Politics Thread

[Ptolemy]

Do you think Truman should have been labeled a war criminal?

The bombing of Japan is an entirely different set of circumstances and anyone with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that.

What distinctions are you making? Was the potential for loss of American lives--civilians at that--no more dire post 9-11 than in the latter days of WWII?

The thing your side cannot point to, no matter how much the pr campaign tries to sell everyone on it, is that torture produces anything of substance that could not be gotten using other methods. All torture produces is information that the person being tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear so that they will stop hurting them. The ticking time bomb scenario is fantasy.

Should all the memos come out or are you content with only half of the argument being on the table?

After WWII we executed Japanese interrogators who water-boarded our servicemen. If attempting to prevent a nuclear attack is a viable excuse for using torture then surely those Japanese interrogators should have been aquitted. If they had tortured the right servicemen and got him to answer the right questions ... truthfully - thousands and thousands of human lives might have been saved. Or has the law changed? Have circumstances changed? Who gets to say when they do? Do we get to change the rules when we're the ones waterboarding? Maybe we do. Maybe things are different. Perhaps we should have some kind of a meeting where we allow both sides to make their case. Have this meeting run by a respected juror who we agree will be fair - and if required he can drop all charges or mete out a suitable punishment if someone is deemed to be guilty of something..

[Ptolemy]

If it turns out that waterboarding to protect your homeland (however that gets defined) is a perfectly honorable thing to do, we should revisit those earlier trials of the Japanese torturers and pay reparations to thier families.

[HGervais]

In a rare bit of candor even Fox News is calling the whole Pelosi-what-she-knew-when-she-knew it thing for what it is.

[HGervais]

Gallup poll breaking down the GOP exodus of the past 8 years. Some interesting stuff.

[Future Man]

It will be interesting, as Obama's term continues to unfold, and he retains more and more 'abhorrent' Bush-era national securtity measures, how many of them will be deemed, to those who had once so stridently opposed them, either unremarkable (as the case seems to be around here), or emphatically necessary, after all.

[HGervais]

As usual...change the subject much?

Still, let's see....closing Gitmo? Check
Setting a timetable for pulling out of Iraq? Check
Getting serious about Afghanistan? Check
Remembering what diplomacy is and working with our allies instead of telling them what we want? Check
Saying America does not torture and meaning it? Check
Yeah....no differences at all with the previous administration.

The thing you don't seem to grasp Mike is policies don't change overnight and because of the size of the federal government and the way it budgets & spends money there is always spillover from one administration to the next. And as I have been saying for months now, Obama is not the wild-eyed hippie liberal those on your side of the bed were trying to make him out to be. We all want our country kept safe. Love of country and wanting to protect it is not a right/left thing. The difference is in the details and about how smart an administration is going to be about achieving those goals.

Oh and torture is still torture no matter what initals you try and slap on it. Truth commission. Bring it on.

[Chris_Sax]

HE BOWED DOWN TO THE SAUDI KING, Harold! Know you nothing?

[Future Man]

Still, let's see....closing Gitmo? Check
Setting a timetable for pulling out of Iraq? Check
Getting serious about Afghanistan? Check
Remembering what diplomacy is and working with our allies instead of telling them what we want? Check
Saying America does not torture and meaning it? Check
Yeah....no differences at all with the previous administration.

Do you consider that a complete and otherwise entirely accurate list? Or willl you simply cover all you left out under the heading of his laudable "pragmatism"?

[HGervais]

Do you consider that a complete and otherwise entirely accurate list? Or willl you simply cover all you left out under the heading of his laudable "pragmatism"?

Do you try to be a total right-wing drone or has your programming just left you that way? And did you ignore the second part of what I wrote on purpose?
The point of your post to which I responded, if you really had a point, is that might Obama supporters be surprised and/or dissappointed when his administration's policies end up looking a lot like the previous administration's policies or would we just shut up and accept what we found unacceptable before and the answer to that is that after a three and a half months we have already seen substantive change on a host of security & foreign affairs matters that stand in stark contrast to what was in place pre-Obama. If that a complete list? Of course not and I didn't pretend that it was but that still does not take away from the fact that what I named were all pretty distinct changes. As the second part of the post noted, clean breaks are impossible from one administration to the next, not to mention unwanted and there will be some Bush-era policies that are carried over because Obama agrees with them but for people on your side to go around claiming that Omama security policies are just warmed over Bush security policies is just stupid. So Mike, tell you what...why don't you tell us where you think Obama is just following in the footsteps of Bush and like good little sheep we are rolling over and saying thank you sire.

[Ptolemy]

From Cafferty at CNN:

It doesn't go away by itself.

Watergate "went away" when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace and left town never to be heard from in an official capacity again.

The Bush presidency is thankfully over...but the damage he and Dick Cheney did continues to press on the nerve of the American people like an impacted wisdom tooth. And until the questions surrounding arguably the most arrogant and perhaps most corrupt administration in our history are addressed, the pain won't go away.

From Nancy ("Impeachment is off the table") Pelosi to President Barack ("I want to look forward, not backward") Obama, the country is being poorly served by their Democratic government. And on this subject President Obama is dead wrong.

George W. Bush and his accomplices damaged this country like it's never been damaged before. And it's not just the phony war in Iraq or the torture memos that justified waterboarding. It's millions of missing emails and the constant use of executive privilege and signing statements.

It's the secretive meetings with Enron and other energy executives and the wholesale firing of federal prosecutors. It's trying to get the president's personal attorney seated on the Supreme Court and that despicable Alberto Gonzales sitting in front of congressional investigators whining, "I don't remember, I don't know, I...etc."

It's the domestic eavesdropping in violation of the FISA Court, the rendition prisons, and the lying. It's looking the other way while the City of New Orleans drowned and its people were left to fend for themselves.

It's the violations of the Geneva Conventions, the soiling of our international reputation and the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. It's the handing over of $700 billion to the Wall Street fat cats last fall, no questions asked. Where is that money? What was it used for?

It's the no-bid contracts to firms like Halliburton and Blackwater and the shoddy construction and lack of oversight of reconstruction in Iraq that cost American taxpayers untold billions.

If the Republicans were serious about restoring their reputation, they would join the call for a special prosecutor to be appointed so that at long last justice can be done.

It's too late for George W. Bush to resign the presidency. But it's not too late to put the people responsible for this national disgrace in prison.

[HGervais]

See that is the thing...I disagree strongly with Obama not pursuing the truth about the previous administration. I understand why he does not want to do it...same reason he does not want to deal with DADT right now...he was left a lot of messes by Bush and he already has several balls in the air...it's easier to not deal with them now or at all.....the funny thing with the GOP trying to turn the torture debate towards Pelosi is because as the piece I posted yesterday noted they were getting what they wanted...Obama wanted to drop it but in going after Pelosi to try and score some points they are forcing her hand because if I'm her and a real investigation takes place no matter how bad it may make her look, it's going to make the GOP & the Bushies look a lot worse....a whole lot worse...the whole plan by the GOP is just stupid and short-sighted although not all that surprising considering where it is coming from.

[HGervais]

You won't hear me say this often but Go Jesse, Go! How much does someone want to bet that when this Hasselbeck chick leaves The View she goes to work for Fox? God love her, she stuck to that Pelosi talking point right to the end.

[Future Man]

See that is the thing...I disagree strongly with Obama not pursuing the truth about the previous administration. I understand why he does not want to do it...same reason he does not want to deal with DADT right now...he was left a lot of messes by Bush and he already has several balls in the air...it's easier to not deal with them now or at all.....the funny thing with the GOP trying to turn the torture debate towards Pelosi is because as the piece I posted yesterday noted they were getting what they wanted...Obama wanted to drop it but in going after Pelosi to try and score some points they are forcing her hand because if I'm her and a real investigation takes place no matter how bad it may make her look, it's going to make the GOP & the Bushies look a lot worse....a whole lot worse...the whole plan by the GOP is just stupid and short-sighted although not all that surprising considering where it is coming from.

Questions:
In what court has it been judicially determined that waterboarding, as and for the reason applied, was (a) torture; and (b) illegal?

Also, to the extent that you have claimed any single measure (be it wiretapping, rendition, military tribunals, etc.--I know it has never been limited to what you call torture) under the Bush Administration was illegal and deserving of prosecution, should any continuation of said measure by the Obama Administration be likewise considered illegal and deserving of prosecution? Or does the new administration sort of get grandfathered in, or is "mostly legal" now the standard, or what?

[Ptolemy]

answers can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01170.html

an excerpt from the article linked to:

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

(me again) Granted the four were not convicted of 'torture' - but they were convicted.


There is a lengthy article on the subject at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboard ... ted_States

[Future Man]

Could you find something on point? From your description the Texas case sounds like it was a criminal defendant and the intent was to extract a confession (i.e., evidence to be used against him at trial), as opposed to wartime measures against illegal combatants designed to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians so those plots could be thwarted.

[Ptolemy]

Could you find something on point? From your description the Texas case sounds like it was a criminal defendant and the intent was to extract a confession (i.e., evidence to be used against him at trial), as opposed to wartime measures against illegal combatants designed to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians so those plots could be thwarted.

I think I was on point. The first page of the first article I linked to contained this:

After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

I added the bit about the folks getting convicted in TX because 1) it was Texas and 2) I felt I'd already supported my Japanese torturers argument and wanted to emphasize something new.

That was just the first link I went to when I googled. - if you really want me to look at more of them and cut and paste some more - I'll be glad to.

And if you're saying no one has ever been convicted of torturing 'illegal combatants' before - for all I know you could be right - as that classification was recently pulled out of thin air so that crimes could be committed against these people without having to worry about pesky precedents, jurisdictions, or conventions.

I'm not saying Bush and buddies weren't genuinely trying to protect Amercans by torturing these people. Just that they way they went aboutit was wrong and a slap in the face to every patriot who died for what America STOOD for. (not past tense)

[Future Man]

I would be really surprised to find that the Japanese who were tried, were tried specifically for waterboarding (as opposed to a host of other matters) and if so, I would be really really surprised to find that they were tried for waterboarding in the manner that we understand it to have been practiced post 9-11...

[HGervais]

Questions:
In what court has it been judicially determined that waterboarding, as and for the reason applied, was (a) torture; and (b) illegal?

Also, to the extent that you have claimed any single measure (be it wiretapping, rendition, military tribunals, etc.--I know it has never been limited to what you call torture) under the Bush Administration was illegal and deserving of prosecution, should any continuation of said measure by the Obama Administration be likewise considered illegal and deserving of prosecution? Or does the new administration sort of get grandfathered in, or is "mostly legal" now the standard, or what?

Mike...why are you the one always asking the questions but almost never answering any of mine?

Mike...you might have heard of the internet it's a good place to research your dumb ass questions before you ask them. Start there and look outward.
So you are asking if I think the Obama Administration should be held to same the rule of law I expect the previous administration to be held to? Yes. Next question. What the f--- is "mostly legal"? I swear to Christ Mike...you are making less & less sense.
Oh and an interesting little piece that asks the question, if Obama is all the many, and often different things right-wing commentators say he is, why would they not want some of those expanded executive powers reeled back in? Piece right here.

[Ptolemy]

I would be really surprised to find that the Japanese who were tried, were tried specifically for waterboarding (as opposed to a host of other matters) and if so, I would be really really surprised to find that they were tried for waterboarding in the manner that we understand it to have been practiced post 9-11...

The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

also from same source: "As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas. "

From John McCain:

November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."


Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts."

[Dunnyman]

Guys, the only "facts" that get into Future's head are those supplied by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. If they tell him the sky is green, it is. If they tell him Obama's a convicted puppy rapist and nun abuser, then he is. He's never going to be able to form an intelligent opinion until he does his own thinking. Sadly, his party of choice frowns upon that.

[Future Man]

Meanwhile Obama just got handed a major embarrassing defeat on Gitmo by his own party. Sometimes it's good to at least think things all the way through before issuing edicts.

[HGervais]

So Mike...you onboard with Congress being a co-equal branch of government now? You really should make up your mind. I know it must be strange to a hard-core winger but this is way government is supposed to work...not like the rubber stamp GOP Congress we saw so much of the past 8 years. Welcome to Civics 101.
So still hanging on to

I would be really really surprised to find that they were tried for waterboarding in the manner that we understand it to have been practiced post 9-11.

or have you just done your usual drop-it-when-you-are-proven-wrong schtick?

[Future Man]

Mike...you might have heard of the internet it's a good place to research your dumb ass questions before you ask them. Start there and look outward.

Do you find any bias in that article? in other words, do you consider that to be an objective piece of writing? This is where you would have me begin my research? You guys joke about 'fair and balanced' but there is very little fairness or balance in anything you ever cite.

[Dunnyman]

So Mike...you onboard with Congress being a co-equal branch of government now? You really should make up your mind. I know it must be strange to a hard-core winger but this is way government is supposed to work...not like the rubber stamp GOP Congress we saw so much of the past 8 years. Welcome to Civics 101.
So still hanging on to

I would be really really surprised to find that they were tried for waterboarding in the manner that we understand it to have been practiced post 9-11.

or have you just done your usual drop-it-when-you-are-proven-wrong schtick?

Harold, don't keep quibbling over the facts. They're meaningless in the face of Limbaugh Logic or O'Reilly Retardation. (Remember Billy's "I will never again support the Bush government if it is proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq?" or Rush's classic "Even if both polar icecaps completely melted it wouldn't raise sea levels at all.") If someone can buy into that level of.....heaping bull*hit, they're not gonna be swayed by facts.

[HGervais]

Do you find any bias in that article? in other words, do you consider that to be an objective piece of writing? This is where you would have me begin my research? You guys joke about 'fair and balanced' but there is very little fairness or balance in anything you ever cite.

Oh please grow up Mike. Waterboarding is torture. It's got a long history of being used. It's been proven to be torture. The method of waterboarding we used was exactly the same as the one used by the Khmer Rouge. How much more do you f--- need? Yeah..Mike...try selling that to the crowd...I'm the biased one who doesn't look beyond partisan web sites. It's why I don't read and post links to the National Review. It's why I don't read guys like Ross Douhat or Michelle Malkin. Maybe I just resent you asking dumb f--- questions when, if you had even the slightest interest in the subject, you could spend about 2 minutes and find things out for yourself but that is not the game you wingers play. People you disagree with have to be the ones to prove what is obvious to anyone else with a set of eyes and a brain capable of thinking for itself. Maybe after several years of trying to understand where you are coming from and trying to see your way of thinking I'm offcially tired of your bullshit and I'm going to give your "opinions" the respect they deserve. I am so glad your party was utterly destroyed and hopefully that destruction continues. Maybe, just maybe somebody in the GOP will wake up and make them a real party again with some worth beyond giving good outrage because the country is stronger & healthier when it has two vibrant political parties. Democracy does not work as well when one party is a total freaking joke. I hope those people who sent this country down such a dark, immoral and illegal road get what is coming to them. I hate the Bush Administration for muddling the waters so that such a basic concept as torture is wrong & anti-American is even doubted. People like you who are so willing to swallow their lies should be ashamed of yourselves and I'm just sick & tired of reading your typical hysterical bs. So goodluck with that.

[TemporalWisdom]

From your description the Texas case sounds like it was a criminal defendant and the intent was to extract a confession (i.e., evidence to be used against him at trial), as opposed to wartime measures against illegal combatants designed to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians so those plots could be thwarted.

Since nobody else jumped on this....

Stop. Just stop. These "wartime measures" do nothing at all to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians. When it actually elicits genuine information, that information can't be trusted.

WHY, oh WHY do you keep pretending that torture works? You keep talking as though it's a viable method of gathering reliable intelligence? I've said this before -- picture a nuclear bomb in the basement of a building dead center of your hometown. Everyone you love will die if you don't disarm it. The terrorist you tortured said to cut the red wire. Do you believe him?

Chances are good that you're going to ignore this in the spirit of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

[Future Man]

From your description the Texas case sounds like it was a criminal defendant and the intent was to extract a confession (i.e., evidence to be used against him at trial), as opposed to wartime measures against illegal combatants designed to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians so those plots could be thwarted.

Since nobody else jumped on this....

Stop. Just stop. These "wartime measures" do nothing at all to extract information concerning plots to murder countless civilians. When it actually elicits genuine information, that information can't be trusted.

WHY, oh WHY do you keep pretending that torture works? You keep talking as though it's a viable method of gathering reliable intelligence? I've said this before -- picture a nuclear bomb in the basement of a building dead center of your hometown. Everyone you love will die if you don't disarm it. The terrorist you tortured said to cut the red wire. Do you believe him?

Chances are good that you're going to ignore this in the spirit of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

So you have come to this conclusion after having all of the facts at your disposal? That's what you are saying? And (since you don't have all of the facts) a scenario where information has been obtained and then verified when, say, a given overseas location was raided based on the information, is not within the realm of the plausible for you?

[TemporalWisdom]

So you have come to this conclusion after having all of the facts at your disposal?

What facts are you referring to? Torture doesn't work. Simply on the face of it...another example I've used in the past. Say a bunch of psychos kidnap and torture you to learn the whereabouts of your wife and children who are in hiding. The pain pushes you beyond your endurance. Do you:

A) Answer them honestly
B) Answer them falsely
C) Say nothing at all

So tell me. Do you choose "A?" I wouldn't. Why do you think a radical Muslim who believes wholeheartedly in his cause, who dreams of earning a place in paradise with lots of nubile virgins, is going to choose "A?"

Then I might say the burden of proof is on you. What evidence do you have that torture produces reliable information?

But if you want actual facts backing up my position...here.

[corkbouy]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

[Future Man]

So you have come to this conclusion after having all of the facts at your disposal?

What facts are you referring to? Torture doesn't work. Simply on the face of it...another example I've used in the past. Say a bunch of psychos kidnap and torture you to learn the whereabouts of your wife and children who are in hiding. The pain pushes you beyond your endurance. Do you:

A) Answer them honestly
B) Answer them falsely
C) Say nothing at all

So tell me. Do you choose "A?" I wouldn't. Why do you think a radical Muslim who believes wholeheartedly in his cause, who dreams of earning a place in paradise with lots of nubile virgins, is going to choose "A?"

Then I might say the burden of proof is on you. What evidence do you have that torture produces reliable information?

But if you want actual facts backing up my position...here.

I'm not going to read the 372 page whatever it is. Why would they use these methods if they didn't produce demonstrably useable information along the lines of what I hypothesized? I'll make it as simple as I can. Terrorist says there is a terrorist hideout at location A. Good guys (that's us) go to locaton A and discover hideout. The information has thus been verified. But we're talking past each other. Let's you and I stop.

[Future Man]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

That's not a hard one for me and I'm puzzled at why this is supposed to be some sort of showstopper. I'm not ok with the terrotrists doing anything to our troops. If they kill one of our troops, they have committed an act of murder. If our troops kill one of them, we have advanced the cause of liberty. That's because they are the bad guys. Their aims are nefarious. Our aims are just. Pretty simple.

[TemporalWisdom]

I'm not going to read the 372 page whatever it is.

Insulating yourself from information that contradicts your viewpoint much?

Why would they use these methods if they didn't produce demonstrably useable information along the lines of what I hypothesized?

Because human beings don't always behave logically. No link at all has been found between autism and vaccinations, but some morons are leaving their kids vulnerable to potentially fatal diseases because they've got it in their heads that there is such a link. Similarly, people get it in their heads by watching movies that torture is a reliable and thrilling means of getting information. You may find this hard to swallow, but people often cling stubbornly to closely held beliefs no matter the evidence to the contrary.

Torture has had a great deal of success in certain areas, historically. It's the tool of choice when a totalitarian regime wants to convict someone (say, a political enemy) of a crime, but that person hasn't actually committed one. "I confess! I looked at a woman whose face was uncovered!"

I'll make it as simple as I can. Terrorist says there is a terrorist hideout at location A. Good guys (that's us) go to locaton A and discover hideout. The information has thus been verified.

I actually did learn about one such case. Not great for the ticking time bomb scenario, though -- it took over a month of torture. I've also read about cases where interrogators got crucial information by -- are you ready? -- asking. Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrome? It works both ways, and skilled interrogators use it to great effect. Plus, I sort of trust the terrorist we've been treating nicely more than the one we've been torturing.

[Ptolemy]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

That's not a hard one for me and I'm puzzled at why this is supposed to be some sort of showstopper. I'm not ok with the terrotrists doing anything to our troops. If they kill one of our troops, they have committed an act of murder. If our troops kill one of them, we have advanced the cause of liberty. That's because they are the bad guys. Their aims are nefarious. Our aims are just. Pretty simple.

Do you understand that the reason they are the 'bad guys' is that they follow the same logic you are here? And the reason we're the 'good guys' is we don't?

[cdouglas]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

That's not a hard one for me and I'm puzzled at why this is supposed to be some sort of showstopper. I'm not ok with the terrotrists doing anything to our troops. If they kill one of our troops, they have committed an act of murder. If our troops kill one of them, we have advanced the cause of liberty. That's because they are the bad guys. Their aims are nefarious. Our aims are just. Pretty simple.

That is a very silly post.

[Future Man]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

That's not a hard one for me and I'm puzzled at why this is supposed to be some sort of showstopper. I'm not ok with the terrotrists doing anything to our troops. If they kill one of our troops, they have committed an act of murder. If our troops kill one of them, we have advanced the cause of liberty. That's because they are the bad guys. Their aims are nefarious. Our aims are just. Pretty simple.

Do you understand that the reason they are the 'bad guys' is that they follow the same logic you are here? And the reason we're the 'good guys' is we don't?

I'll break it down. The aims of the Japanese (like that of Germany) during WWII were nefarious. Their belligerence was a demonstrable danger to our morally superior society and that of the civilized world. We threw everything we had at them to put an end to the danger. Eventually this included the lamentable action of incinerating two cities with atomic weapons. This did not mean we were no longer morally superior; it meant we would do whatever it took (after exhausting other efforts) to put down the demonstrable threat to our morally superior society and that of the civilized world.

[cdouglas]

If we are to regard ourselves as "morally superior" to another country or group, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct? Does doing "whatever it takes" to protect our moral values include dispensing with our moral values on the battlefield or in the interrogation room? Arguing that we have the right to treat terrorists however we want to treat them because we are morally superior is not that different from the terrorists arguing that they can treat us however they want to treat us because we are immoral infidels. It's a relative argument. Our morality only runs as deep as our behavior.

[Steve T Power]

I wonder why no one has bothered to ask those who are in favour of waterboarding and don't count it as torture whether they'd be ok with it being used on captured US troops?

If no, then its torture. If yes, well...that's a horse of a different colour.

That's not a hard one for me and I'm puzzled at why this is supposed to be some sort of showstopper. I'm not ok with the terrotrists doing anything to our troops. If they kill one of our troops, they have committed an act of murder. If our troops kill one of them, we have advanced the cause of liberty. That's because they are the bad guys. Their aims are nefarious. Our aims are just. Pretty simple.

Do you understand that the reason they are the 'bad guys' is that they follow the same logic you are here? And the reason we're the 'good guys' is we don't?

I'll break it down. The aims of the Japanese (like that of Germany) during WWII were nefarious. Their belligerence was a demonstrable danger to our morally superior society and that of the civilized world. We threw everything we had at them to put an end to the danger. Eventually this included the lamentable action of incinerating two cities with atomic weapons. This did not mean we were no longer morally superior; it meant we would do whatever it took (after exhausting other efforts) to put down the demonstrable threat to our morally superior society and that of the civilized world.

Uhhh... wow... just wow.

You still believe that Germany and Japan wanted to "conquer ZEE VORLD!!!!"?
\

[Future Man]

Wow, but yes Steve. And the Russkies too!

[Future Man]

If we are to regard ourselves as "morally superior" to another country or group, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct? Does doing "whatever it takes" to protect our moral values include dispensing with our moral values on the battlefield or in the interrogation room? Arguing that we have the right to treat terrorists however we want to treat them because we are morally superior is not that different from the terrorists arguing that they can treat us however they want to treat us because we are immoral infidels. It's a relative argument. Our morality only runs as deep as our behavior.

I ask you, should Truman have been labeled a war criminal?

[Ptolemy]

Jesus wept.

One last thought - then I'm on to other subjects - what makes us morally superior and 'them' nefarious? Change one or two words and I can imagine what you're saying coming from the mouth of a nazi or a islamic fanatic. If we truly were superior, shouldn't it be easier to tell the difference between us? If we act like them, how do we tell the difference between 'them' and 'us'.

Ya'll are so fond of 'slippery slope' arguments and don't be mistaken, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that doctor supervised torture-lite is okay, but I'm afraid it will lead to 'real' torture like the Nazi's and Japanese used or the terrorists use. I'm saying: Torture is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it - or why. It is wrong. It is against everything we stand for. You're a christian... who would Jesus torture? Who would he have you torture in his name? We are superior because we have ideals and we cling to them - they are precious and by clinging to them, holding ourselves to the higher standard and defending them gives our civilization the moral superiority that makes it worth fighting for. Take that away and we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves.

Thousands and thousands of patriots have died defending the United States and what it stands for. Spitting on their sacrifices by turning to expediency and behaving no differently than the enemy is exactly the wrong thing to do.

[cdouglas]

If we are to regard ourselves as "morally superior" to another country or group, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct? Does doing "whatever it takes" to protect our moral values include dispensing with our moral values on the battlefield or in the interrogation room? Arguing that we have the right to treat terrorists however we want to treat them because we are morally superior is not that different from the terrorists arguing that they can treat us however they want to treat us because we are immoral infidels. It's a relative argument. Our morality only runs as deep as our behavior.

I ask you, should Truman have been labeled a war criminal?

I don't know whether he should have been labeled a war criminal, but I do believe that nuclear weapons are capable of destructiveness that humanity is not yet responsible or intelligent enough to deal with appropriately. I do not believe that they should be employed under any circumstances; including WWII.

Also, right on, Ptolemy.

[Dunnyman]

I'm not going to read the 372 page whatever it is. Why would they use these methods if they didn't produce demonstrably useable information along the lines of what I hypothesized? I'll make it as simple as I can. Terrorist says there is a terrorist hideout at location A. Good guys (that's us) go to locaton A and discover hideout. The information has thus been verified. But we're talking past each other. Let's you and I stop.

Of course you won't, because it will disagree with your "facts", which cannot be verified. Why would they use these methods? They're thugs, punks and the lowest level of human scum? What more do you need? So this produces useful information? Show me an example where information was provided solely by torture and there was no other cross intelligence to indicate a threat and then show me the nullification of said threat with the surrendered troops who admitted to their acts and conspiracy. One guy saying there's a hideout in the mountains where we knew they already were is not proof of torture working. Every damned civilized country in the world says torture does NOT work, yet Cheney says it does, and you will continue to believe him no matter what is said or shown to you to prove otherwise.

Tell you what Future, we'll play your game, it's 12 years from now, and the quagmire in the middle east is no better. Your kid is a soldier over there and gets captured. If torture is so goddamned reliable at getting info, you shouldn't object to them using it to get info out of your child, should you? They'll be able to get everything they need to know, and it will be 100% perfect and it will provide them with all the security they need, right?

Can't stomach that, can you? Why don't we just call a spade a spade, Future, it's okay for us to torture persons of other ethnicities and faiths in your book because exactly why?

[Future Man]

Jesus wept.

One last thought - then I'm on to other subjects - what makes us morally superior and 'them' nefarious? Change one or two words and I can imagine what you're saying coming from the mouth of a nazi or a islamic fanatic. If we truly were superior, shouldn't it be easier to tell the difference between us? If we act like them, how do we tell the difference between 'them' and 'us'.

Ya'll are so fond of 'slippery slope' arguments and don't be mistaken, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that doctor supervised torture-lite is okay, but I'm afraid it will lead to 'real' torture like the Nazi's and Japanese used or the terrorists use. I'm saying: Torture is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it - or why. It is wrong. It is against everything we stand for. You're a christian... who would Jesus torture? Who would he have you torture in his name? We are superior because we have ideals and we cling to them - they are precious and by clinging to them, holding ourselves to the higher standard and defending them gives our civilization the moral superiority that makes it worth fighting for. Take that away and we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves.

Thousands and thousands of patriots have died defending the United States and what it stands for. Spitting on their sacrifices by turning to expediency and behaving no differently than the enemy is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I continue to disagree with your characterization that waterboarding as was apparently employed is torture and I have little doubt that there are a host of lesser interrogation methods that you would similarly lump under that heading. Be that as it may, I am no pacifist and find this to be entirely compatible with my Christian beliefs. Not being a pacifist (few Christians are, to my knowledge) I will acknowledge that there are host of wartime actions that one could not imagine Christ Himself engaging in. For that matter I couldn't imagine Him handcuffing a criminal suspect--does that mean police work is incompatible with Christianity? The whole argument just does not hold water for me, although I could understand that a Christian who is also a pacifist would find it compelling.

[corkbouy]

Because Jesse Ventura can put it better than I could...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

[TemporalWisdom]

Not being a pacifist (few Christians are, to my knowledge) I will acknowledge that there are host of wartime actions that one could not imagine Christ Himself engaging in. For that matter I couldn't imagine Him handcuffing a criminal suspect--does that mean police work is incompatible with Christianity?

Pure sophistry. The only reason you can't imagine him handcuffing a criminal suspect is that there were no handcuffs in his day, and he spent most of his time teaching instead of patrolling a beat. Don't you remember Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip? He wasn't all peace and light -- by accounts he was cruel and sarcastic to his friends and enemies alike and he knew how to kick some ass on occasion. It's not hard imagine the Biblical Jesus in modern times handcuffing a criminal and muscling him into a squad car with a growl of "Not in my town, punk." But nothing I ever read hints at him torturing someone. Did he ever do or say anything that suggested he would be cool with his followers doing it?

[Future Man]

Because Jesse Ventura can put it better than I could...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSra-McRZEc

Hard to take someone seriously when you know he thinks 9-11 was a government conspiracy.

[HGervais]

Jesus wept.

One last thought - then I'm on to other subjects - what makes us morally superior and 'them' nefarious? Change one or two words and I can imagine what you're saying coming from the mouth of a nazi or a islamic fanatic. If we truly were superior, shouldn't it be easier to tell the difference between us? If we act like them, how do we tell the difference between 'them' and 'us'.

Ya'll are so fond of 'slippery slope' arguments and don't be mistaken, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that doctor supervised torture-lite is okay, but I'm afraid it will lead to 'real' torture like the Nazi's and Japanese used or the terrorists use. I'm saying: Torture is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it - or why. It is wrong. It is against everything we stand for. You're a christian... who would Jesus torture? Who would he have you torture in his name? We are superior because we have ideals and we cling to them - they are precious and by clinging to them, holding ourselves to the higher standard and defending them gives our civilization the moral superiority that makes it worth fighting for. Take that away and we're just a bunch of terrorists ourselves.

Thousands and thousands of patriots have died defending the United States and what it stands for. Spitting on their sacrifices by turning to expediency and behaving no differently than the enemy is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Thank you. It's nice to know some people around here actually understand why the words torture and America should never be linked in the same sentence. It's nice to know some people understand the ideals & morals this country was built on and remained true to until a few people overreacted and decided to undermine the basic fiber of America because they were too afraid, too angry and too full of arrogance. It's nice to know some people around here actually know what it means when we talk about Christian values because you know, no one has ever described torture to me as a Christian value. How a person makes the jump from pacifism to torture without blinking is well, well I don't know what they are. It's nice to know some people have common sense and a understanding of the facts. It's nice to know some people around here understand what words mean. It's nice to know some people around here are sane. Again, thank you.

[HGervais]

From an American who has been tortured...John McCain on Dick Cheney's speech today.

[J.M. Vargas]

RNC re-edits legendary "Daisy" TV ad from '68 to argue Guantanamo Bay shouldn't be closed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7qkEholuT8. Jackasses!

[HGervais]

Chicago shockjock Mancow undergoes waterboarding on the air today. It went 3/4 of a gallon of water and about 6 seconds. "Absolutely torture."
In other news, Olbermann promised to donate $10,000 to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller today, and withdrew his offer to Sean Hannity to make a donation to the charity of his choice if he followed through on his offer to undergo waterboarding.