[excon]

Meanwhile, Bush, who managed to stop terrorist attacks on the USA for 2,905 days so far, is looked at as a dufus.

Hello again, El:

Here's the part your righty's miss. The ONE attack that counted, he MISSED. Who cares about the ones he didn't miss? I only care about the one he DID miss.

Of course, he's a dufus... Then he attacked a country that had NOTHING to do with OUR being attacked, and got another 4,000 of our people killed...

Yup - he's a DUFUS all right...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Jonah Goldberg asks the question I've asked for years, if this torture is so bad why do all the Hollywood heroes use it? I mean gee, aren't they setting the example?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Is that where Jonah Goldberg thinks we learn it?? He's even dufusor than the dufus...

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello tom:'

Don't let the Wolverine hear you saying that.... So, do YOU wanna start the torture redux #9 thread, or should I?

excon

First of all, let's make sure that we understand that what Holder is looking at is based on stuff that took place BEFORE Bush was in office. We are talking about the possible torture of one of the terrorists involved in the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Clinton-era FUBAR. We are NOT talking about actions taken against Gitmo detainees.

Based on what I have heard, there were 3 methods of "torture" used in the specific case being "looked into" by Holder.

1) They turned on a drill and pointed it at the head of the detainee and threatened to drill holes in his head.

2) They played "Russian Roulette" with the detainee with an empty gun that was no threat to anyone.

3) They simulated (faked) an execution of another detainee to scare the detainee into talking.

Which of these DEADLY TORTURES do you object to?

Me? I actually object to all of them. First of all, they were stupid techniques to use.

Number 1 is nothing more than a frat prank. If you fall for it and talk, you're an idiot. I don't particularly think of it as a particularly successful interrogation technique.

Number 2 I've seen in movies too. They used it in the really awful "Starsky & Hutch" movie with Ben Stiller. Again, if you are being fooled by that old trick, you're an idiot. It's a crappy interrogation technique too.

Number 3 has actually been used by the Israelis successfully. That one MAY have some merit. But the backlash afterwards, when the detainee finds out he was suckered, usually ends up being that he clams up WORSE than before. So if you haven't sucked him dry very quickly, his utility to you as an information source wears off very quickly. It's a technique that burns too many bridges of communication.

Dumb techniques used stupidly.

But the real reason that I object to the use of these techniques?

They are illegal.

Excon's jaw is probably down below his knees right now.

Let me explain.

You see, when the guys from the USS Cole bombing were captured, the USA had not declared war. Therefore, anyone captured in relation to the Cole bombing was captured as a Civilian CRIMINAL, not a POW. Thus the rules and laws of the civilian criminal system are the ones in play, not the laws of the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War. Such interrogation techniques, which are LEGAL to be used on unlawful combatants during a declared war are NOT legal to be used on civilian criminals.

That's why the declaration of war by Congress is so central to the arguments of those in favor of the EITs for Gitmo detainees. They make the legal difference between ILLEGAL TORTURE OF A Civilian CRIMINAL and the legal interrogation of an unlawful combatant POW.

So to address excon's comment about me, I happen to be in favor of an investigation and if necessary a prosecution of those involved in the use of these techniques. Because at the time they used them, those techniques were NOT legal in this case. That they were legal later for other detainees is not a defense of their actions.

Equal application of the law, excon. THAT is the standard.

---------------------

Now... here's a question for you, excon. Or actually several questions.

Obama's staff just announced last night that they are going to be forming a special secret "intelligence interrogation unit" that will be housed in the basement of the White House and that will be answerable directly to the National Security Advisor. They will be in charge of interrogating captured terrorists (by whatever name the Obama Admin is calling them this week). While they will be based in the White House, they will actually be in charge of interrogations that take place OUTSIDE the USA. They have no intention of bringing the terrorists into the USA for questioning.

My questions:

1) Do you think that the NSA and the President should be creating secret military or paramilitary units that operate in the White House basement? The last time we had that was when a guy by the name of Col. Olliver North was in charge of negotiations with the Contras regarding weapons trading. Do you want to see more shadow military units in the White House?

2) If Obama is creating such a unit so that he can be more directly in charge of interrogations, doesn't that indicate that Bush and Cheney were NOT directly in charge of such interrogations prior to this? And if Bush and Cheney were NOT in charge of such interrogations prior to this move, on what basis do you suggest that they be prosecuted for "war crimes"?

3) If the purpose of forming this shadow interrogation team answerable to the NSA and the President is to make sure that such interrogations are done "legally", why are they refusing to bring the terrorists into the USA in order to interrogate them? Why have they announced that all interrogations will take place OUTSIDE the USA, where a) there is less observation of what they will be doing, and b) the laws regarding how interrogations are performed are more lenient? If this unit is supposed to be above board in their techniques, what are they setting up to hide?

Just a few questions to ask yourself .

Elliot

[excon]

Just a few questions to ask yourself

Hello again, El:

I don't support the continuation of ANY dufusorian policy by Obama! And, he's continued LOTS of 'em.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I don't support the continuation of ANY dufusorian policy by Obama! And, he's continued LOTS of 'em.

excon

And started quite a few of his own.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Is that where Jonah Goldberg thinks we learn it???? He's even dufusor than the dufus...

excon

I think Jonah is quite intelligent. How do these Hollywood leftists live with themselves when they protest Bush torture one day and then glorify it in their productions the next?

[excon]

How do these Hollywood leftists live with themselves when they protest Bush torture one day and then glorify it in their productions the next?

Hello Steve:

Cause what they do is make believe?? You DO point out a disconnect, though. You guys can't tell the difference.

excon

[tomder55]

don't support the continuation of ANY dufusorian policy by Obama!

Stratfor's George Friedman in an excellent analysis thinks Obama has continued the Bush doctrine

I wouldn't go that far .But I did predict a continuity of the Bush doctrine as template for this war.
Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of the Beginning | STRATFOR

[excon]

I wouldn't go that far .But I did predict a continuity of the Bush doctrine as template for this war.

Hello tom:

You did. Ron Paul should have won.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

Cause what they do is make believe???? You DO point out a disconnect, though. You guys can't tell the difference.

excon

LOL, you're missing where the disconnect is, it's in a bunch of liberal activists parading their moral superiority around in real life while thinking it's OK to glorify the very evils they supposedly abhor. It doesn't matter if it's make believe or not, if they hate it in real life they should hate it in their movies, too, or do their morals just change with the circumstances?

[excon]

LOL, you're missing where the disconnect is, thinking it's ok to glorify the very evils

Hello again, Steve:

Glorify - schmorify! They SELL movies. If a movie of a STICK would sell, they'd sell it, and you'd complain about how they glorify sticks.

What do you sell? Tires?? How can you glorify tires? Dude!

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Glorify - schmorify! They SELL movies. If a movie of a STICK would sell, they'd sell it, and you'd complain about how they glorify sticks.

What do you sell? Tires??? How can you glorify tires? Dude!

excon

No, we sell safety. If you don't want to protect your home from going up in flames it's no skin off my nose. But you're making my point anyway, they HAVE no morals.

[excon]

But you're making my point anyway, they HAVE no morals.

Hello again, Steve:

What happened to your right wing free market ideals?? If you want to be in the movie business and make MORAL movies, you'd go broke. If you want to make MONEY, you make what people BUY.

This is ANOTHER disconnect... You think Hollywood DIRECTS the morals of its customers... I say, that Hollywood REFLECTS the morals that are already there.

Why should the movie business have any more morals than the safety business? What? You say there's no morals involved in the safety business - just product. Film is different, how?

excon

[speechlesstx]

What happened to your right wing free market ideals?? If you want to be in the movie business and make MORAL movies, you'd go broke. If you want to make MONEY, you make what people BUY.

Actually, movies that aren't about blood, guts, gore and sex have been making TONS of money the last few years. But, this has nothing to do with my free market ideals.

This is ANOTHER disconnect... You think Hollywood DIRECTS the morals of its customers... I say, that Hollywood REFLECTS the morals that are already there.

I'm assuming you mean "you" in the general sense again as I don't think Hollywood "DIRECTS the morals of its customers." If however, you think Hollywood doesn't INFLUENCE morals I've got some beach front property down the street I'd like to sell you. I do agree that it reflects morals already there but it also influences morals. In any case none of this negates my point about the hypocrisy of Hollywood crusaders.

Why should the movie business have any more morals than the safety business? What? You say there's no morals involved in the safety business - just product. Film is different, how?

You sure have taken to saying I'm saying a lot of things I'm not saying.

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Remember when Madonna was actually a good looking young lady wearing a wedding dress on stage during her "Like A Virgin" tour at the beginning of her career?

Remember all the little teeny-boppers and young adults who were buying up wedding dresses and gummi bracelets and white lace stockings from thrift shops in order to copy her look because it was trendy?

Yeah, I think that Hollywood (and by extension all of the entertainment industry) influences and shapes morality, values, and behaviors of the country.

At the same time, I do not place ALL the blame at the feet of Hollywood. WE have individual responsibility as well. And we OUGHT to have the brains to overcome that influence. I do... that's why I'm a Conservative and most of those who follow Hollywood are libs... I don't bow to that sort of influence. I can watch a movie, see a video or enjoy a concert without getting caught up in trying to be just like the folks who put on those shows.

But I think it is disingenuous to say that Hollywood simply reflects culture and has no effect on shaping it.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Yeah, I think that Hollywood (and by extension all of the entertainment industry) influences and shapes morality, values, and behaviors of the country.

Even now, the big stink in the entertainment industry is whether Miley Cyrus is corrupting her legions of young fans for allegedly pole dancing on top of an ice cream cart.

[ETWolverine]

Even now, the big stink in the entertainment industry is whether or not Miley Cyrus is corrupting her legions of young fans for allegedly pole dancing on top of an ice cream cart.

Steve,

If there was any member of Hollywood that DIDN'T deserve to be criticized for being a bad influence, it would have to be Miley Cyrus. She's probably the LEAST corruptive influence and the BEST role model young girls could have in Hollywood today. That's cause she ain't really a product of Hollywood. She's a just a country kid at heart. She keeps her nose clean, keeps away from the clubbing life, and keeps her clothing on for the cameras (with the exception of that one Annie Leibovitz photo shoot she did for Vanity Fair... and frankly I think that Leibovitz was the bad influence there, not Cyrus).

I'd give her a pass on the photo shoot... first of all nothing showed, and second of all it was the job of Vanity Fair's editorial staff to control the situation, not the job a 16-year-old kid.

I have NOT seen the Teen Choice Awards performance, so I can't really comment. However, I have read that the criticisms of the sexual content of the performance were overblown. Even if she did a full out pole-dance, however, she's still head and shoulders above the rest of the Hollywood crowd.

I'll take her as an influence over my kids any day of the week when compared to the likes of Britney Sleaze or Skank-tina Aguillera.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

If there was any member of Hollywood that DIDN'T deserve to be criticized for being a bad influence, it would have to be Miley Cyrus. She's probably the LEAST corruptive influence and the BEST role model young girls could have in Hollywood today.

Bingo! And yet she's a target while the real Hollywood sleaze gets a pass. I love Miley, she's a good kid and her dad's a stand-up guy, too.

[paraclete]

Yep. Sometimes this stuff is just to crazy to make up.

Seriously, though, if you are methodical about your research for a story and have a good understanding of the FACTS that you have researched, the story you come up with can be very realistic... so much so that SOME of it could happen. And very well might happen (or did happen).

Elliot

Seams to me that instead of hunting Bin Laden you fellows would be better served by sidelining your prolific mystery writers, you would no longer be giving ideas to the enemy who must be totally devoid of imagination, but then I guess anyone who would pray the same prayer five times an day for the whole of his life is devoid of imagination:confused: