I guess thats how you take it alright. If it were illegal, I wouldn’t do it.

Dugger

I take it one of those contraints wouldn’t be the Bill of Rights?

In a nutshell, this is the concept Ward Churchill spoke of when he wrote his 2001 essay on the attacks on the twin towers. His most notorius statement, that the technocrats in the towers were “little Eichmanns” has been consistently distorted by wingnuts to mean that he advocates the killing of U.S. civilians. The “Eichmann” comparison was, it seems, meant to mean that it should be expected that those who help keep the military industrial complex running, even if they aren’t traditional army, will be tempting targets for attacks by extremists. He never advocated the killing of children or any other innocents for that matter. Churchill’s writing can often be very provocative and incendiary, and I disagree with a number of his positions. It’s often hard to tell whether he is being literal or simply trying to force the reader to consider an opposing viewpoint, knock them out of their comfort zone, so to speak.

Ultimately, I can’t help but notice that you refuted nothing I wrote, just complained that it was too long to be read between blinks and that the heavy reliance on facts and reality made it very “leftist.” My mistake.

For a fun look at how the righteous U.S. government deals with massive civilian casualties abroad, look up the term “collateral damage.”

No to torturing of criminals. No to torturing POWs. No to torturing small potato terrorists. Yes to torturing known big-guy terrorists who very, very likely have knowledge that may save lots of innocent lives. Say we we had captured T McVeigh after the attack and we had good intel, good intel mind you but not enough, that a sister cell was planning a similar horrific attack, very soon - maybe with nukes though - then within certain constraints, I would “torture” ol’ Tim (unless we can get the info by non torture means - in which case I take everything back) or ol’ Osama or the jackal.

neo,

Who’s throwing away democratic principles. If it were illegal or I were ordered not to - I wouldn’t. And no, it wouldn’t be OK (in my book) to torture Rummy or even Saddam. Saddam was a a head of state and Rummy is a member of our armed forces. Though Saddam could be and probably is guilty of crimes against humanity. There is a distinction here.

Bill,

You wrote too much and what you wrote is too full of leftist cant to respond. And of course I have never said only use torture - I gave very limiting specific pre-conditions.
This:

“Maybe someday we ll understand that after centuries (yes, centuries) of near constant occupation, manipulation, and deprevation the U.S. and Europe should have seen some  blowback coming”

seems to be dangerously close to Ward Churchill yahoo-land. Maybe you didn’t mean it the way it comes off.

Dugger

How often do you think people give accurate information when subjected to torture. Ever think that people may be inclined to say what they know interrogators want to hear just to get a moment’s respite from the abuse? Think any time is wasted chasing down spurious intel? Can you point to any successful operations that have prevented anything close to a 9-11 thanks to the use of torture? Any? I can’t say I feel too badly about doling out the rough stuff to “known terrorists,” but that’s the trick, isn’t it, getting the actual terrorists and not some scared slob who happens to worship the wrong God and forgot to be white at birth. That’s why solid investigative work by the CIA, FBI, and the police are more effective tools to fight terror than torture and occupation. Maybe reducing our dependence on oil and ending support for autocratic regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia who would help too. While we’re at it, maybe we could stop turing a bling eye to Pakistan’s illegal trade in nuclear technology to countries like Iran and Libya. Whle we’re at it, we should pour money into building a time machine and prevent our glorious leaders from undermining democratic elections in Iran and financing Bin Laden and other extremists just to hurt the Soviets. Maybe someday we’ll understand that after centuries (yes, centuries) of near constant occupation, manipulation, and deprevation the U.S. and Europe should have seen some “blowback” coming. Somehow people can look at the situation and say, “A few Crusades, a handful of forced occupations, a few thousand radical fundamentalists bankrolled and armed, and now a few brutal liberties at the expense of the Geneva Conventions and basic decency…Clearly they hate us for our freedom! Who wants to flush a Koran or two!?!?!?”

Let’s have some fun with arbitrary numbers! It’s been established that Bush’s tactics in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and elsewhere are swelling terrorist ranks. That could result in a dozen new 9-11’s. Congradulations on the magical ability to prevent 5. The “15,000″ you heroically saved will provide enormous comfort to the 21,000 you got killed. See, I can make up numbers too. Let’s take the assertion that Gitmo detainees released go on to be terrorists in Iraq. First, where’s the proof? I know Rumsfeld made the claim, but it’s not like he never plays fast and loose with the facts. Let’s assume for the moment he is being honest, however. He claimed 12 of the over 200 freed detainees were caught in Iraq. That’s a whopping 12 terrorists, or about 6%, out of 200. Now that’s efficient! Let’s keep taking Rumsfeld at his word. When the war started, he estimated the insurgency to be only about 5,000 strong. Now there are over 25,000! That’s 500% growth! That means the “Gitmo Dozen(tm)” account for about .00048% of the terrorism in Iraq. We need to stem the tide before things get really out of hand and that number climbs to .0005%! I have to give the troops credit, though. To be able to pick out that .0048% of the insurgency in what amounts to near random engagements is staggeringly accurate. Of course, that means we could release everyone from Gitmo and feel safe and secure in the knowledge that our troops have the superhuman ability to target anyone whose done time in a U.S. holding cell.

Do I need to point out that terrorist incidents worldwide have escalated every year Bush has been in office? Incidents are up from just over 100 in 2001 to over 655 in 2004. Wanna get into how the Bush administration’s outing of a British double agent may very well have played a role in the recent London bombings? If only they had your skills, Dugger. If only.

Now that we know that you condone torture would you torture an American citizen to get information about a potential crime?

Turn it around, would it be ok in your book for an Iraqi to torture, let’s say Donald Rumsfeld, knowing that he has information about military operations that could save thousands of innocent Iraqi lives?

Are Iraqi lives worth less than American lives to you?

Well I may sound flip but it would never be an easy decison to do as I blithely say. And I say known terorists because thats what I mean. “Known terrorists”. Not suspect, not likely, known. Hence my example. Yes, I would play dirty with known terrorists.

And if you are saying I can’t be 100% absolutely sure all the time, you are right. So, as President, my consciences confronts: “You prevented five more 9/11s and saved 15,000 innocent American lives, but you mistakenly tortured one out of six non terrorists in the process. You OK with that?”

The answer would be yes. Now of course the real world would never be so clean cut, but thats the principle I’m talking about. Using my admittedly self-serving example, you would allow the deaths of 15,000 so as not to torture one semi-innocent and five guilty men.

BTW, You lump Gitmo and Abu together. Different critters.

And actually some of the released persons from Gitmo have been found dead in Iraq operations.

Dugger, A Really Bad, Bad Man

This is happening EVERY DAY in our camps. If these people are “known terrorists” as you call them, then either one of two things are true:

1. The Pentagon is releasing “known terrorists” onto the street OR
2. The Pentagon is releasing innocent civilians once suspected of crimes.

Something tells me that just maybe someone innocent was tortured.

This reminds me of the argument some make that says that “I am for the death penalty if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is a murderer.

Problem is, Death Row inmates are released frequently as new info comes to light. We’ve executed a few who were eventually exonerated posthumously.

So therein lies the problem with your theory, to torture anybody is to take a serious risk that you are torturing an innocent- America’s pre-Bush policy is not to take that risk. Because, remember, the next innocent to be tortured could be you.

Nope. Read my posts. Known terrorists. Not uniformed soldiers. Not civilians or contractors - terrosists -illegal combatants. Geneva recognizes the distinction - so do I. I then may assume that say you have terrorist Boris Badenough in front of you. His group has murdered many innocent women and children and, heck, men too. We know he has bought tons of new explosives and has active cells in this country. He has pledged to to make war on and kill all unbelievers of Badenoughism. So I would torture his butt to save lives, with certain limitations as I said. You would not. Thats OK. I might be wrong, might not, but if my job is to protect this country and prevent the slaughter of innocents, I would do it.

As regards the enemy using this as justification for murder. Was that why 9/11 happened? Danny Pearl? Mr Klinghoffer?

Dugger the Terrible

To many Iraqis, we are terrorists. We’ve killed more of them than they’ve killed of us, by many multiples. And if they capture one of ours, they will simply look at our standards and do whatever it takes to “save the lives of my countrymen”.

This country decided to not torture as a policy because it is a moral nation, and also because it protects our soldiers. The next time a contractor or serviceman gets bbqued at the hands of “insurgents”, save your faux outrage.

You made no point except that detainees at Gitmo were treated roughly. Yes. I agree. Would do it myself. Except they might not gain weight under the cruel regime of El Commandante Dugger. And lets see, Hanoi Jane, the North Vietnamese communists favorite millionaire actress, is universally recognized for her outrageous, traitorous conduct opposing the US in the Vietnam war and now she’s is opposing the US in another war and you think there should be no discussion of her track record, no reflection on her credibility.

And within certain bounds, h*ll yeah. I would torture known terrorists to gain vital information that would save the lives of my countrymen. And before you get all morally outraged, keep in mind the corporate left’s hands here are much dirtier, overall, than the corporate right’s.

Dugger

Wow. Just wow. This is what happens when all you listen to and watch are hard right wing news sources. Patti Hearst wasn’t so brainwashed as this person.

Warner Wolf, one of the hosts, said that ANY means of torture is acceptable for terrorists. He justifies this by saying that that info obtained by torture could save thousands or millions of lives. He said it’s also ok to torture or kill family members of “terror suspects” if it has potential to get info.

What gets me about the wingnuts is what you said, that they are willing to sell out the country to save their hides. On the theoretical premise that info obtained from torture would save lives, I am more than willing to die to protect the ideals of America.

When you advocate torture, detention without a trial, and other abuse you are making the US no more free than who we are fighting.

Our country was founded on being better than the enemy, to respect a basic level of human rights, regardless how despicable the human. Our founders believed that if one persons human rights are disrespected, everybody’s rights are disrespected.

And the right would give that all away because they fear brown people.

Jane Fonda caused thousands of deaths? You really think the Vietcong were waiting for the okay from Jane Fonda to start offing enemy soldiers? You think Jane Fonda undermined the Paris Peace Accords and illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos, effectively doubling the length of the war? For all you Vietnam “experts,” the war effectively began covertly in the 1950’s when the CIA sabotaged legitimate elections out of fear that the new government would be communist and aligned with Russia. So once again we have the U.S. undermining democratic elections to save democracy, just as we did in Chile, Iran, Venezuela, Haiti, and so on.

Fun Vietnam facts:

* Approximately 20 million gallons of chemical toxins were used. If you want to see the continuing after effects of this spraying, just Google “birth defects +Vietnam +agent orange.” My advice, don’t eat first.

* 35 million landmines left over from the war along with 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance. An estimated 40,000 people have been killed since 1975 by these “leftovers.” Put another way, that means that
every day 4 or 5 Vietnamese are killed by a war that ended 30 years ago. Soon, more Vietnamese will have died after the war than U.S. soldiers died during it.

*As many as 5 million people from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were killed.

*About 59,000 americans were killed with some 2,000
missing. That means that 85 Vietnamese died for every 1 american soldier. Fortunately they were all enemies whose every waking moment was consumed by the desire to kill us.

I am simply stunned that no one has pointed out to me before that this is all the sinister work of 1 actress.

A career in the military is a responsibility to defend the country and uphold the Constitution, not to mindlessly shoot anyone you are told to. It’s not simply “a job.”

Hedley, produce the convincing evidence that the detainees in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are all terrorists and “want to kill us.” Feel free to put aside Red Cross estimates that more than 90% are innocent. I think everyone knows that the Red Cross is clearly a commie outfit and can’t be trusted. “Better dead then Red (Cross)” I always say.

Yeah, the torture was the work of a small group of rotten apples. That’s why the Pentagon won’t release all the new photos and videos of prisoner abuse. That certainly explains Gonzales’ description of the Geneva Conventions as “quaint” and that Bush could effectively avoid them by arguing that since the detainees didn’t wear the uniform of a recognized foreign army, they could be effectively tortured without any legal ramifications. Hey, at least we aren’t abusing extraordinary rendition to send people to Syria or Uzbekistan where they seal you in a box no bigger than a coffin or boil prisoners alive… when they aren’t slaughtering hundreds of peacful protestors, of course. Good thing we would never stoop to that.

As for the rap music, if no one thought it was effective, why would they use it? So much for all that research on the effects of sensory over stimulation and its effects on the mind. What are you saying, that the interrogators are too stupid to effectively torture their prisoners. Oh Hedley, why do you hate our troops?

The ultimate irony in all this is that before the election, wingnuts were arguing that Bush’s record in the guard didn’t matter because Vietnam ended 30 years ago. Then they went on to argue that he served honorably by doing a fraction of his enlisted time in the champagne unit of the National Guard. Finally, they capped the whole thing off by arguing that Kerry may have, you know, seen actual combat, but he didn’t really do anything and he really shot himself. So Vietnam isn’t important…except when it is.

As for Fonda, frankly I just don’t get what she thinks she is going to accomplish by leveraging her virtually intangible celebrity to campaign against an administration that seems to be doing a bang up job of shooting itself in the foot lately. You know all the media attention will only focus on the “Hanoi Jane” history(as it is here). No attention at all will go to the cause. As for the vegetable oil powered bus, I get the idea that it is symbolic of the need to ween the country off oil, but it screams “hippie” to so many that I doubt it will have any effect other than to fuel (that’s pun-tastic) yet more of the “look, it’s more of the same old hippie Hanoi Jane” crap.

Clearly gfchicago needs to come up out of the bunker. WMD in Iraq?

Who cares! These people are out to kill us pure and simple. If this is the worst that we are doing? They have been treated to well. They are the enemy.

Guaranteed that if they were caught in their own countries they would have been tortured more severly and or else where they would be killed. Make no mistake we have world war III on our hands.

And yes there has been WMD found in Iraq just look at any of the reports coming out of Iraq. Not only that there is a connection between Al Queqda and Iraq based on the 911 reports.

Are you Crazy?

What she did caused thousand of deaths of not only the people of Vietnam as well as American Soliders and blamed it on Richard Nixon. But lets look at this logically, it was JFK and LBJ that got us in to this whole mess and because of political pressure we cut and ran. Thousands of people died because of that.

So I stand by my initial impression that she is a traitor to our country and she is going to insult another generation of Veterans!