Comments for Torture discussion on NRO today.

Torture discussion on NRO today.

2009-05-01T13:05:10Z

The Dr.K referred to is Charles Krauthammer, and references this post.

re: Dr. K. [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

They broke the mold with Charles. I'm always humbled by the man and the writer.

On his column today, if I ran into him, I might ask just one thing, in all intellectual curiosity and moral seriousness: "But is that torture?" As a serious, good friend e-mailed me this morning:

Krauthammer was right this morning in his column but for one thing. It's not torture. It is a simulation designed to spur information... It doesn't make me feel less of this country either that we subjected three of the most horrendous people on earth to some discomfort for the cause of protecting innocents.

The U.N. defines torture as:

"torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

In a symposium on NRO yesterday, Christopher Eberle, who teaches philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy wrote:

Two assumptions should shape the manner in which a civilized society interrogates those, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who effectively plan to attack and destroy innocent human beings.

First, human beings have a worth, or dignity, that we cannot do anything to alienate: KSM, as with any and every human being, possesses a (God-given) dignity that prohibits us from taking extreme measures to protect those he targets. Even if we can effectively protect innocent human beings only by subjecting KSM to extreme (Jack Bauer–style) physical damage, we should not do so. Second, a person’s actions can make it permissible for us to treat that person in ways that would otherwise be morally forbidden. The fact that KSM initiated a plan to destroy the World Trade Center explains why the U.S. government was morally permitted to capture, incarcerate, and interrogate him.

How does this second assumption shape the manner in which we may interrogate KSM? Suppose that, as was apparently the case, KSM had initiated further plans that would have killed a large but indeterminate number of innocents. Suppose again that KSM had information about those future attacks that, if obtained, would have allowed us to prevent them. But suppose that, having exhausted more pacific means, we could not acquire that information without waterboarding KSM. In that case, fairness in distributing harms would permit us to waterboard KSM. Given that he had forced us to choose between his well-being and the well-being of many innocents, we could “distribute” the harm to him, not them.

Do you do an injustice to the seriousness of these moral but lawful decisions by using the t-word?

I'm asking.

Me, too. I know there are some strong opinions here - and some conversations taking place in email. Anybody got thoughts on Mr. Eberle's conclusions, other than some form of "ditto?"

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-06

2009-05-06T12:53:18Z

She doesn't know what I've done to her yet, does she?

All y'all should move your comments to up here, where I moved Cassie's Screed.

And I closed comments on this post... to force the discussion up there.

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-06

2009-05-06T12:50:33Z

Aaaaand your point would be...?

Comment from Cassandra on 2009-05-06

2009-05-06T12:42:15Z

I haven't eaten any bugs since SERE

DIRTY, ROTTEN TORTURE APOLOGIST!!!! :)

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-06

2009-05-06T11:49:17Z

you all have just been waiting with baited breath to listen to me bloviate...

Hrrrrrmpf. I haven't eaten any bugs since SERE...

Comment from Cassandra on 2009-05-06

2009-05-06T09:57:13Z

OK. I'm going to weigh in here.

This is a real problem for both the military and the former administration and if you want my opinion (and I *know* you all have just been waiting with baited breath to listen to me bloviate!) the blame rests squarely with Congress and the President. Over and over Congress has been asked to tighten up the definitions. And over and over they've chosen to punt the ball. Personally I think it not unwise to leave some latitude in the statue (as Samantha notes). But that very latitude, in our overly litigious society, provides no cover against domestic political expediency or lawfare by much vaunted "international community".

At this point, Mr. I'm Going to Heal the Oceans needs to step in and say "We're done here. I'm not going to prosecute anyone for construing an ambiguous statute differently than I would have."

And then he needs to have the self control to STFU and not talk about it any more. It's like dealing with kids: "Sorry - Mom just put her foot down and your opinion, while interesting, has just been rendered utterly irrelevant" :p

What is "prolonged mental pain/suffering"? As soon as they stuck "mental" in there, we had a problem because mental injuries are not cut and dried. You can't see them. Some folks can withstand far more rough treatment. Others who may be weaker vessels might be irreparably harmed by even a single bout of waterboarding. Unkind folk like myself might argue that anyone picked up in a terrorist training camp was perhaps not that mentally stable to begin with :)

But under even the weasel-worded current definition, all a plaintiff has to do is allege that he's suffering ongoing mental anguish as a result of interrogation. That's such a preposterously low bar that all he needs to do is sway a jury into feeling sorry for him and he's home free.

I don't think Ry is making an unreasonable argument here. We might not like where it takes us, but the argument itself isn't a bad one. We have military people testifying that they think waterboarding is torture, so to argue that under no circumstances can it be considered torture is hard. There is a legitimate difference of opinon here, and it's not only folks with no experience who wonder if this rises to the legal definition.

Like Grimmy - I don't believe that (carefully applied) waterboarding ought to fall under the strict definition of torture. Like Grimmy I am bothered - too mild a word - by the prospect of military personnel being hauled into court for doing their jobs under difficult and dangerous situations we can't adequately understand from the comfy chair. But like Ry, I understand that context matters. If the danged law says that mental anguish is enough, just being incarcerated is probably torture.

When Congress writes weaselly laws with too much wiggle room in them, people have to make judgment calls on the spot: does this meet the legal definition of torture? The last administration made those hard calls. Despite the frothing on the Left, they were not *legally* indefensible by any rational yardstick. What the Left is having trouble with is the concept that a very defensible decision making process may have what they consider to be *indefensible* results.

My POV on this is, "This is precisely the kind of situation in which the value of having a Chief Executive becomes apparent." Because even if, under the law, one decides that the lawyers who drafted this decision stretched the law to its breaking point, it serves no one to second guess (much less criminalize) what was essentially a judgment call.

This is where the President is supposed to step in and say, "OK. Fine. I get it. You've decided to draw a line in the sand here. But that line only extends forward in time. We're not going backwards to retroactively apply this to actions long past, because if we do that no one will have the guts to make hard decisions. A** covering will replace reason."

"We're done here."

I have differed with many in the military community b/c I think that once a serious, credible allegation is made of wartime misconduct, we HAVE to investigate in order to let the public know that the rule of law will not be selectively applied. When Pantano was accused, I hated the idea but applauded the fact that the incident was investigated and the legal process was followed. Sometimes, the individual suffers unfairly from this. But our system of laws, checks and balances, and accountability is strengthened. I grew up in a Navy where when bad things happened, the skipper was nearly ALWAYS blamed and nearly ALWAYS relieved of command. Careers were ended when arguably it was an underling who was at fault and the command did nothing wrong. But there was a principle there, and it was that someone had to pay for failures and that no one was above being held accountable.

How far we have come from that mentality. Now it's as though the difficult weighing test between society's welfare and individual fairness tilts completely to the individual. I'm not sure that is a good thing.

That said, this is a different situation. The government came down on one side of the torture issue, and it is only fair to hold the folks on the pointy end of the spear to what the civilian leadership AT THE TIME said was kosher. Unlike many, I think reasonable people can disagree on whether waterboarding is "torture". It's not a bright line issue, and in the end the military operates under the Constitution and is subordinate to our very civilian representatives. I don't think it's a great precedent for the military to tell the civilian leadership, "Hey -- talk to the hand".

The initial failure is on Congress for ducking their responsibility and on Obama for waffling (saying on the one hand that the pointy spear folks won't be prosecuted but then apologizing all over the place for their "criminal" behavior). He has sowed doubt and undermined the rule of law by stating that he isn't going to enforce "the law" as he clearly sees it and that's the worst possible example because it undermines the rule of law while failing to provide any protection for the folks who defend the Constitution with their lives. He needs to come down on one side or the other, and I think we all know that's something he will never do.

After all, when you take a stand you can be second-guessed :p

What he should have done is refuse to state his opinion of the legality of bygone events, state that there would be no second guessing, and then state that the policy going forward will be x, y, or z.

Oh, and lean on Congress to tighten up the law or shut up. Yeah. Like any of those things are going to happen...

*sigh*

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-05-04

2009-05-04T13:06:53Z

[Grimmy, it's not going to get you banned, but it *is* going to get you heavily redacted. This sort of thing is *exactly* what kills comment threads, when passion, however honestly felt, trumps discusson. -the Armorer]
ry:

Glad you chimed back in. What I have to say in response my well get me banned, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

[Redacted]
First. Reality.

Just because something causes discomfort or triggers fear does not make that something torture in a legal or moral sense of the actual word torture. Not the pansy arsed "ohh, you hurt the poor dear's feelings, you bully" type torture, but actual torture.

[Redacted]
You are falling for exactly the same weak crap that labels our fighting men as baby killers, or stupid 'tards that only join the military because they can't get a real job. The same crap that labels all our fighting men as perma crazed psycho damaged loons.

[Redacted]
I'm not going to bother going point to point with you. You've demonstrated yourself to be a dedicated goal post mover and most very creative in digging up irrelevant issues with which to try to tie in your emotionalism regarding this issue. Standard issue leftist fare.

The only reason I take the time and effort to make this last, final reply to you is because I think I recall it being mentioned that you are a Marine?

I am a former Marine.

As a Marine, I served as a grunt for three years and as intel for three years. I did OJT as an interrogator for a short period. No where near long enough to be any expert in the function, but long enough to know damn well that interrogators are heavily trained in the laws, regulations and issues restraining the practices of interrogation. And, that those who go on to be interrogators are heavily vetted for patience and stability. It was my temperament that cut me off from being an interrogator. And rightfully so.

All your accusations stem from either made up bullshit that was in the process of being invented by persons with zero clue but great will to destroy the US's ability to gain information from any detainee at any time for any reason (ref the koran in the toilet lies), or those who twist, spin and distort anything for the same purpose.

Your assumptions demand that you hold to the most base, lowest and degenerate estimation of our own men and women in service, both military and civilian.

[Redacted]
Like I said above, I only make the effort to speak to you directly, here, now, and for the last time, because I believe you to be a Marine.
[Redacted]
[For the record, Ry is not a Marine or former Marine, nor do I find that entirely relevant to this discussion. In a sense, it's a form of reverse-chickenhawk argument if used improperly, but Grimmy's use isn't quite in that vein. -the Armorer]

There's been too many instances where the lovers of the enemy have managed to pull my brother Marines into courts of law because of one piece of sh&& going pissy weak and sniveler.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-03

2009-05-04T04:02:54Z

I generally find it better not to assume you know how someone will respond to a point you're trying to make.
Cassie, how many times does one have to watch a pattern develop to say that the odds of it happening ar 9:1? We can go back and do statistical routines on the debates about photos of the dead and other things to show, that, yes, I have good reason to think your readership would go ballistic for some of the things I would say. Good. Bad. Indifferent. It is a numbers game. And, right now, I don't need the grief.

On general principle, yes, I agree.

John, dude, no. You're taking that wrong. THe way you word things around your use of that rhetorical construct still leaves some wiggle room. You don't go QED. Other's do. You leave room for respect of someone, like me, who disagrees with you a tad on this. Others don't. Quite honestly, it was like a lot of phrases that I use becuase I saw it recently. I may be vitreous, but I'm not THAT brittle. I really don't think it works out like you seem to be taking it, like you think I took what you said as a shot across the bow. No. It was just a phrase that stuck in my head.

And, hey, I kept the redacted stuff sub rosa, didn't I? I'm still mad at him over that, y'know.

Though, I will say this: sometimes inbreeding in ideas can be a bad thing. There's a reason why in the PhD process you have to bring someone from outside your discipline into the endeavor. If you can't explain it without 'it's self evident' or 'specialized knowledge' you're on shaky ground. The kind of group experience as rule can, and I'm only saying can, not that it inevitably does, lead to dead ends and sand traps by avoiding whole other branches. Whole other options can be simply shunned out of a sorta parochialism. There's a reason why civilians are appointed above military commanders. And it isn't just to have checks and balances.

Ex: Ford does his assembly line. All his people after him follow his same basic approach. New guys show's up, he wants to make a fundemental change because one of the assumptions about Ford's line is, to him, not valid. He's laughed at, told that in time he'll see why it's done that way. Guy goes out and instead adds robots to another company's assembly lines in Japan and kills Ford in the US market for passenger cars.

It won't always work that way. Sometimes the 'old book' is the right way and it really is the only way. Sometimes it is not. Organizations that can essentially enforce assumptions rather than having to justify the continuation will force the same kind of situation you describe. If you want to play in their ballgame you'll have to play by their rules, if there's not chance of another ballgame being started.

Grimmy, so, Roe v Wade, on the basis that the lawyers and judges involved said it was all hunkey dorey, is no totally invioble? Or, is it that someone involved could've made a mistake in how they construed the law? Reading thru R.vW you'll find yourself in agreement about privacy(there's a reason why a potential employer isn't allowed to get your medical records to see if you have high colesterol and thereby deny you employment), but might find yourself calling 'bs!' at the final conclusion. And, as J. Keegan points out in Intelligence in War, a select, friendly to gov't group can often be wrong. It cost Britain being hit with V_1 and V-2 rockets to show how the hand selected by Churchill group, his lapdogs really, had the physics wrong, despite being some of the best there were in all jolly England. Our own SCOTUS got major portions of Roe wrong.

So, I have to say, I find that your proem is invalid. 'It does not follow' because one of your assertions does not cary the inviobility you claim. We've seen it with Roe, we see it with the continued fights over gun rights in places like DC and Chicago(where friendly to the gov't lawyers and judges said, 'Yup! Constitutional, round up the guns!'). Which isn't to say that the lawyers for the Bush admin 'lied'. No, they were asked if a certain line of reasoning could be valid under the law. They scratched heads and said that they thought the line of reasoning could be valid. Hence, why the order went out, in good faith, that all the enhanced inter methods were legal and to be use, when some of them may not have been(see the Roe argument).

We train our own Service people to resist torture by, and this is from one of the folks who helps run and design the program, torturing them. There's no magic wand involved that creates an irreconcilable situation. It always was. I have it from an instructor from SoA(school of the Americas) himself, whose name I can't give out here, that the techiques taught there, in a resistance to format just like those in the SERE program, are torture and it never surprised him that, hey, graduates from the School used what they learned on 'enemies of the state' in the bannana republics they hailed from. I sat with him in a Mexican resteraunt in Escondido, CA in AUG 1990, with my X-Country coach and his, father, who was a lifer in ONI, and that was the best damn burrito ranchero I never ate warm.

In some cases the 'antis', who will do anything and everything to find an albatross to tie around Bush and 'his rethuglican enablers'---as the antis would put it---- will shift the meaning to suit them. I am not. Not everything of the enhanced inter program was kosher. Things that are mock executions(simulations of executions, or whatever other modifier you want to stick on there in some kind of semantics game, and, no, I'm not saying you to any one person in particular) are, were, and always have been and will be illegal forms of interrogation. That means waterboarding is out. THe person is disoriented. Water is poured onto them ina manner that makes them think they're going to drown, much the same way the VC palmed the .38 shell they put into the revolver or the Brits would take IRA buttonmen in a helocopter and tell them they're pushing out the IRA jackalopes at 3000m when they were really only 1m about ground(and actually pushing one guy out). It's a mock execution in all the respects that matter as the .38 or the helo drop. 1) Confusion. 2) Actions that confirm the belief one is going to die. 3) The leveraging of the fear of death to solicit info.

Hell, don't believe me, believe Uncle Jimbo over at B5---who despite this still says do it:
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

This is where I caved and I didn't even get strapped to a board. Nope a canvas bag over the head and water continually dripping over my face triggered a visceral fear I have of drowning and I started screaming, crying and signing.

I've got more to say, as usual, it's me, but I've gotta go to bed.

Sorry, Grumpy. I'll get to you next time. And, dude, you aren't disrespectful. Which is why I can take stuff from you I won't from others. Same with John. I'll take stuff from him I'll never take from a lot of other people, and largely for the same reasons.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T19:06:28Z

Contemptuous? Me? I doth protest mine innocence.... sir.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T17:12:17Z

Contemptuous words and open defiance! Where's my cat-o-nine-tails? Heh. I'll just grab seven cats by the tail and let the claws do the work.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T16:14:08Z

"... would you quit calling me "Sir"?"

Aye aye, sir.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T16:04:46Z

Ah, but Grimmy - Harold Koh would say that we violate transnational norms and that makes the whole thing illegal, because the EU and such paragons of virtue such as China, Russia, and Iran don't approve (regardless of what their actual practices are) and as such the the entire US Gov acted illegally and should be sanctioned, and probably put under UN Supervision until such time as the UNHRC can redraw the Constitution to one more to their liking.

Oh, and apropos of your comments on another thread that I'm too lazy to go over an comment on... would you quit calling me "Sir"?

I'm on half-pay and don't shave any more. It's... un-needful. 8^ )

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T15:58:10Z

Forgot to add to known facts:
Everything currently under condemnation was fully vetted by both federal legislators and by judges. So the "illegal" meme is false on its face.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T15:51:02Z

I don't see how this is complicated. Sorry.

First, check the source of the condemnations and accusations of "illegal" and "immoral". Check the pattern that exists as they've made other such accusations and condemnations. Is there an agenda?

Second, look at the actual known facts.
1. The condemned acts are routinely used on US service persons in job slots where capture is a potential outcome of operations. It is not torture when we do it to ourselves. But, somehow, it transforms into torture when it is done on others.
2. The condemnations continue to spin into more and more tales of fantasy and distortions of actual history in attempts to co-equal the actions under debate to forms of treatment that were actual torture.
3. Even without any viable substance to the accusations of the acts/actions rising to the level of torture, the meme keeps drumming along.

Finally, there is a very well established pattern of such condemners and accusers of resorting to redefinition of terms in order to skew the "debate" into a non contestable state by evoking emotionalism and by using constant repetition of simple statements in order to sway those who are either completely inexperienced with the subject or not given to much honest thought on the issue into either falling into line with the accusations or surrendering by accepting the new definition.

I do predict that the accusers will win this. The surrender into accepting the new definition is already progressing toward solid.

I also predict that the next issue will be in declaring the simple act of taking prisoners of any sort for any reason from any battlefield will be redefined as a war crime. Most folk reading this now will snort with derision, but the meme machine hasn't been fully fired up on the issue yet.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T14:40:48Z

Ry I too feel strongly about his material and I know how hard it is to hold a position against the winds of GroupThink but if you truely wish to join an argument you have to let the other side make the attack if they will (ad hominem or other kinds) and not preempt such an attack and post on it in what I'm merely presuming is an attempt to blunt such an attack.

Your assumption there will be an attack and that the attack will take the form you predict is grounded in swampwater. I know you've been hit that way before but each time can be different. Let them say what they wish to. Often you will learn much more that way even if it fans your coals.

Personally I rather enjoy your postings. It's nails to the chalkboard right against the grain, often my own grain too. But you don't just fling poo like the monkeys, it's clear you've thought it through and often make valid points.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T14:11:22Z

Of course, saying that someone's going to nail me for being someone who sits behind a desk, comfy or not, in some kind of ad hominem fashion and not care about the argument itself, just winning it.

Now I understand a comment in a different venue. In that context, Ry, it wasn't an ad hominem attack, however you chose to view it.

It the context of you "wanting someone back" it was a way to explain why you have difficulty understanding how people you respect can come to different conclusions, conclusions you don't like.

They got where they are by different paths.

It doesn't make you wrong - but simply because assert you are right, doesn't make you right, either. And that works both ways.

And there comes a time in a discussion when you look across the table and realize that I'm not getting my point across, and I'm probably not going to get my point across. Because of differing experience and assumptions that underlay the respective points. And so you quit talking.

Put another way - there were things I felt very passionately about as Lieutenant Donovan and officers of greater and broader experience figured out quickly that they were never going to get me to see it their way, until I had been through the curtain, so to speak. They didn't keep trying to convince me otherwise, they just quit arguing, because the Lieutenant was going to learn the hard way, but the lessons weren't such that they were likely to be terrribly damaging, much less fatal.

Major Donovan now understands what they were trying to say. And in many cases, now agrees. And in a few, does not.

In that other discussion, there is a similar impasse. Doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that the other portion of that discussion recognizes pig wrestling when he sees it.

And my comment was no more or less an ad hominem attack than your "I want my =redacted= back!"

Comment from Cassandra on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T13:15:37Z

your point about the rise of anti-Western sentiment plays rather well with something I wanted to say at Cassandra's place, but chose not to: the whole mother bear concept cuts both ways, and it simply chucks that Man as a species is only above being an animal when It uses the upper level reasoning capacity(which means stepping above gut level, hormonal, instinctual actions and feelings). Of course, saying that someone's going to nail me for being someone who sits behind a desk, comfy or not, in some kind of ad hominem fashion and not care about the argument itself, just winning it.

I generally find it better not to assume you know how someone will respond to a point you're trying to make. You can, of course, do that. But then you're having an argument with yourself, aren't you? One that will never force you to examine your own premises, since you control what the other person says :p

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-03

2009-05-03T09:01:31Z

Ry,
First of all, *Thank You*, for the courtesy of your thoughts. I hope to show you the same respect.

I'm glad, I'm not the only person who finds the real debate complex. But the debate is only a by-product of the question. If the debate is complex, so is the real question. You'll never have an answer until you have the right question. For example, you write, "poison the waters", let me be specific, how much piss will you permit to be put in that glass of water, that you are about to drink? (Please forgive a dirty rotten old Vet, with an equally rotten sense of humor. You have already answered it in the next paragraph.)

But you raise an essential point, "2+2=5 level mindf'king", but why is this important? Everybody had it, it was called, arithmetic, the answer came after the equals sign. Then comes the day when you start to transition to math. For some of you, it is nothing short of prehistoric, no computers, no calculators, if you were lucky, you might even have a chance with a slide rule, straight or circular.

As we look at this from prehistoric times (actually done on paper), Yeah, yeah, I know an actual living and breathing auld phart! it's either that or I'm a fugitive from a Coroner! The really important thing about math has little to do with the answer. The focal point is the process of how you got your answer. But the same is true, if you're an unlawful combatant detainee or the President of the United States, if your processing is wrong, you must pay the consequences. This is also true for George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama to start. The true standard will be the Law. The sad thing is people don't understand, in many ways, Obama may have little or no choices. There is no "Statute of Limitations.

In closing, I'm trying to stay within the picture you've established in your last paragraph. To put it bluntly, you're a "Tough Taskmaster!" Ryan, if you are fulfilling YOUR role, that's ALL that really matters. If you understand this is a tough debate, there is much more than just the debate and the cost of winning it, you are fighting your own war.

THANK YOU!
V/R Grumpy

Comment from ry on 2009-05-02

2009-05-03T02:32:11Z

The strange thing is I don't believe you do either.
And, you're right Grumpy. I don't find this whole debate very simple. I found the question simple. Does it poison the waters was what I took it to mean. To that my answer is simply no.

Personally, I think the record is muddled. Stuff that is harsh, but not torture has been lumped by the antis. Stuff that has been done that is, legally and morally, torture has been done by the US and some will defend that or make all kinds of pretzel arguments that it's all copacetic.

I think the proposition that 'shocking' displays will teach what is torture to be wrong headed. Chinese foot binding was torture, but you don't see the results of it for 10 years. How's that play into a one time shocking display? Nor does starvation really fit into that scheme. How does 2+2=5 level mindFrucking show up in the shocking display? It doesn't. So is it truly spanning the topic? Or does it just convince people to agree with you because now they saw blood?

Grump, your point about the rise of anti-Western sentiment plays rather well with something I wanted to say at Cassandra's place, but chose not to: the whole mother bear concept cuts both ways, and it simply chucks that Man as a species is only above being an animal when It uses the upper level reasoning capacity(which means stepping above gut level, hormonal, instinctual actions and feelings). Of course, saying that someone's going to nail me for being someone who sits behind a desk, comfy or not, in some kind of ad hominem fashion and not care about the argument itself, just winning it.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T22:22:45Z

@BillT, Go the "Graphic Route", you won't surprise me.

@Semper Fi Wife, I just want *the objective facts*, not just opinion.

@Cannonshop, Where do yo see yourself? You wrote the truth for all sides.

@The rest of us, I see these people as good people trying to figure this out. I respect you and your beliefs.

As always,
Grumpy

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T18:14:01Z

They won't gain perspective, they'll just assume that's what's "REALLY" going on. (even when it isn't.)

The problem is that the whole "Debate" is fueled not by half-truths, but by things the proponents WISH were true-because it legitimizes anything they do in opposition if it IS true.

Which makes them FEEL BETTER.

Comment from Semper Fi Wife on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T12:59:32Z

"You *don't* want me to go into graphic detail about what *torture* looks like"

You know what, Bill? Maybe it's time someone did just that. As awful as it would be, some people might actually gain perspective.
Or not.

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T12:38:23Z

Dr. Robert Gates...was talking about this GWoT, if the soldier follows the "ARMY FIELD MANUAL" on this subject *TO THE LETTER*, he should be OK.

The lawyers who so thoroughly vetted the interrogators' guidelines, referencing both US and international law, told the interrogators that same thing. Now Obama's making apologies to the world at large and prosecution noises in the direction of all concerned.

The only reason this discussion is taking place at all is because the new regime has a different *political* agenda. This teapot tempest isn't based in morality, or legality, it's based on Obama inventing a straw man, knocking it over and then boasting about his prowess.

What we do at Gitmo isn't torture -- sorry some folks feel icky about it, but it isn't. You *don't* want me to go into graphic detail about what *torture* looks like.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T08:12:49Z

Ry, "Do you do an injustice to the seriousness of these moral but lawful decisions by using the t-word? No. To put it simply." First, I don't find anything simple about this issue. The strange thing is I don't believe you do either. There is a strange sentence construction, "moral but lawful decisions". Who says the decisions were lawful? What were the "Reasons and Basis" for those findings? Now, where is the documentary evidence of these same findings of legality, they must be hard copy.

As we look at this problem, we are compelled to ask, what are our real goals? You suggest our goal is about protection, but what if you're wrong and you create more terrorists? I'm talking about an explosive growth in terrorism and it can be our own fault. Remember, under US Code, "Plausible Deniability" is not a viable defense, because of Watergate.

My Father had this rotten habit of always asking, "What if?" What do you do when the unexpected
occurs? We all figure we know what will happen. But, "What if?"

Ry, This is just one Very Dumb Vet's view, Last night, I was listening to the "Langdon Speeches" at the Kansas State University, to SECDEF Dr. Robert Gates. He was talking about this GWoT, if the soldier follows the "ARMY FIELD MANUAL" on this subject *TO THE LETTER*, he should be OK.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-02

2009-05-02T07:16:44Z

All for looking a bit odd, if it keeps the spam-bots from making cash.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-01

2009-05-02T04:23:07Z

Do you do an injustice to the seriousness of these moral but lawful decisions by using the t-word?
No. To put it simply.

It forces us to delve into the definitions of what is and what ain't. Is it simulated execution, why or why not? Did the EU commission investigating the UK treatment of NRA tangoes, which seems to be the most recent and oft cited example by the antis, say anything about stuff like panties on head, the chest slap, stress positions, and the like? Really, what were they?

Using the T-word robs people of the fiction that they can be royal @55holes and still claim that they're the good guys while doing despicable things, things that go agains the very same Judeau-Christian/classical liberal principles GWOT is supposed to be about protecting. Hypocracy laid bare. It tastes good with ketchup, I'm told.

So, does it cheapen the argument? no. Not if you don't care about R or D, Bush or Obama, or your own vanity. Otherwise, yeah, it might, since it mightmake you feel uncomfy with yourself.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-01

2009-05-02T02:42:48Z

@Foxfier, The "Auld Phart" is back and cleaned out a few posts. It's like a politician with "Selective Memory."

@John, Thanks, for the good time.

Enjoy your weekend.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-01

2009-05-02T02:10:04Z

*Whatever* are you nattering on about?

8^ )

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-01

2009-05-02T02:04:00Z

Spam attack!

Oh, no.... Spam is ham, which is pork, right?!?

PIG FLU ATTACK!!!!!

(sorry, sorry.....)

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-01

2009-05-02T00:42:16Z

WTF?!

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-01

2009-05-01T20:48:56Z

I don't think torture is moral.

I don't think redefining "anything that works" as torture is moral-- in fact, it's a massive lie; cheap grace, as well.

A lot of lying is going on, on the "anti-torture" side-- so far, I've seen two different forms of ancient torture misidentified as being water boarding. (one is the 'water cure,' which involves filling the stomach to distention with water followed by a beating and draining; the other is a French thing I can't spell where the nose is blocked, the mouth covered with a "balloon" of gauze and then filled with water so it goes down the throat; neither of these is a wet cloth over the nose and mouth followed by dousing with water)

This results in a lot of well-meaning folks believing the lies, and makes for even *more* anger all around.

So, yes, it's a very injust thing to tell a lie to folks who trust you, which also puts those folks in danger.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-05-01

2009-05-01T17:59:04Z

The English language is very good for interpreting meaning. Two people can read the same thing and come up with different conclusions. The UN definition, as I read it, allows most if not all of the actions approved by the Bush legal team. And, I've listened to many of Charles' definitions on Fox.

If the President had a problem, he should have kept it under wraps until a proper definition was determined; then he could have done all the grand standing he wanted, bully pulpit wise. But no, he had to jump out front of a non-problem and make it look like we were wrong before anyone had a day in court. We'll never get all the worms back in this can.

Comment from Samantha West on 2009-05-01

2009-05-01T16:51:38Z

People like clear cut rules to live by. That way they don't have to be responsible for making decisions. Those of us who take responsibility in decision making know full well there are gray areas of life. We are also strong enough to live with our decisions that fall into the gray areas; many people cannot live with gray decisions (in my opinion they are weak.) So, it seems to me people are seeking clear rules regarding something that itself changes with the circumstances.

Thus Eberle is struggling to illuminate when torture is acceptable. However, except at a personal level, it is impossible to make that definition and to draw a clear line regarding it's use; some acts seen as torture by one group will be viewed as acceptable interrogation techniques by others (given certain circumstances.) Because of the transient conditions under which America has been accused of torture, those practices that fall on the edge of our current definitions will remain in question. That will never change.

One must also consider that in general the people screaming the loudest over our use of torture lost nothing in 9/11. They have not been bloodied and find it easy to revise history to support their emotional opinions. Thus I ask what percent of them would change their tune once they have been physically besieged by our muslim enemies. (And yes, until they police themselves of their extremists, practicioners of Islam are our enemies.)

As well, there are certain segments of our population who will always behave irrationally; they are only screaming about torture because they hate George Bush. Like many people they probably find it difficult to draw a moral line defining the way they live and so they take sides to stab at Bush without really thinking about the broader issue and it's implcations.

The United States of America was the first truly moral society ever formed in the history of the world. In order for us to continue we all must realize that one man's rights end, where another man's rights begin. It's a simple definition that would serve us well if only everyone could live with gray decisions.

(And for those who would smack me for saying "man" instead of person - bite me! "Man" in this context is all inclulsive and means "person." I'm as liberated as they come and I absolutely honor women who choose to stay home and nurture and raise their families - a far more important life than say oh, the lives that Hillary "ball buster" Clinton, or Paris Hilton, have chosen.)