to protect her citizens. As Pelosi' denial highlights the only thing that's changed are the circumstances, she along with many others now doing their "self-satisfied preening" were fine with it back it 2002 because of what had just happened and what was on the line. They, and our country o our behalf were acting on the "reasonable man" standard.

Now that we're safer because rough men did violence on their behalf they don't have the balls to admit their complicity, put themselves on the line and dare disappoint their rabid base so there is no other reason than political to release those photos - without benefit of the aforementioned context - and I find that contemptible.

And, I've asked this before, with NO satisfactory answer... Why would releasing these photo's put our military in MORE danger?? How, will finding out that American tortures, make an Al Quaida fighter fight harder??

It makes NO sense. Therefore, I believe you DON'T want them released strictly for political reasons.

Would any answer satisfy you? I have my doubts. Was Obama wrong in what he said? If so how?

"In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger," Obama told reporters. "Moreover, I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

It really can be as simple as I just don't see what benefit there is in releasing the photos. I think we did what we had to do and as I've said before we could have just lined them up and shot them and nobody would have said a darn thing about it.

[ETWolverine]

I think that releasing the original memos was a HUGE mistake.

However, since that mistake wa made, I think that we should release ALL the memos in an unredacted format. Let the efficacy of the techniques be known. Let the public know what information was garnered through these techniques and how it was used to prevent other terrorist attacks.

Of course, that would simply mess up your entire point, excon... that perhaps the techniques a) aren't effective or trustworthy, b) didn't garner any new information because the guys it was used on didn't have any information, and c) that the information garnered via these techniques didn't do anything to stop any terrorist attacks.

And it would mess up your ancillary point as well... that whether the techniques are effective or not is not the point. That the use of the techniques for ANY reason is wrong.

You see, by releasing the memos in full, your point about the fact that we only THOUGHT these guys knew something becomes completely wrong. Your point about the efficacy of the techniques becomes wrong. And if the saving of thousands... perhaps millions... of lives can be proven, it eliminates the idea that "torture" (if that's what this was) is never justified. Because most Americans would tend to disagree with that point.

THAT is why the Dems are fighting so hard to keep that part of the information buried. They NEED that information to remain buried in order to justify their moral high ground. If the full info comes out, then it would blow that moral high grown out from under them, and they know it.

As for pictures... pictures are frozen in time. A picture of a guy's head being doused with water is a fixed image. There's no way to extrapolate duration of the event. If there was FILM of the so-called "torture" sessions, it would make sense to release them so that people couls see exactly what was done and come to a conclusion based on reality. But the Dems can't let that happen... it would again blow away their moral high ground.

As for allowing PICTURES to be released... why? What is the gain? It doesn't add anything to the interpretation of what happened. The only purpose of releasing such pictures is to inflame tempers and make the people in the pictures into targets for foreign powers. It is purely political.

And with Nancy Pelosi caught with her pants down (figuratively) the Dems are just hoping for the entire argument to go away. Obama has reversed himself on the release of the pictures and on military tribunals for the POWs because he has realized that the issue is turning around to bite him on the butt, politically. He wants the issue to go away. So does Pelosi. So do the rest of the Dems in Congress.

The hard left wants to crucify Obama for his reversal. Code Pink called for Obama to be tried as a war criminal over the weekend. The ACLU is talking about filing criminal charges against certain Obama officials who are blocking their attempts to make the photos public.

Some of Obama's political deals are falling apart as well. Obama was planning on using the Gitmo issue and the EIT issue as a way to pay off his more liberal Congressional supporters in exchange for them supporting him on health care nationalization. However, with this reversal of positions, Obama is finding that it will be difficult to keep his Dems in line on health care nationalization. They are backing away from the issue because it's a political hot potato issue and they need to distance themselves from it in order to get re-elected in 2010. He needs to find something to give them in exchange for their support, but the thing he was going to give them is turning out to be a politically untennable position for him.

The entire issue of these memos is turning out to be a political gamble that Obama lost, and his loss may be more than he bargained for.

Elliot

[excon]

Of course, that would simply mess up your entire point, excon... that perhaps the techniques a) aren't effective or trustworthy, b) didn't garner any new information because the guys it was used on didn't have any information, and c) that the information garnered via these techniques didn't do anything to stop any terrorist attacks.

Hello again, El:

It MIGHT mess up my point, if that WAS my point. But, of course, it ISN'T my point. It never was my point and never will be. It's not surprising that you don't know where I stand.

Here's my point. Torture is illegal. Torture that works, is just as illegal.

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??

Nope. That ain't happening as long as I have a breath in me.

I wish you knew a little more about what this country stands for. I'm doing my best to teach you - but it ain't happening.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

It MIGHT mess up my point, if that WAS my point. But, of course, it ISN'T my point. It never was my point and never will be. It's not surprising that you don't know where I stand.

Here's my point. Torture is illegal. Torture that works, is just as illegal.

Then why, on so many occaisions, did you argue that we didn't really know what KSM knew, we only THOUGHT it was what we knew. I can go back and show you your own statements if you'd like.

Furthermore, the whole point is that none of these techniques were torture. Not legally, not historically, and not even morally. SAYING that it's torture doesn't make it so.

I don't know if you have a little sister or brother, excon. But if you do, sis you ever go swimming with her or him and dunk her or him in the pool? According to your definition of torture (and you keep saying that the amount of time the person is dunked doesn't matter) you were engaging in torture of your sibling. I know that it sounds ridiculous... that's because it IS ridiculous. CONTEXT counts. The specifics of what is occurring counts. You are ignoring context and the specifics of the case in order to make an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

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??

AND AGAIN, you ignore context. You ignore that these POWs are not criminals but PRISONERS OF WAR and are not subject to the same rules as criminals. CONTEXT is everything, and again you put forward an argument that ignores context because it can't handle the scrutiny.

Nope. That ain't happening as long as I have a breath in me.

You don't have a say in the matter. You're not running the CIA, you're not a politician, and you don't get to set policy. You can state your opinions all you'd like. You can try to convince others all you'd like... though I suspect that you are failing miserably in that... but you don't set policy. The amount of breath you have in you is irrelevant. We have done it, nobody is going to go to jail for it, and Obama has now pretty much signed on to it.

I wish you knew a little more about what this country stands for. I'm doing my best to teach you - but it ain't happening.

Excon

Excon, I know EXACTLY what this country stands for. I don't doubt you willingness to give your life for this country. I have a similar willingness. But I have a willingness that you lack... a willingness to sacrifice my SOUL to protect it.

'Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' --- George Orwell

I'm willing to be one of the rough men. You clearly are not. That's not a criticism of you. Not everyone can or should be one of the rough men that Orwell spoke of. The fewer rough men we need, the better. But I am one of them (mentally and emotionally, not physically... at least not anymore), and you are not. That is why you refuse to look at context when making your arguments, whereas I do. Context would force you to change your position and make you into one of the rough men too, and you are not constitutionally capable of that. Again, not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

Elliot

[excon]

Then why, on so many occaisions, did you argue that we didn't really know what KSM knew, we only THOUGHT it was what we knew.

But I have a willingness that you lack... a willingness to sacrifice my SOUL to protect it.

Hello again, El:

You misunderstand... again. The ticking time bomb scenerio fails because it is predicated on knowing things that one can't know. It's no more difficult than that.

Therefore, it doesn't matter what we've think in OUR brains about what he KNOWS in HIS brain, because it's all UNKNOWABLE. It's OBVIOUSLY unknowable too. It doesn't take a genius to figure that stuff out.

You know it's unknowable too.

Your second statement above is true too. If my country gave up its soul, there's nothing to protect any longer, and the terrorists have won.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, El:

You misunderstand... again. The ticking time bomb scenerio fails because it is predicated on knowing things that one can't know. It's no more difficult than that.

Therefore, it doesn't matter what we've think in OUR brains about what he KNOWS in HIS brain, because it's all UNKNOWABLE. It's OBVIOUSLY unknowable too. It doesn't take a genius to figure that stuff out.

You know it's unknowable too.

You keep saying that as if intel operates in a compete vacuum and are just randomly pulling people off the streets to waterboard them on the chance they might possibly know something... kind of like TSA pulls 70-year-old white women aside to frisk them before boarding a flight to see their grandchildren. Is that how they operate?

Your second statement above is true too. If my country gave up its soul, there's nothing to protect any longer, and the terrorists have won.

America hasn't given up her soul, just the mere fact that we're having this discussion demonstrates that. A country with no soul doesn't wrestle with such issues. Your standard demands perfection and that ain't happening.