American & Candadian Shame
Tweet
One of the least intelligent arguments offered by Bush in favor of the new rules on torture has been that it’s okay to do these things to terrorists. That’s just not how America works. The threat from Al Qaeda certainly does not surpass that of the Nazis, yet we held trials for them because we’re better than that.
And the idea that everyone in custody is guilty is not true.
Canadian police wrongly identified an Ottawa software engineer as an Islamic extremist, prompting U.S. agents to deport him to Syria, where he says he was tortured, an official inquiry concluded on Monday.
Maher Arar, who holds Canadian and Syrian nationality, was arrested in New York in September 2002 and accused of being an al-Qaeda member. Arar, 36, says he was repeatedly tortured in the year he spent in Damascus jails. He was freed in 2003.
Judge Dennis O’Connor, asked in 2004 to examine what had happened, said the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrongly told U.S. authorities that Arar was an Islamic extremist.
“The provision of this inaccurate information … (was) totally unacceptable” and guaranteed the United States would treat Arar as a serious threat, O’Connor said.
“I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.”
117 Responses to “American & Candadian Shame”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“it’s okay to do these things to terrorists”
Do you mean terrorists or suspected terrorists? You see, the talking points Dems like saying they are against torture of “suspected terrorists” .. but to be against torture of terrorists [who want to kill us] is another. Weird.
“The threat from Al Qaeda certainly does not surpass that of the Nazis, yet we held trials for them because we’re better than that.”
The two aren’t even comparable. Al Qaeda are the Nazis of today. At least we could distinguish who was a Nazi and who wasn’t. With al-Q, since they don’t wear uniforms, we don’t know who is a terrorist and who isn’t …
God, open up a history book before you sound so stupid. It’s amazing what you don’t know. Start here, for an overview.
Al Qaeda wants to blow crap up. The Nazis took over the world and murdered millions.
God (you know, that being you don’t believe in), look at pictures before you sound so stupid. It’s amazing what you don’t know. Start here, for an overview.
Al Qaeda wants to dominate the world, just like the Nazis.
LOL, random pictures from your kook pal Michelle Malkin – yes, clearly you have seen the light. Idiot. Get your history from someone who isn’t on crack.
“Al Qaeda are the Nazis of today.”
He says this like he believes it, but he still won’t join the fight. He claims to be a Jew, but refuses to fight people he calls “Nazis”.
It’s good our grandparents didn’t feel this way, or else we would be speaking German now.
Hee hee… yep, it’s the demagogue for the new millenium… now with photo features and a scarier color!
August, I love your cartoons. They’re funny because they’re true.
Along with the illegal immigrants, “Islamofascism” and the “Hollywood Liberals” you have that perennial right-wing whipping boy, “teh gayz”
Well, its nice to know that the threat of Islamic terrorism is so overrrated. Please please please insist your candidates take this oh so chic and ‘enlightened’ message to the American people. I bet they buy it right off and elect a lot of progressives to office. Progressives, who will understand that the problem is not terrorism at all, but just the steps we have taken to protect ourselves – a position the selfless martys in Hollywood will tell you is absolutely right. Those people jumped out of the burning towers to a quick death because of – what? – help me if it wasn’t Islamofascism.
By the way. Why Nazis in the cartoon? Left wing extremists murdered many more?
Wow, Dugger, you did a great job burning those strawman in your post. Kudos.
Liberals are more interested in actually getting the terrorists than running around with our heads on fire screaming “OMG TEH ARE TEH NEW NAZISSSSSSS”
Well, its nice to know that the threat of Islamic terrorism is so overrrated.
Whoa up, there.
Aren’t you the same fellow who keeps telling us that Nazi comparisons are invalid unless the party in question has conquered countries, set up concentration camps, and murdered 6 million and no less?
Vote Dem in 2006 or you’re on Crack! What a persuasive message.
It’s a more intellectually honest statement than “Vote Republican or the Islamofascists gays will abort your baby”.
Al Qeada and the Islamofishes are not the Nazis of our time. Not even close. The don’t have the resources, they don’t represent the same threat, they don’t have the same goals.
For fucksake you have to be an idiot to believe this kind of crap.
Would one of you dipshit morons please, for the love of god, give us the believable doomsday scenario in which Osama Bin Laden ends up in the White House and we’re all forced to convert to Islam or be executed?
Oh and let’s not here about how Osama Bin Laden and a bunch of Communist Cubans are going to parachute into the heartland from commercial flights, effectively splitting the countyry in half until a small group of high school football players and their girlfriends begin waging guerilla war from their mountain hideout.
It’s been done before.
Al Qeada and the Islamofishes
Do they have a new album out?
Worst case scenario with Nazis: Nazis take over Europe. World succumbs to totalitarianism.
Worst case scenario with Soviets: 1) Soviets take over Europe. World succumbs to totalitarianism.
2) Nuclear exchange. Humanity is wiped out.
Worst case scenario with “Islamo-fascists”: Al Qaeda gets a nuke, blows up Manhattan.
Is it any wonder that the GOP is being laughed at as the Party of Chicken Little? If we didn’t have to throw away our Western Enlightenment values for the Soviets and the Nazis, then I’ll be damned if I let you do it over some pissant terrorists. Pull yourselves together, and stand up like an American against medieval torturers in every uniform.
“Pull yourselves together …”
Exactly.
But in the meantime, where’s your scenario guys? For as piss your pants panicked as you guys sound you should have it at the ready. So again, let’s hear it. How does a small number of radical islamic terrorists take over the world?
While Islamic terrorists don’t have the capabilities like the Nazis to attempt to take over the world (though it is their fanatical goal), the biggest difference between the two is that with the Nazis we could see the looming threat. There’s no way a country could mobilize and be able to attack the United States without us knowing and being able to prepare.
However, with regard to terrorists, we don’t know exactly when and where they will strike.
If your son or daughter were kidnapped and you got a hold of one of the people involved, are you people seriously going to say that you wouldn’t do everything you could to get them to tell you where your kid was? I wouldn’t hesitate. I’d pull his frigging fingernails out with a pair of pliers to find out where one of my kids were.
Take Dr. Porky’s scenario. If we had in custody 4-5 people who could possibly know where that nuke is and where they were going to detonate it, and torture was a way to get them to reveal where it was, I would have no problem doing it.
I wouldn’t allow a nuke to be set off in NYC just so I could hold a fucking trial after hundreds of thouands die.
In addition, we didn’t have to torture Nazis during WWII. Why? We simply firebombed their cities. Kassel. Pforzheim. Wurzburg. Darmstadt. Heilbronn. 54,000 dead, most of which were civilians. We also firebombed cities in Japan and we nuked two cities there.
We blasted the crap out of our enemies getting them to submit. In those days there were no smart bombs. No satellite technology. We firebombed at will without regard to who was there.
So please, spare us the “we’re better than that” BULLSHIT. We do what it takes to win Oliver.
If there’s a nuke in a city, and torture’s the only way to stop it, then no doubt that agent would get a pardon. It’s no reason to roll back the enlightenment, Jay. As far as a “son or daughter” scenario goes, I’m sure you would do whatever it takes to get them back. That, however, has no bearing on what our government’s policy should be toward terrorists.
Terrorists are a serious threat to our nation, but they are not an existential one. They don’t merit reversing our core civilized values. Don’t let conservative bedwetters claim otherwise.
Let’s not forget that Jay’s 24-esque scenario is only one of many, and among the least likely kind. What we’ve actually seen under Bush are Canadian civilians being picked up and flown to Syria to be elecrocuted. We have a president insisting that he be able to execute men who are denied access to the evidence against them. We have seen legions of men imprisoned for dubious reasons, then subjected to Stalinist tortures straight out of the Gulag Archipelago.
What happened to conservatives that they would let this administration do this to America? What happened to your decency, your sense of shame? Is nothing more important than fear and power to you people?
Also let’s not forget that the fallacious “ticking time bomb” scenario is the least likely to gain results.
The terrorist knows that they just have to hold off until the bomb goes off. Also remember that these people are willing to die for their cause. They aren’t going to yield to torture.
Can’t believe that we are discussing torture in 2006 in America. Of course, cons don’t really care what happens to OUR soldiers in the field. If we torture, they can too, right?
“subjected to Stalinist tortures straight out of the Gulag Archipelago. ”
Better watch out there Dr or Private Dugger will get mad. Torture ok= Comparing it to mass murderers not ok, unless it’s dugger doing the comparison (see other thread)
Not to mention the fact that experts agree that torture, in terms of producing useful intelligence, doesn’t even really work. So why are you so determined to drag our Constitution and our values through the slaughterhouse, Jay?
So the big point progressives wabnt to make is that Islamofascism is not an equal threat to Nazis or commies. Fine. Now what would you do about the threat they do pose. Diffrentiate yourself from Bush with specifics. All fine and dandy to say what they are not and whats being done wrong in the fight aginst them, but what is the real threat they pose as you see it and what would you specifically do?
Heed Obama’s point about
the military and about Democrats tendencies to shy away from action.
I don’t love Andrew Sullivan, but he’s been great about exposing the CIA and Administration’s torture policies.
From his site, here’s the CIA description of its “alternative methods.”
“Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.”
And here’s Solzhenitsyn’s description of Stalin’s methods.
“Then there is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there. This can be arranged so that the accused stands only while being interrogated – because that, too, exhausts and breaks a person down. It can be set up in another way – so that the prisoner sits down during interrogation but is forced to stand up between interrogations. (A watch is set over him, and the guards see to it that he doesn’t lean against the wall, and if he goes to sleep and falls over he is given a kick and straightened up.) Sometimes even one day of standing is enough to deprive a person of all his strength and to force him to testify to anything at all.”
It’s not even a debate, Factcheck. It’s just shameless, sadistic conservatives denying reality, versus horrified Americans who know we can and must do better.
I stand everyday! It’s no big deal to make a terrorist stand!
/wingnut
Also remember that these people are willing to die for their cause. They aren’t going to yield to torture.
Actually, they are more likely to yield to torture than to death threats. Torture is often more psychological than physical. It is the mind that is weakened more than the body. Everybody eventually breaks.
Can’t believe that we are discussing torture in 2006 in America. Of course, cons don’t really care what happens to OUR soldiers in the field. If we torture, they can too, right?
You’re comparing our soldiers, who for the most part, adhere to the rules of engagement to a a bunch of people who could care less who they kill? Those people are not ‘soldiers’ and they’re not sitting over there thinking, “Oh look that Abeeb. They are torturing. Now we can too! Let’s do the Happy Allah Dance!” They’re going to maim, torture and kill no matter what we do.
Not to mention the fact that experts agree that torture, in terms of producing useful intelligence, doesn’t even really work
Experts differ on whether or not it works. They have not all ‘agreed’ as you claim.
It’s just shameless, sadistic conservatives denying reality, versus horrified Americans who know we can and must do better.
Yep. I guess you think the “Pretty please with sugar on top” method is the way we can “do better.”
“Actually, they are more likely to yield to torture than to death threats.”
Uh, actually
not.
So to get this straight not one of you idiots can think of a scenario in which islamic terrorists even begin to approach the threat of the Nazis, and yet the politicians you support have spent the last two weeks saying nothing but that. That makes sense.
Jay supports torture and war simply because “we don’t know exactly when and where they will strike” and then makes up a fantasy scenario in which we have hours to save millions of lives and torture just miraculous works. He also suggests that we firebomb Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia or anywhere any Muslim happens to live because, well, he doesn’t really say why or what it would accomplish.
Dugger, naturally, overlooks countless posts, that differentiate liberal policies from Bush’s to suggest that no one has ever suggested any alternative whatsoever to total war on the Islamic world, a policy he supports, along with torture, even though, as he writes, “Islamofascism is not an equal threat to Nazis or commies.”
It’s odd that you both support policies for which there is no actual grounds for support. In other words, you support torture and total war against vastly non-violent, civilian populations for no real reason at all other than the fact that Bush wants to torture and invade country after country.
You’re a bunch of idiots.
Jay, didn’t we see you talking to that turbaned gentleman the other day? I think you might have handed him some money for a slip of paper. Maybe you should be hauled in, sent to Syria, and have a car battery hooked to your scrotum. Doesn’t matter if you were making change for a ten, you might have been aiding a terrorist or terror suspect.
Another thing about Jay’s torture works scenario, there are people out there right now, drug dealers, serial killers, child molestors, etc. etc. who, although they are very, very bad people are also American citizens. Should the police be allowed to torture them or anyone who might help in an investigation because of the outside possibility that a life might be saved?
In other words, where does it stop Jay? According to your example only one life has to be threatened — your kidnaped child — for it to be okay to torture anyone who you might think had information.
So are you now suggesting that we repeal the 4th amendment and allow US police to torture suspects? Is that what you think? You’re going to have to clarify otherwise.
Islamofascism
You keep saying that word. but i don’t think it means what you think it means.
Dugger, I don’t know what we can do given that Bush is in office until 2009. The man clearly has nothing but contempt for the people who’ve been right at every point, and loyalty to the people who’ve been consistently, disastrously wrong. Not to mention that 30% of the country who continues to slavishly enable his worst policies — like you and Jay, for example. What do you think should be done about your and Bush’s continuing destructive influence, Dugger? Appeals to reason have been ineffective. Ditto with appeals to concience.
But since you’re in dire need of a plan, and given your apparent total inability to defend the Bush policy, it appears that you and I agree on a necessary first step at least: vote Republicans out of office at every level. A total repudiation of their failed policies is absolutely necessary to restore American credibility.
Actually, as political/military groups, the Nazis and the international Islamic militants do have one major thing in common: we helped bankroll both of them. Even more interesting, there was a Bush involved with helping both the Nazis and the Islamic militants.
But there the similarities stop. Contrary to the chickensh-t pants-pissings of the right-wing armchair warriors, the Islamic militants don’t want to ‘take over the world.’ They want us to stop meddling in their world.
‘Islamofascism’ is one of those terms that has much more to do with the people who say it than the people it’s applied to. But I like it, actually, because it encapsulates a lot of the confused, angry, moronic machismo that’s characteristic of the Bush policy and the people in this country to whom aggressive stupidity is appealing, despite that policy’s obviously foreseeable failures. Why did we choose to get ourselves into this strategic failure, a lost occupation, an incredibly expensive and pointless adventure opposed by most of our allies? And why would people continue to support a policy that has no prospect for success? Because they think in aggressive, simplistic, meaningless terms like ‘Islamofascism.’ And not only do they think in those terms, even a criticism of the term’s rather obvious muddy meaninglessness is met with fierce opposition from the right. Why? Because ‘Islamofascism’ is all bound up in their aspiration to portray themselves as Defenders of Western Civilization. This from the people who, on the other hand, are directing policy in a way that’s completely against Western interests, who define themselves by their hatred of basic Western institutions (free media, the academy, the government, an independent judiciary), and who degrade our basic civilizational values with their irrational, counterproductive torture policy and their desire for a King in place of a president. It’s pretty pathetic, really.
Yeah, I bet future historians will remember that particular moronic neologism.
So to get this straight not one of you idiots can think of a scenario in which islamic terrorists even begin to approach the threat of the Nazis, and yet the politicians you support have spent the last two weeks saying nothing but that.
Uhh, unlike lapdogs such as yourself, I don’t latch on to whatever a polticians says and agree with it just because they’re saying it. Who the hell cares what they’re saying? That’s not the point.
Jay supports torture and war simply because “we don’t know exactly when and where they will strike” and then makes up a fantasy scenario in which we have hours to save millions of lives and torture just miraculous works.
And here we go with the intellectualy dishonesty. I made no such claim that the fantasy scenario would miraculously work. I posed a hypthetical situation in which I said I would not be opposed to using such techniques to get information needed to stop such an attack. In addition, the attack doesn’t have to be hours away. If the techniques used get information about hideouts, places, money, co-cospirators, etc. then it seems to me to be worth it.
He also suggests that we firebomb Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia or anywhere any Muslim happens to live because, well, he doesn’t really say why or what it would accomplish.
Don’t be such a twit. I said nothing of the sort. I raised the issue of the firebombing in WWII as a retort to Oliver and his nose-in-the-air “We’re better than that” nonsense. War is an ugly thing. In WWII we firebombed cities as a way of getting our enemies to give up. That’s a reality. I’m not advocating we do that again.
As for the kidnaping scenario, that’s a personal one. It has nothing to do with my views on law enforcement. I am merely suggesting that people here wouldn’t be opposed to torture in certain scenarios. I am guessing that if a loved one of ours were kidnapped and we could have at one of the suspects for a few hours to locate that loved one, we would do whatever it took to find out where they were and that includes torture. If you say otherwise, then you’re either a liar or a coward. The point being, nobody is above doing it, so people should come down from their pedestals.
Again, personal scenarios have nothing to do with what government policy should be. Again, any time there was a “ticking bomb” scenario, let the president pardon the guy, if it’s for real. See, the system works, and we didn’t have to change our laws to enshrine terrorism to do it!
“Who the hell cares what they’re saying? That’s not the point.”
Who the hell cares what the president of the United States, the secretary of defense and the vice president have to say about the war on terror? That’s great, Jay.
You’re assertion “that people here wouldn’t be opposed to torture in certain scenarios” is also more bullshit. I certainly wouldn’t support torture in any circumstance because it is
1) immoral
2) ineffective
3) counter-productive
I do not measure my love by how much violence I am willing to do to others. Maybe you do. That’s great.
I’ll finally just add that you have presented no scenario in which World War II is even a remotely accurate analogy for today’s islamic terror and yet you continue to suggest that we should be willing to give up our most basic principles and ideals in order to fight a threat that, if one is rational, poses no existential danger to the United States.
I’m glad to hear that you are not advocating firebombing civilain populations. I’m not sure, however, if that means shit since you are willing to torture people for reasons that are, in your own words, not rational but rather entirely emotional and personal. I guess I was expecting too much from the “serious” right. Idiot.
“The point being, nobody is above doing it, so people should come down from their pedestals.”
And another thing, even if the vast majority of people are not “above” torture, we are not talking about what people would personally do. We are talking about a policy of the United States. We are talking about the rule of law. I’m sure a lot of people would be willing storm a jail cell and hang someone onyl suspected of a crime before a trial. But we don’t allow them to do it because that is not what we believe in as a nation. We believe in laws and fairness and justice and human dignity.
So the fact that you would even bring, in your own words, an entirely personal scenario, into this discussion is itself an act of intellectual dishonesty because you are attempting to blur the distinction between personal base impulses and the laws that are supposed to keep those baser impulses in check.
It doesn’t matter what you would do to save your loved in your hypothetical scenario. The question is what do we stand for as a civilized nation that supposedly respects the rule of law and human rights.
That you would bring this up in an attempt to questions people’s commitment to the rule of law by declaring them hypocrites or liars is typical of the idiot thuggishness of hte right.
The fact that you would call someone unwilling to torture a coward, is just dusgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Who the hell cares what the president of the United States, the secretary of defense and the vice president have to say about the war on terror? That’s great, Jay.
No Frame. Freaking pay attention will you? You wrote:
So to get this straight not one of you idiots can think of a scenario in which islamic terrorists even begin to approach the threat of the Nazis, and yet the politicians you support have spent the last two weeks saying nothing but that.
I said I don’t care that Bush and others have been making Nazi comparisons. Somehow, you reached the the conclusion that I don’t care what they have to say about terrorism. Give it a rest. Politicians use rhetoric and unlike drones, I don’t hang on every word of a politician, even if I support him.
1) immoral That’s your opinion and your’re entitled to i. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
2) ineffective
It IS effective. If you want to go on the say-so of one person, be my guest. Other experts disagree.
3) counter-productive
Right. If information gained helps to prevent a terrorist attack, it is not counter-productive. And by preventing, I am not just talking about some 24 hour scenario. If it provides information that can prevent attacks that are in the earliest of stages, then it is not counter productive.
I do not measure my love by how much violence I am willing to do to others. Maybe you do. That’s great.
It has nothing to do with how much violence I am willing to do to others. It has to do with how far you’re willing to go in order to see justice done.
nd yet you continue to suggest that we should be willing to give up our most basic principles and ideals in order to fight a threat that, if one is rational, poses no existential danger to the United States.
Oh I get it. So it would be ok if it were an existential threat. If millions were threatened, then it would be ok. But using such techniques in order to save thouands is wrong because after all, it’s only thousands of people. Not millions. Makes perfect sense.
I’m not sure, however, if that means shit since you are willing to torture people for reasons that are, in your own words, not rational but rather entirely emotional and personal.
Actually, my thoughts on torture related to international terrorism is very rational. The ones who are not thinking rationally are the ones using weepy terms like, “We’re better than that” and “I don’t measure my love by how much violence I am willing to do to others.”
Making a guy stand for a long time, throwing cold water on him or doing water boarding to get information is not something that bothers me, especially when it is performed on somebody who have no problem whatsoever killing thousands of innocents.
“Making a guy stand for a long time, throwing cold water on him or doing water boarding to get information is not something that bothers me”
And that is what makes you a Stalinist, Jay. About that, there is clearly nothing left to debate. May God have mercy on your soul.
Jay would spend 12 hours torturing someone he thinks kidnapped his daughter, only to find out she snuck off with her friends. “Oh, sorry guy, no hard feelings.”
So the fact that you would even bring, in your own words, an entirely personal scenario, into this discussion is itself an act of intellectual dishonesty because you are attempting to blur the distinction between personal base impulses and the laws that are supposed to keep those baser impulses in check.
We’re not talking about baser impulses. This is not about torturing for torturing sake. This about using harsh interrogation techniques in order to get information.
It doesn’t matter what you would do to save your loved in your hypothetical scenario. The question is what do we stand for as a civilized nation that supposedly respects the rule of law and human rights.
No, the question is are we going to what is necessary in order to prevent another 9/11 from happening. You cannot debate the issues of the rule of law and human rights with these people. This is not typical warfare we’re talking about where there are rules of engagement. This is a different kind of fight.
The fact that you would call someone unwilling to torture a coward, is just dusgusting. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I wasn’t talking about torture in and of itself. I mentioned a very specific scenario.
“Somehow, you reached the the conclusion that I don’t care what they have to say about terrorism.”
Idiot. They are TALKING ABOUT TERRORISM when they say that the war on terror is just like fighitng the Nazis and they are SHAPING POLICIES AROUND THAT RHETORIC.
Now if you think torture is moral, please by all means, don’t just attack me for having an “opinion” declare it from the roof tops: “I support torture as a moral act!”
I also cited a law enforcement officer who does not believe that torture is effective. You cite your experts.
I find it astonishing that you believe torture has anything to do with seeing “justice done.” What justice is involved in torture? What judicial process is involved? The people we torture have not been giving a trial so they haven’t been found guilty of anything. And yet we go ahead and inflict physical punishment on them anyway. How about the Canadian guy whose story prompted Oliver’s post?
Would you care to explain how your idea of justice fits his story? An innocent man was sent to Syria to be tortured. Where’s the justice in that Jay? How many of those cases are you willing to tolerate in your quest for personal justice?
You talk about justice but if you support torture you cannot support the Bill of Rights and the Consitution. The 4th Amendment clearly prohibits torture. But you support it. Indeed, you say you would do it yourself. On one side you say you are trying to defend America in the war on terror on the other you are using methods strictly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States. Now tell me Jay, how do you reconcile those two positions? Sometimes the Constitution just doesn’t count?
And no, even if Islamic terrorists did pose an existential threat I would not support torture because it is supporting torture that poses an even greater existential threat to our way of life than the terrorists. That’s what you idiots can’t see because you’re too caught up in your blood lust.
We are the only ones who can destroy our way of life by gradually surrendering and eroding the principles and laws on which this country was founded. You would throw it all down the drain for an illusion of safety and taste of blood.
And that is what makes you a Stalinist, Jay. About that, there is clearly nothing left to debate. May God have mercy on your soul.
Hahaha. Now I’m a Stalinist. That’s pretty funny.
Sorry make that the Eighth Amendement:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Not to mention Amendment V:
“… nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”
As well as Amendment IV:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So tell me Jay, what’s your argument against the Founding Fathers in favor of torture?
Yeah, and what’s Jay’s argument against Solzhenitsyn? Or Jesus, for that matter?
I’m sorry Frame, but how does the US Constitition apply to international terrorists?
Question for jay, ian, dugger:
Take the case of the Canadian citizen Mher Arar, and let us know if he should have been detained without charge, flown to Jordan, driven to Syria, kept in a hellhoe until he’confessed’ to training ina a country he had never been to. How do you guy justify this treatment? There is an Iraqi-born American citizen working in the same office as me, and I wonder what laws will prevent him from enduring the same as Arar? You wingnuts are FUBAR on this one.
“I wasn’t talking about torture in and of itself.”
Oh yes because if someone refuses to admit that they would torture their child’s kidnapper they are a coward. But then if they actually refuse to torture the guy in reality they’re not a coward? Then there a person of principle?
Jay, who gives a shit if the terrorists don’t believe in the rule of law? Drug dealers, the mafia, child molesters, serial killers, in this country don’t seem to give a shit about the rule of law. Should the US police be allowed to torture them just because they are suspected of breaking the law and may have information about other crimes?
Please also give us a list of the law enforcement and military experts who are on record as supporting torture. Please also cite your specific evidence that torture works and has in fact saved lives.
Jay, have you heard of the Declaration of Independence? It’s not law, but it’s a good summary of what we in America think of as our shared values, and indeed, one of our best contributions to the world.
I’ll quote from it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Et-fucking-cetera, you immoral, unamerican dumbass. The GOP is not going to be allowed to roll back civilization to medieval times. Nor will it be allowed to adopt Stalin’s (and now Jay’s) torture techniques, no matter how much you enjoy masturbating to them.
“I’m sorry Frame, but how does the US Constitition apply to international terrorists?”
Jay, you either support the principles of the Constitution or you support torture. It’s that simple. It’s that clear cut. If you support torturing anybody, you can’t also turn around and say you don’t support torturing Americans. Americans commit heinous crimes. Should we have tortured Timothy McVeigh before we tried him? If not why not? He may have known about other terror plots, he may have revealed other accomplices.
We are also a part of international treaties that ban torture, including the Geneva Conventions, which are in fact inspired by the principles of the US Constitution. Do you deny this?
“Drug dealers, the mafia, child molesters, serial killers, in this country don’t seem to give a shit about the rule of law.”
Not to mention certain republican members of congress, bush, cheney, et al.
Drug dealers, the mafia, child molesters, serial killers, in this country don’t seem to give a shit about the rule of law. Should the US police be allowed to torture them just because they are suspected of breaking the law and may have information about other crimes?
That’s apples and oranges Frame. It’s two totally different scenarios.
As for how it works, read these articles here and here. You can pay for it if you want. Here are a couple of excerpts:
How did it work out?
Jay, you either support the principles of the Constitution or you support torture.
Bullshit. The rules are different. Tactics we use in warfare don’t fall under the US Constitution. If that’s your line of thinking, we pissed all over the constitution in WWI and WWII. Different circumstances, different rules.
Shorter Jay: I support America by pissing on her values.
Jesus Christ Jay, you’re citing Zubaydah? You apparrently haven’t read Suskinds One Percent Doctrine.
Idiot:
The Administrationhyped his importance and the importance of the information he gave up in order to make a case for torture. When I say torture is ineffective I mean that you can’t trust the information that you get, most of which is going to be total garbage spewed out just to stop the fucking torture. Understand?
Jay,
The Geneva Conventions, which govern wartime, prohibit torture. That prohibition is based on the same principles of human rights and dignity that are behind the Constitution.
We are also signatories to the UN Convention Against Torture.
Now either you support the principles behind these laws, as well as the treaties, or you don’t. You obviously don’t and seem to think that principles are only something we need to keep when they are easy.
Again. I’ll bold it in case you missed it:
“Abu Zubaydah was the authoritative source who identified Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the mastermind of 9/11 and the man behind the nickname Muktar,” the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said in a statement. “His position in Al Qaeda — his access to terrorist secrets — gave his reporting exceptional weight and it gave C.I.A. insights that were truly unique and vital. Abu Zubaydah not only identified Ramzi Bin al-Shibh as a 9/11 accomplice — something that had been done before — he provided information that helped lead to his capture.”
Keep calling me an idiot. You’re the one who keeps coming off like one.
From the
Washington Times:
I will redirect you to my original link on this subject:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2452777
Oh, you’re an idiot.
To be clear, Jay, I think you’re more of a Stalinist thug who hates American values, more than you are an idiot. I mean, the idea of working for an unaccountable authoritarian government who, like a big father or brother figure, will torture bad guys on your behalf — that obviously thrills you. You’ve basically said so yourself the way you keep bringing family into this debate. Gosh, if you can pull out some dude’s fingernails on behalf of your daughter, why shouldn’t Big Brother be able to do that too, right?
But that “logic” is the result of having a deformed sense of morality, rather than being an issue of intelligence. We can leave it to future historians of the pathetic, dying conservative movement to debate.
Frame, quoting Suskind’s book is kind of worthless when counterterrorism officials are saying it’s filled with errors. And the word of one FBI agent doesn’t do the trick either as the FBI and CIA have consistently knocked heads on the subject.
To be clear, Jay, I think you’re more of a Stalinist thug who hates American values
Dr. Pig, put away your ‘Psychiatrists For Dummies’ book. You know nothing about me.
I mean, the idea of working for an unaccountable authoritarian government who, like a big father or brother figure, will torture bad guys on your behalf — that obviously thrills you.
It’s obvious that it thrills me? Please explain to the class exactly how that is the case. I look forward to this.
You’ve basically said so yourself the way you keep bringing family into this debate. Gosh, if you can pull out some dude’s fingernails on behalf of your daughter, why shouldn’t Big Brother be able to do that too, right?
This is where you pinheads keep missing the point. I wanted to engage a discussion about what people felt about the issue personally. I did not in any way shape or form say, “Because this is what I would do, then so should the government!”
Personally, I think murderers should all be lined up and shot. However, I am opposed to the government imposing the death penalty because I am certain that this country has mistakenly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.
See the difference?
As for human rights and dignity, I see people here holding up guys like FDR and Truman as heroes. These heroes firebombed cities. Truman ordered that we nuke two Japanese cities. In that, we followed no guidelines established by our founding fathers in the Constitition everybody is now weeping about. We killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the process. Those not killed instantly by atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki died horrific and painful deaths afterwards.
But what FDR and Truman did was necessary.
Oh okay. So while there’s considerable debate in the intelligence and law enforcement communities on the effectiveness of torture we should go ahead and do it anyway because it certainly has no impact on how we are perceived in the world, especially the muslim world.
See you guy’s don’t get it. The terrorists want us to torture, maim and kill as many people as possible. It’s all a win to them. The more that we give them evidence of being immoral imperialists the more they can portray us that way. The more moderate Muslims we lose in the process.
And jay, we know nothing about you expect for the fact that you support torture and that you yourself would be willing to participate in torturing someone. I think that’s all I need to know to declare you sick idiot fuck.
“I am opposed to the government imposing the death penalty because I am certain that this country has mistakenly executed people who were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.”
Jesus, Jay, this whole post started with a story about an INNOCENT Canadian sent to Syria to be tortured by our government. But you say that you support torture. You’ve got issues.
The more that we give them evidence of being immoral imperialists the more they can portray us that way.
Frame, they already portray us that way. I mean, wake up and smell the coffee, man! Do you think things would be better if we did nothing? They’ll portray us that way even if we treat all of them like they were jaywalking.
What the hell is in that head of yours? Do you think if we start playing nice, all the little Jihadists are going to go back in their bunkers?
Good grief. It’s people like you that will get more Americans killed by these freaks.
And jay, we know nothing about you expect for the fact that you support torture and that you yourself would be willing to participate in torturing someone. I think that’s all I need to know to declare you sick idiot fuck.
Oh piss off you big baby.
And jay, we know nothing about you expect for the fact that you support torture and that you yourself would be willing to participate in torturing someone.
What I am is somebody who is willing to do what is necessary for the greater good, even if those actions can be ugly at the time.
You guys are avoiding my WWII questions like the plague. Did you support what Truman did? If so, what would you say if somebody called you a “sick fuck” because you support using nukes against civilians?
Did you support FDR when he was CIC and we were firebombing cities in Germany killing tens of thousands in the process? Are you then a “sick fuck” who supports firebombing cities?
“What I am is somebody who is willing to do what is necessary for the greater good, even if those actions can be ugly at the time.” -Jay
“You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.” -Joseph Stalin
Still avoiding Dr. Piglet. Your Stalin comparisons are childish. I hope that you’re some kind of monkey doctor and don’t have cotnact with humans.
Anybody else?
Calling them childish won’t dispel this basic truth: that you are defending Bush’s use of Stalin’s interrogation methods. That is what makes you so morally twisted. Will you ever address this fact? How could you?
that you are defending Bush’s use of Stalin’s interrogation methods.
Oh ok. So are we going to invoke Stalin with regard to all of his policies? Stalin was steadfastly opposed to prayer in school and was a big advocate of progressive taxation. If Stalin is going to be your ace in the hole with regard to interrogation techniques, then you have to be ready to consult that handbook with regard to any policy.
Your constant comparison of me to Stalin is red herring. You haven’t yet articulated a position on anything. You’ve done nothing but attack me personally. You’re an intellectual coward.
Throw a few ‘islamofascists’ and a couple of ‘git-r-dones’ and this might as well be Jay talking.
“We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people’s enemies by terror.”
“Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”
“Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs.”
-Maxmillian Robespierre
Conservatives often say that their intellectual movement began in reaction to the French Revolution. One can only wonder what Edmund Burke would say to somebody like Jay or Dugger. Or hell, Ronald Reagan, for that matter.
“with regard to any policy.”
Nope. Stalin’s torture methods were kind of a signature thing with him. Ever read The Great Terror? Progressive taxation! Prayer in school! That’s a fucking laugh, Jay! You really are collapsing, aren’t you!
Especially since you keep running from the fact that Bush is using the EXACT SAME METHODS, I’m going to keep bringing it up. Hey, your fight is with Russian dissidents, not with me. Take it up with Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ.
“Mr. Bush! Tear down this wall!”
Nope. Stalin’s torture methods were kind of a signature thing with him.
Hahahahahaa!! Good grief you are such a frigging jackass. If this Stalin thing applies to one set of policies, why not them all?
YOU.ARE.A.COWARD.
It’s turning into a henhouse in here because all I smell is chickenshit.
Anybody going to address the issues of WWII or not?
“YOU.ARE.A.COWARD.”
Call me what you like, but you won’t catch me dragging the constitution and American values through the mud over a bunch of no-account terrorists. You won’t catch me defending — what is it, Stalin’s methods generally? No, IT’S STALIN’S TORTURE METHODS SPECIFICALLY.
Jay, you really ought to take a civics course. Learn a bit about what makes this country worth fighting for. Or maybe go on some sort of confidence-bulding retreat. Your stunted, twisted morality really needs some outside help.
Are we in WWII? No. I am sorry that you hate America and wish we had lost WWII to the Nazis. Given that you embrace torture, I’m not surprised that this is so.
I called you a coward because you’re engaging in the practice of ad hominem. You’re comparing me to Stalin and claiming victory. That’s a chickenshit thing to do.
Or maybe go on some sort of confidence-bulding retreat.
You’re the one resorting to comparing others to Stalin in order to gain an upper hand in a debate, not me.
Your stunted, twisted morality really needs some outside help.
See what I mean? When somebody resorts to such nonsense, it basically means the equivalent of “I give up!” Deflection, ad hominem and strawman arguments. You’ve been making them the entire time Piglet.
Are you going to stop acting a like a petulant little child or what?
Midderpidge: Coward number 2.
Another one that will not address the question.
Names, names, names. Coward. Petulant little child. Chickenshit. But, strangely, not one denial that Bush has adopted Stalin’s torture methods. It is the relevant point at hand, you know. It’s almost… as if… you have no argument to make at all. You admit you think torture’s necessary. We all think it’s counterproductive and so deeply immoral as to be unamerican and shameful. What’s left to debate, Jay, if you have no shame and no morals?
Dodge, deflect, avoid.
Keep going Doc.
“Frame, they already portray us that way.”
Idiot. They can portray us that way all that want but why on earth are we handing them propaganda material by ACTUALLY BEHAVING like the imperialist morons that they say we are?
Hell, they lop the heads off people and post videos of it on the internet. Should we do that too? Should we videotape our torture sessions and broadcast them on Fox? That’s be awesome, uh? Then you and your sick fuck buddies could get off on our “strength” and “power.”
Torture is wrong. You support it. You’re a suck fuck idiot. Case closed.
You keep using that word coward Jay. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I am a coward for thinking torture is wrong. Ok. You, son, are just unAmerican.
Jay,
The firebombings and atomic bombs were horrendous tragedies and they are indeed a black mark on the Allies in their fight against Fascism and Imperial Japan. They were indeed crimes against humanity they no one was ever tried for because we won. That doesn’t mean all bets are off on horrific behavior during war time. Since Bush believes that Islamic terrorists pose as great, if not a greater threat than the Nazis, would you support his nuking Tehran? Would your rationale be that, well, Turman did it and we’ll save more lives in the long run?
At the same time, you say you are opposed to the death penalty because the state might put an innocent person to death. But now we have a documented case of our government sending an innocent person to be tortured in Syria but you support torture.
Anytime you would care to reconcile those two positions let us know.
No Midderpidge, I said you’re a coward because you refuse to address the issue regarding WWII.
It is amazing to me that in America today we are debating torture with the party that claims to support small, limited government. Even more ironic is a guy who loses continence over international terrorism and calls his critics “cowards.”
What’s there to address, Jay?That we should torture the brown people because Truman dropped the bomb? That’s not logic, even less so now that your definition of cowardice and bravery is in some weird way based upon that claim. But I keep coming back to this thread because it’s so sweet to hear you explain why it’s awesome that Bush is using Stalin’s torture techniques. Thanks again, Jay! And may your children always drift off to sleep with comforting dreams of daddy extracting their kidnapper’s fingernails!
So here it is. This ‘debate’ has descended into silliness which is often the case with winger liberals. Instead of intelligently discussing the issue, they are resorting namecalling, asinine comparisons to Stalin and other crap.
First off, let’s set the record straight:
1. Am I thrilled with the idea of using harsh interrogation techniques to get information? No. But I recognize that it can provide valuable information. It’s pointless to use such techniques to elicit confessions, because that doesn’t matter. However, if information gained can be used to capture others, cut off funding, find weapons caches, plans, or prevent a terrorist attack, I can support that.
2. People are avoiding the talk of WWII like the plague because they know it traps them. Liberals and Democrats are forever espousing how wonderful Truman and FDR were. Yet, to accept that firebombing cities in Germany and dropping nukes on Japan was a justifiable act, blows their entire argument out of the water. I for one, do not fault FDR and Truman for what they did. A drawn out war in the Pacific would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more than were taken by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Germany, the outright destruction of their infrastructure was necessary in order to achieve victory. It took major major balls for Truman to authorize dropping those bombs. It was ugly, but it was necessary. It served the greater good as a result.
3. As for me personally, you can call me sick if you want regarding my advocation of torturing a person who was involved in the kidnapping of say, my daughter or son. Of course, I fail to see how it is ‘sick’ to love somebody so much that you’re going to do whatever it takes to get them back. If you’re going to say I am sick for doing it, then I’m going to call you a coward for not doing it.
4. My opposition to the death penalty and my support of harsh interrogation techniques are not ad odds with each other as Frame would suggest. My opposition to the death penalty is simple: Death is final. You can’t go back and apologize. You can’t make good on such a mistake. That’s the difference.
Wow, Jay. Put arguments in people’s mouths. The question on WWII is moot. This isn’t WWII. This is 60 years later. This isn’t massive industrial countries mobilized and geared up for total war.
You are defending a policy of torture that is not proven effective or necessary, one that demonizes the good name and standing of the United States, a policy that inflames sentiment and enmity against us, a policy that endangers our troops in the field, a policy engaged in secret and that targets individuals with presumption of guilt and without recourse or apology. All because you are scared.
Also, many who have been subjected to torture and rendition have died as a result. This is without benefit of defense or trial. All because you are frightened.
Again, Jay, asserting that we should torture the brown people because Truman dropped the bomb isn’t logic. Come back when you have an argument.
“People are avoiding the talk of WWII like the plague because they know it traps them.”
Dipshit, learn to read. From my post above:
Jay,
The firebombings and atomic bombs were horrendous tragedies and they are indeed a black mark on the Allies in their fight against Fascism and Imperial Japan. They were indeed crimes against humanity they no one was ever tried for because we won. That doesn’t mean all bets are off on horrific behavior during war time. Since Bush believes that Islamic terrorists pose as great, if not a greater threat than the Nazis, would you support his nuking Tehran? Would your rationale be that, well, Turman did it and we’ll save more lives in the long run?
At the same time, you say you are opposed to the death penalty because the state might put an innocent person to death. But now we have a documented case of our government sending an innocent person to be tortured in Syria but you support torture.
Anytime you would care to reconcile those two positions let us know.
Midderpidge and Dr. are being stupid on purpose or they are just stupid.
They have to be stupid because if they actually read the questions I asked, they would see I was not justifying my position on harsh interrogation based upon that.
All I ever see around her is “Democrats won WWII!” I have never EVER met a Democrat or liberal that didn’t hold up FDR as a hero. Truman is given similar treatment.
Welllllllllll….In order to WIN WWII, those Democrats had to take actions that obviously don’t fit under this Utopic umbrella you people have put over yourselves with regards to human rights and the Constitution.
During WWII, FDR authorized the firebombing of a bunch of German cities where tens of thousands of lives were lost, most of them civilians. There was no reflection on human rights. Such acts fell way out of bounds of our Constitution.
Truman authorized ATOMIC BOMBS be dropped on two major cities in Japan. Over 140,000 people died as a result of the bomb being dropped in Hiroshima. 74,000 died as a result of the bomb being dropped on Nagasaki. While many argue that Truman had no other choice, others have said that Truman’s actions were a crime against humanity.
I want to know why two Presidents who authorized the actions that caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians are so much admired by you people and held up as heroes, yet those who engage harsh interrogation techniques are cause you to label those who support it unAmerican, morally bankrupt, Stalin-like, etc?
How can you possibly reconcile the two?
Can SOMEBODY….ANYBODY……explain that?
Putting someone to death after a trial is permanent. Torturing someone possibly to death is an unforeseeable accident.
“My opposition to the death penalty is simple: Death is final. You can’t go back and apologize. You can’t make good on such a mistake.”
Ya, torture, if you do it right, doesn’t leave any marks.
Okay, Jay, now I know you’re fucking idiot. You can make good on torture? By what cutting someone a check? Hey, sorry about the electrodes on your balls and that whole fake drowinging thing. Here’s $10 grand. You may as well start advocating police brutality, as well because the cops don’t kill someone the victim can always sue.
Oh well hell Frame, let’s do away with all prison sentences. After all, it’s possible every criminal sitting in a prison could be innocent. We’d better be safe and not take the chance.
Right?
Cripes, you’re a simp.
“After all, it’s possible every criminal sitting in a prison could be innocent.”
Um, at least all those people got their due process, right? The people we torture don’t get any due process. They get picked up on suspicion or maybe on an informants tip and before they know it, they’re whisked off to Syria to have their balls put in a clamp. No lawyer, no rights, no nothing, Just right to vice.
You support that. Because you’re a neanderthal with no principles.
“There was no reflection on human rights.”
AND THERE GODDAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU IDIOT! That’s the whole fucking point.
Um, at least all those people got their due process, right?
They did? Every single one? You’re sure of that, right?
You support that. Because you’re a neanderthal with no principles.
You’re an appeaser that would rather see thousands more Americans be killed than see some buy stand up for a long time or have to be put in the cold.
You’re a terrorists best hope of killing more people. Congratulations.
AND THERE GODDAMN WELL SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU IDIOT! That’s the whole fucking point.
And yet after this little debate is all forgotten and discussion about FDR and Truman comes up, you’ll have your nose up the memory of their asses along with everybody else.
Jay’s pinned all his hope on liberals being – what, hypocrites? Who gives a fuck? I guess when you’re insistent that the U.S. reject the enlightenment and return to medieval barbarism, you’ll reach for any straw you can find. As Colin Powell said: “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”
If you can’t see a strategic downside to that — let alone the sheer evil of our policy — then there’s no help for you on Earth or Heaven, Jay. The reason we don’t torture terrorists is the same reason we didn’t nuke Baghdad — it’s immoral and counterproductive. Nothing about WWII changes that simple equation. I know you hate the memory of WWII. But it in no way makes torture smart or moral. It does not change the fact that torture is corrosive to the foundation of our democracy. That you run every time these points are brought up is testimony to the sheer, grasping, clawing weakness of your postion. Go seek help immediately.
Piglet refuses again to address the question. I won’t entertain the rest of his stupid statements until he makes some fleeting attempt at intellectual honesty, instead of engaging in intellectual cowardice.
Oink.
Again Piglet, why is my position on harsh interrogation in your words, “corrosive to the foundation of our democracy” but FDR and Truman are heroes for what they did?
Cmon man. Instead of cutting and pasting and offering your totally lame ass suggestions for me to “get help”, why don’t you explain that position?
What’s to address? A charge of hypocrisy? Given your shameless insistence on poisoning my country’s name, and wrecking our efforts to fight terrorism, I’m afraid I’m indifferent to your name calling. Have you considered taking an anger management course, Jay?
Have I called them heroes? If I did, would that make torture heroic? Your position makes no sense. Again, what’s to address?
Why won’t you address the question?
Oh and give me a huge horking break with the name calling whine. That’s all you’ve been doing.
Just admit that you’re afraid to answer the question and I’ll drop the issue. Again, I ask:
Why is my position on harsh interrogation in your words, “corrosive to the foundation of our democracy” but FDR and Truman are heroes for what they did?
Why is my position supposedly poisoning your country’s name, but what FDR and Truman did heroic?
Are you going to answer or not?
Jay’s position on torture will create more terrorists, alienate us from our Allies, and kill innocent people. It undercuts America from its values of fairplay and taking the moral high ground. All because he pees his pants when he thinks of muslims.
Please. I want to know why Democrats and liberals hold FDR and Truman in such high regard when they were the people who ordered actions that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents, yet here you are (whining about being called names) calling me a Stalanist because I support somebody getting their belly slapped during an interrogation!
This is what it boils down to Doc: Partisanship. You don’t give a rat’s ass about torture. You give a rat’s fucking ass about who is IN CHARGE when it’s being done.
Bottom line: I don’t believe for a minute any of you people would have a problem with any of this if a DEMOCRAT were President.
How do I know this? The CIA had the authority to engage in rendition during the Clinton administration and they did so. Yet, I have yet to see a condemnation of President Clinton as a “neanderthal” or comparisons of him to Stalin.
Casualties of war are nothing new, Jay. But we don’t torture people simply because it’s convenient. We have laws against it, for one. Not just laws, but the bill of rights prohibits it. Of course, that only applies to Americans, but the enlightenment principles behind it are also what inspired the Geneva conventions, to which we are bound by law, and which do prohibit it. Those of us who understand what makes America great value those principles. That’s why I’m against it whether carried out in my name, regardless of who does it, Republican or Democrat. Stalinistic torture is Stalinistic torture, regardless of the practitioner.
But your argument is not with me on this. It’s with military lawyers, military commanders, Colin Powell, GWB’s speechwriters, Ronald Reagan, and the founding fathers. None of my points about torture are original. So take it up with them if you like torture so much.
But that’s neither here nor there, since the thrust of your argument isn’t about torture, which is why I’m indifferent to it. Your argument is about liberals being hypocrites and chickenshits and partisanship and whatever else. As I said, you can think the absolute worst about us and our American values that you can imagine. Call us partisan, say we’re disingenous about acutally caring about torture. That changes my position not at all. It also won’t change the fact that terrorism is wrong. Nor will it change the fact that you are supporting it. What’s left to debate with you, Jay, given that you refuse to feel shame or conscience?
This comment may have been made before, so I say sorry in advance if that is the case. The USA didn’t give a toss about the Nazis until the Japanese forced them into war. Before that, they were the major investors in German industries, and also bled the UK white in the lend-lease program. Almost like Saddam, the Germans became demonised when their money-making potential became compromised.
Prior to entering WWII, Roosevelt took some actions to economically isolate the Axis, to prepare the US for war, and to help the enemies of the Axis powers.
Jay likes to talk about the fire bombings and the suspension of human rights in time of war as a tool, but Roosevelt also used the moral highground as a tool to economically isolate Germany and Japan before the US entered the war with the American financial and
economic embargo against Japan and the “moral embargo” of 1938 wherein the United States banned neutral countries from exporting planes and military equipment to countries engaged in the bombing of civilian populations. He did this by threatening sanctions and cessation of US aid to developing countries that sought to trade with Japan and Germany.
The US didn’t want to enter the war, but the government did.
“The CIA had the authority to engage in rendition during the Clinton administration and they did so.”
Let me ask you something Jay. Were you aware of this during the Clinton administration? I certainly wasn’t and it certainly saddens and disgusts me to know it now. Like the firbombings and atomic bomb drops are a black mark on the records of FDR and Truman, authorizing this kind of program is a black mark on Clinton’s legacy.
I think it also proves the point, however, of just how ineffective and inefficient this kind of practice is. The policy was authorized in response to the bombing of the World Trade Center and other attacks but it did nothing to prevent 9-11. What has our current torture policy done to reduce global terrorism? Zip. Even if we do get useful information from people we torture the fact that we torture — whether it’s Clinton or Bush or whoever’s next — lowers our moral standing in the world and tends to radicalize moderates that we need to win to our side. No one wants to be on the side of the torturers, except you and a bunch of right wing idiots.
Yippee! Torture Works!
Oh wait…
Yes, but you see, Frame, because Jay thinks liberals are hypocrites, that makes torturing people okay.
Oh, ya. I forgot.
In Jay’s bible “turn the other cheek” means more areas of skin on an unbeliever a cigarette can be put out.