The folks over on Free Republic, along with Matt Drudge, are getting themselves worked up into a lather over claims that Foley’s victim (whose name they revealed in an amazing breach of ethics and class) was over 18 at the time of the e-mails and IMs. But like everything else on the right, they get it wrong.
The blog Passionate America has revealed the identity and published a photograph of an alleged victim of disgraced Rep. Mark Foley in a post that was pulled and later re-posted with additional information.
RAW STORY can verify that the young man in question is not the Congressional page from the emails that originally surfaced; with that in mind, a direct link to the Passionate America post is not provided here.
RAW STORY has learned that the recipient of the Foley emails is currently 17 (and was 16 at the time of the correspondence).
Passionate America contends that the young man they identified took part in some of the instant message conversations obtained by ABC news. In those messages, the boy explicitly identified himself as being under the age of 18.
So, following in the footsteps of their congressional counterparts, the Republican grassroots are now outing pedophile victims and making up stuff. May they all rot.
You’re doing a HECK OF A JOB Hastert! – Georgie W. Junior
You’re doing a HECK OF A JOB SUPPORTING HASTERT there Georgie W. Junior.
Keep supporting those pedophile supporters there Preznit!
The wonderful loving liberals at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
Carrion and Wild Bill. Be assured of this. If anything happens to this young man, I will hunt you down and make you pay, severley.
And that’s just one a of a few.
Jay:
Good for them.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone defend the object of a pervert’s lechery and his identity being exposed by right wing zealots.
Jay, are you defending what Passionate America did?
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
And that’s just one a of a few.
Jay, I wish you well, but you’re a fucking idiot.
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
So, Intellectual Jay, you’ve got insight into the conservative mind. Maybe you could tell us all what this former page “has coming to him.”
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
Hey, Intellectual Jay, maybe you’re smart enough to tell us all why it’s now okay to blame the victim of Foley’s ‘overly friendly’ attentions?
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
Say, Intellectual Jay, would you like to explain why we should all now attack this page’s character? And again, what exactly is going to “happen to him”?
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
Hey, Intellectual Jay, is being gay while Republican morally wrong or it actually against the law in some states? And “yellow fangs”? Please explain.
The wonderful loving conservatives at Passionate America’s blog are leaving comments like this:
Maybe Intellectual Jay could tell us again just who shot whose wad when. Intellectual Jay, however, never misses. Bank on it.
Ok for those keeping score:
Crazy J
Pro-torture
Pro-pederast
Pro-exposing name of crime victims
As frame would say, awesome.
Oh hey, Intellectual Jay, that “yellow fangs” thing? Don’t bother. It would appear that some conservatives are dusting off the oldies but goodies:
Awesome.
Glad to see the left is ok with threats of physical violence.
And Frame: You’re still stupid no matter how many times you call me an idiot. We all know you’re too afraid to debate me in open forum. I think the character of Jeff Spiccoli is actually smarter than you.
Factcheck, I found a picture of you:
Nice tie.
Guess Oliver doesn’t allow images to be embedded. Oh well. People will just have to click here to see a pic of Factcheck in all his glory.
frame and the rest of us debate j everyday and hand him his ass. I don’t know what his problem is. Does he want to challenge us to a duel? What exactly is the debate?
frame and the rest of us debate j everyday and hand him his ass.
What do you debate Factcheck? You and Frame spend more time:
A. Calling people idiots
B. Coming to total bullshit conclusions (”Jay is pro-pederast!”)
The fact is, you guys engage in every logical fallacy known to man in the subject of debate:
ad hominem
red herrings
circular arguments
non sequitors
straw man
argument to ignorance (you guys forever argue something is true because it hasn’t proven to be false)
The list goes on. And on and on.
So give me a huge break with this “hand him his ass” nonsense. All anybody has to do is follow any discussion and it doesn’t take more than 2-3 comments for Frame to start calling people ‘idiots’ or for you Factcheck to chime in with any one of the above fallacies.
Um, Jay, before you can get on your high holy horse, you’re going to have to explain how your original comment on this thread examplifies the dazzling, intellectual rigor that you claim to prize so much.
“We all know you’re too afraid to debate me in open forum.”
Dude, WTF does this even mean? Debate you in an open forum? You mean like this
Forum? Hey, you buy the tickets and I’m there!
Otherwise, that has to be the emptiest, stupidest, most pointless challenge I have ever read in these threads.
How much of a pompous ass do you have to be to write something like that?
“Glad to see the left is ok with threats of physical violence.”
Oh and Jay, please tell me that you aren’t making legalistic distinctions here about what is and isn’t threatening speech. Please tell me that’s not what you’re doing.
Dude, WTF does this even mean? Debate you in an open forum?
It’s very easy to do Frame. Ever see the what they do at bloggingheads.tv? Or blog where we both debate an issue. You know exactly what the hell I am talking about so don’t play dumb. You don’t want to do it because you wouldn’t be able to say, “You’re an idiot!” and claim victory.
Oh and Jay, please tell me that you aren’t making legalistic distinctions here about what is and isn’t threatening speech. Please tell me that’s not what you’re doing.
Oh I’m just doing what you guys do. Remember I’m pro-pederast.
“Ever see the what they do at bloggingheads.tv? Or blog where we both debate an issue.”
Not if you don’t have a webcam. How would a chat room or a blog be any different from what you’re doing now?
“Ever see the what they do at bloggingheads.tv? Or blog where we both debate an issue. You know exactly what the hell I am talking about so don’t play dumb.”
So now we can count mind reading among your super intellectual powers! Awesome, Jay. You sure are bitchin!
Um, Jay, I’ve never heard of blogginheads.tv. So I literally had no idea what you were talking about.
Please tell us, oh Intellectual One, which logical fallacy covers gross asumptions made on the part of idiots who don’t get the answers they like?
And sure Jay, Let’s go on bloggingHeads.tv. I’ve already suggested a good topic. Here’s a reminder:
Resolved: Jay is a total fucking moron.
As I asked you previously, do you want pro or con?
“We all know you’re too afraid to debate me in open forum.”
This is a pretty funny line. OTOH, Jay, you have to admit that you’re too scared to debate in a STEEL CAGE FORUM SURROUNDED BY LAVA-THROWING ISLAMOFASCISTONAZIS!!
Not if you don’t have a webcam. How would a chat room or a blog be any different from what you’re doing now?
Well, I wouldn’t want to scare the public with my mug, but it can be done with audio. I also think that if an issue is presented and is discussed it is more difficult to resort to crap like, “You’re an idiot” in order to claim victory.
Resolved: Jay is a total fucking moron.
As I asked you previously, do you want pro or con?
And I rest my case. Thanks.
And of course the good Dr. has a point: How is putting ourselves on video and different than what we’re doing now? Unless, of course, Jay thinks “moving pictures” are “magical”.
And Jay, I’m not really calling you an idiot and running am I? I’ve called you an idiot multiple times on this thread and I’m still here waiting to find out what you thought the point of your original post was?
“And I rest my case. Thanks.”
Jesus, what fucking case, Jay? That I’m somehow “afraid” to debate you in public? WTF is this thread?
Oh, is it because I’m anonymous? That’s bullshit because you know who I am and you even know one of the places where I work. Why? Because I told you!
Now do you see why I call you an idiot?
“I also think that if an issue is presented and is discussed it is more difficult to resort to crap like, “You’re an idiot” in order to claim victory.”
You don’t know me very well do you?
“STEEL CAGE FORUM SURROUNDED BY LAVA-THROWING ISLAMOFASCISTONAZIS!!”
I’M THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frame, it’s like this, ok? Here is your view of debate.
I say that I support some of the interrogation techniques that would be used on terrorism suspects.
This is how you respond:
So you support pissing all over the constitution!!! You’re a fucking lowlife animal! Awesome Jay! Just awesome! Idiot!
That’s your attempt at ‘debate.’ Now, I propose an alternative forum because it would make it interesting for somebody else to follow along and your tired tactic of simply resorting to insults wouldn’t work.
But if you feel more comfortable being Jeff Spiccoli, go right ahead.
J with a call for civility. Priceless.
I hope frame, that you don’t reduce yourself to debating freaking torture with j. I mean, this is the problem with debates like that: The pro-torture side doesn’t deserve a hearing. To even consider the pro-torture side is to surrender your humanity.
Debate on tax policy? Maybe.
Debate on civil rights or even Iraq (pre-Iraq)? Perhaps.
Debate on whether it is ok for us to torture? Never.
Debate on whether it is ok to cover up or try to mitigate the political damage from pederasts? Never.
Jay, are you defending what Passionate America did?
That’s a silly question.
Of course he is, because anything that conservatives do to advance conservatives must be good for America, because only conservatives like Jay can be good stewards of a conservative America.
And has Jay told you today how conservative he is?
I miss Frank and Dr. Pedro…
I don’t know about that, fact. If Jay wants to take the pro-torture side of the debate let him.
The case against torture is fairly straightforward:
It’s unreliable.
It’s immoral.
It’s counter-productive.
We’ll all recall that Jay stepped up on his high holy horse to argue that he was taking a MORAL stand against Foley’s indiscretions while us pathetic liberals were only upset because Foley also BROKE THE LAW. On the question of torture, however, Jay readily dispenses with the morality of torture through a convenient utilitarianism: Torture might save more lives than the single life it degrades.
In order to put forth this argument Jay has to overlook, however, the terribly corrupting thing that torture actually is for a culture to engage. He has to reduce the debate to sheer numbers because no civilized person who faces the reality of torture head on could condone it.
Ah, but Jay, responds, the US government isn’t torturing people. It’s using aggresive interrogation techniques. He says that he himself only supports “some” of the interrogation techniques that would be used on terrorism suspects. But where is his outrage about the system that has been in place to decide what interrogation techniques consistute torture or not?
Who have we entrusted to ensure that only the techniques, good people like Jay support, will be the only ones used? Where are the checks and balances that have made our system of government the beacon of liberty that it is?
Under the “compromise” bill that passed the House and Senate, it is up to the President and the President alone to determine what is and isn’t torture. Placing this unprecedented power in the hands of one person doesn’t seem to bother Jay. He trusts this president and all future presidents in perpetuity to always rise above that little thing called human nature to make the right call.
Yes, placing that kind of power in the hands of the executive branch is just the kind of thing that the Founding Fathers would have approved of.
And what will we accomplish in applying these “aggressive interogation techniques.” Information gleaned under torture is notoriously unreliable as the truth is often overwhelmed by massive fictions aimed at simply trying to get the “aggressive interogation” to stop. Where is the check on the interogators who can, using these techniques, get a detainee to confess to just about anything?
Of course there are no checks and balances in place to ensure that such fictions do not corrupt the whole judicial process.
But all this means nothing to Jay. It’s irrelevant before the power of a simple fantasy in which torture can save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives.
This fantasy scenario overwhelms the very real bitterness and enmity that torture breeds in the very populations whose support we need to reduce the threat of terrorism. A few banner headline arrests are enough to dispell international outrage at the methods used to make those arrests. And who will ever know if those arrests were based on fact or fiction? The American public certainly won’t since detainees can no longer challenge the basis of their detention under habeas corpus.
Jay doesn’t really care. Instead he attacks those who raise the Constitution and the principles behind it personally. He says I’m afraid to debate “the merits” and says that I resort to petty name calling and then declare victory.
Well, Jay, go for it. Give us your ringing defense of aggressive interogation techniques and the system in place to ensure that you never have to lose any sleep at night because your country is torturing someone in your name.
Jesus, Jay, what are you chicken? Or are you busy trying to book us some studio time? What an idiot.
Meanwhile, on the vermin’s blog that outed this young man:
“I turned the comment off because someone is trying to bring one of my children into this. My son is a MINOR unlike xxxxxxx. I have been on several radio shows this morning, including Glenn Beck. If you would like to help me you can please click the Make a Donation button on the right side bar. The hate mail has been pouring in and a lot of threats have been made. I can take the heat, but my family is very nervous. I will have more on this story soon. I have much more to say about this. I want to thank everyone for their support. ”
Schaden, meet Freude. After Maglalang saw that people can violate her privacy just as she violated theirs, she sung a different tune. Hopefully this scumbag will too.
I don’t condone this behavior by anyone but I cannot act surprised, as Malcolm X said, that chickens will come home to roost.
There was absolutely no reason to name this kid except to intimidate him. His age could have easily been confirmed without revealing his name. Rush Limbaugh spent a good deal of time on his show today questioning the motives of this kid: “If he’s innocent, why did he hire a lawyer?” Rush, of course, was just asking, you know, speculating.
Hey, how long do I have to wait now before I can call Jay an idiot and declare victory?
You know, becuase I’ve never been clear on the formalities and I want to be civil.
Yes, civility is the most important thing. Civil.
Rush Limbaugh spent a good deal of time on his show today questioning the motives of this kid: “If he’s innocent, why did he hire a lawyer?”
Which is why he represented himself in Oxygate, of course. I’ve got an idea for a book- “the big book of conservative hypocrites”.
Frame, I think you’ve given enough time.
Actually, I was watching the Yankees lose and then had to finish cutting the lawn.
We’ll all recall that Jay stepped up on his high holy horse to argue that he was taking a MORAL stand against Foley’s indiscretions while us pathetic liberals were only upset because Foley also BROKE THE LAW.
Well, that’s not exactly what it was. I was somewhat shocked that it appeared that the outrage of some was based merely on whether or not what Foley did was legal or illegal. IE, it seemed to me that if his solicitation was legal, you guys wouldn’t have any problem with it. Just because something is illegal doesn’t make it moral and vice versa. I asked if anybody would be angry of Foley had sex with a 16 year old in DC considering such an action would be legal, and nobody answered. The silence was deafening.
As the issue of torture, the first thing you need to do is stop telling others what something means to me and what I care about.
As to the issue itself, the word ‘torture’ in this case really is a misnomer as torture invokes images of something out of ‘Marathon Man’ or ‘Payback’ (You’re a movie critic Frame, so you’ll get the reference), when in fact the methods used are not anywhere near that drastic. There are six methods the CIA uses:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. 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.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
First off, let’s remember who we are dealing with here. Thse aren’t bank robbers or pickpockets. These are people who given the chance would happily kill thousands of people – men, women and children – all in the name of Allah. They’ll do it proudly and without mercy.
Second of all, these techniques are not used on every little shlub that we capture. It is reserved for the worst of the worst. Ringleaders like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Thirdly, the techniques are carried out only by a very few trained CIA interrogators and only in rare circumstances and only after more conventional interrogation tactics are used (ie direct question interrogation).
Another question is the effectiveness. It has been proven to be effective. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured from information received using these techniques. A plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles was thwarted because of the information received from Khalid Sheik Mohammed himself who was sujbect to these techniques. Brian Ross of ABC has done extensive reporting on this and confirms that some of his sources in the CIA are opposed to using these techniques but at the same time, confirmed their effectiveness.
As for the techniques being counterproductive because of outrage around the world, I have to shrug my shoulders. The very same people were outraged over cartoons in a Danish newspaper. There were worldwide protests, acts of violence, and threats of violence. Over cartoons. If there is going to be worldwide outrage over cartoons, nothing short of letting any terrorist suspect go free will pacify them.
As for as the morality of the issue, it’s obviously subjective. Factcheck says to take my side is to surrender our humanity. It’s hard to surrender something when the people you’re dealing with have no inkling of what the word means. Kindness and benevolence isn’t on their radar. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They are like machines. The only way to get past that machine exterior is to break some of them down.
“First off, let’s remember who we are dealing with here. Thse aren’t bank robbers or pickpockets. These are people who given the chance would happily kill thousands of people – men, women and children – all in the name of Allah. They’ll do it proudly and without mercy. ”
A real question. How do you know that they are the worst of the worst?
“As for as the morality of the issue, it’s obviously subjective. Factcheck says to take my side is to surrender our humanity. It’s hard to surrender something when the people you’re dealing with have no inkling of what the word means. ”
That’s why we don’t (or didn’t) torture. It’s not about THEIR humanity, it’s about ours. Torture makes us no better than them.
“As for as the morality of the issue, it’s obviously subjective.”
Let me just rebut this for nwo because this sentence and the rest of this paragraph cut to heart of why you are so horribly misguided here.
As a society, Jay, we do not define justice and fairness on an individual basis. That is to say, we do not extend fair, just and decent treatment only to those who think deserve it. That is, indeed, to apply a subjective morality. Which is, again, not what we do as a society. Rather we establish a definition of just, fair and decent treatment and then apply it to everyone universally regardless of their crime, their intent, their remorse or their lack thereof. We do not decide apriori that someone, be it a child murderer like the asshole who killed the Amish girls or a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh, is a monster and so undeserving of legal protections and legal rights.
So Jay, if we care about upholding the principles of justice, fairness and human decency, it doesn’t matter that the terrorists are monsters or unfeeling or unremorseful. Just like we don’t reserce the First Amendment for those whose speech we already approve of, we cannot, if we are to continue to call ourselves a civilized society, reserve justice and fairness only for those who we think, a priori of any evidence or trial, deserve it.
We believe in this principle so strongly, as a matter of fact, thateven after we find a child murderer or a terrorist like McVeigh guilty, we STILL grant them rights: the right not to cruel and inhuman treatment.
It doesn’t matter if our enemies have “no inkling”of what the word humanity means. We can still lose ours by acting inhumanely towards them.
It’s kind of sad that in order for you to defend the interrogation techniques you support you must totally dehumanize its victims to the level of monsters and machines. We have already had a documented incident of an innocent man who was treated as a monster and a machine for no reason at all. What’s your response to the charge that torture is a form of punishment without trial? Indeed, punishment without any evdience at all beyond simply detention itself?
But even these “machines” and “mosnters” have been shown to respond to less aggressive techniques if they are handled by professional interegators. There is a way to maintain our honor and dignity as a society and get the information we need.
A number of the techniques you list, including extreme temperature treatments and waterboarding have been defined as torture by human rights organizations and decades of case law. Now, suddenly, those definitions are left up to the whims of one man, the president. I find it fascinating that now, suddenly, morality is subjective in your mind. That’s great given that the recent “torture bill” passed by the house and senate has enshrined the most aribtrary and subjective system for defining and monitoring torture that I can think of. A number of the techniques you list, including extreme temperature treatments and waterboarding have been defined as torture by human rights organizations and decades of case law. These were once universals, upheld by all civilized nations. Now, suddenly, those definitions are left up to the whims of one man, the president.
It’s astonishing that you offer no defense to the questions I raised about this system except to suggest that our torturers are professionals. I’m sure they are. But tell me that power doe snot corrupt. Tell me that you trust in the goodness of your fellow men, especially when their jobs are to exert extreme violence and fear over the lives of other men.
Tell me you believe that a country capable of inhumane and degrading treatment can telllong maintain its dignity.
I’d also like to quote a favorite line from the film, Touch of Evil: “A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.”
Thanks, Jay. Thanks for helping to take us a little step closer to that reality.
Very eloquent and civil frame.
I have to add that even if Khalid Sheik Mohammed or some other terrorist gave up information under torture about other suspects, how are you ever going to bring any of them to trial?
You can’t. At least not a fair trial as we have defined fair trials for almost two centuries in America. So right there is evidence of how torture corrupts and distorts our legal system and our values. Now, not only do have to rationalize torture, we have to rationalize holding people indefinitely without trial or charges. Or else we rationalize kangaroo courts in which “evidence” gleaned from torture is admissable. Now as soon as we start doing that, we stops anyone involved in the process from producing whatever information they need or want from detainees in order to get a conviction of another detainee? Where’s the openness and transparency that is supposed check such abuses? Right now they don’t exist. We are now relying entirely on human beings to alway choose the noble and righteous path. But you yourself have already labelled these terrorists as subhuman or other than human. So why would anyone bother to actually treat them like human beings? The answer is they wouldn’t and they won’t. And this all begins the second we start to torture people.
“They’ll do it proudly and without mercy.”
To continue …
“They’ll do it proudly and without mercy.”
Jay, I suspect that we expect our “professional interrogators” to work proudly and without mercy too. So if this is a particularly odious quality of a terrorist, and a reason why we should not care that they are being tortured, what do we call it when our professional interogators show the same ability to physically harm another human being with pride and and without mercy?
“If there is going to be worldwide outrage over cartoons, nothing short of letting any terrorist suspect go free will pacify them.”
I’ve never understood this argument. It’s like getting pissed off at bees after you whack their nest. It’s a bad analogy because it erases the humanity of its subjects but you get the point. The Danish cartoon controversy was started when some cartoonists SET OUT to inflame muslim populations. Radicals in the muslim world then stoked that anger for their own ends. The Danish cartoon controversy was created and sustained by radicals on both sides in order to advance radical agendas. I have a right under the First Amendment to hand out racially inflammatory literature on the street. But would only do that if I was a radical racist who wanted to PROVOKE a negative reaction in order to then blame the people I just provoked. So using the Danish cartoon analogy is really a bad way to go Jay.
The ignorance you display in this statement: “nothing short of letting any terrorist suspect go free will pacify them” is so astounding I don’t even know where to begin.
After 9-11 we had the sympathy of the entire world. Yes, there are radicals who were glad to see America dealt such a blow but the vast majority of the planet was horrified by what it saw and wept for us, along with us.
No one could question our moral standing and mission then. We had all the moral capital we needed to arrest anyone and everyone involved in the plot and those who supported the plot. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a truly multi-national mission and it still is today. Unlike Iraq. In short, we had a chance to reach out to a receptive moderate muslim world and instead we went into Iraq, got caught an Abu Graib and now we’ve codified torture.
You know, Jay, you accuse me of radicalism and paint yourself as a voice of reason. What rationale, moderate voice tells you that muslims around the world hate us because we arrest terrorists? What reasonable voice tells you that open and fair trials of these detainees would inflame the moderate muslim world? There’s no question that, like the Danish cartoon controversy, radicals would try to exploit whatever it is we do. But it would be that much harder for them to win the support of moderates if we weren’t detaining people without charge and if we weren’t torturing them.
Here where we stand right now Jay. Congress just gave the president the power to detain any foreign national, even those living in the United States legally, indefinitely, without charges while granting the president alone the power to determine what forms of aggressive interrogation techniques are to be used. Think about that. The Congress has just made it legal for our country to disappear anyone on the planet and subject them to torture indefinitely based solely on the decisions of one man. Wouldn’t that bother you if you weren’t an American? And Jay, there an awful lot of non-Americans on the planet.
We’ve already seen an incident in which an innocent man was sent to Egypt to be tortured. We’ve already seen hundreds of detainees held for years at Gitmo only to be released without any charge ever being filed. Who knows how many more innocent people have been caught up in this system with no hope of review, trial or fair treatment. Wouldn’t that bother you if you weren’t an American? Of course, I don’t know why it doesn’t bother you AS an American.
In other words, we are fighting a gloabl counter insurgency. If we are ever going to win it, we have to stop doing things that alienate moderates in the muslim world. The first thing we need to stop doing is dehumanizing them the way you have done here, treating a whole group of people as mindless drones who simply hate us because they hate us. What’s so ignorant about your comment quoted above is that in one fell swoop is absolves us of any responsibility for the state of the world and the situation we find ourselves in. Do you seriously think that our actions have no influence on how other people perceive us? Or are you one of those people who believe that the US ONLY does good in the world and that anyone who doesn’t agree is our enemy? An enemy who must be detained and tortured. Forever.
That’s how you see the world? There’s us doing only good and seething throbbing millions who hate us because of that good? And you have the temerity to question my debating skills? My civility? To tell me to grow up?
It’s unbelievable.
And let me add …
I can turn on American talk radio and on half a dozen channels, all day long, and well into the night, I can find radical voices stoking a radical response to any number of topics. Anytime the president of Iran gives a radical anti-semtici speech I can be sure that Hugh Hewitt and his ilk will point to it as a reason for us to take attack Iran.
Ah, you’ll say, but we don’t march in the streets and burn people in effigy. That proves were civilized and they are radicals.
Jay, do you know who marches in the street and burns people in effigy? The powerLESS.
The powerFUL on the other hand talk of war and goig to war on Sunday morning talk shows until finally we invade and take over a whole country.
Same radicalism, different resources.
“As for as the morality of the issue, it’s obviously subjective.”
i’d also like to underscore that this statement undermines everything you were saying about the Foley incident. Morality is subjective? That’s the new conservative talking point?
“…the word ‘torture’ in this case really is a misnomer…”
No, Jay it isn’t. Everyone of the six things you list involve physical contact with the detainee aimed at producing pain. Three of the six are aimed at producing extreme disorienation, fear and pain.
One of them is a form of mock execution designed to elicit extreme physical and mental anguish.
You say these techniques are not as bad as what we see in the movies so they really can’t be that bad at all. Jay, do you realize that your measure of what is appropriate in reality is fiction?
How many other issues do you apply the same standard too?
Can we go back to calling him an idiot now frame?
I don’t know.
For a guy who was so hellfire bent on ‘debating me in an open forum’ he sure is taking his sweet time with his responses.
I mean seriously Jay, if the whole pointing of “debating in an open forum” on video or audio was to reduce the likelihood of me calling you names, could we have expected three hour long pauses between my response and your rebuttal, as well?
So no name calling and long periods of dead air. Wow. What an exciting event that would have been.
Frame might not be famous for his subtlety, but he’s got most of the intellectual high ground here. Jay’s usual tactic of “back to you with knobs on” is stretching thinner than ever.
Not subtle? Moi?
Only the right can condemn Saddam Hussein for his torture rooms and professional torturers, but praise Bush for creating his torture rooms and his new improved professional torturers.
Bravo Jay Caruso!
Okay. I’m out of town for the weekend at a B&B and I still found a moment to check back in.
Jay, what is your problem? You goad me on and on about my fear of “debating” you in a public forum only to dissappear soon after I engage you on an issue of your choosing.
I gave a serious response to everyone of your points about America’s torture policies and you have yet, two days later, to give me your rebuttal. What’s up? You started this, remember?
Midderpidge nails it. The hypocrisy of the right on this issue is simply astonishing while your own personal hypocrisy is, well, expected.
Jay has no problem with torture. Here is a simple test for you Jay, would you like those things done to you?
Jay spends 20 posts trying to prove everyone is just upset with Foley breaking the law while reserving the moral outrage for himself only, when in fact, everyone he accused of caring only for the legal aspects was using the emotional term “pedophile” while Jay argued that no one should use that because it doesn’t legally fit, proving he is only concerned with the legality of the situation while not caring about the morality aspects.
Whenever Jay decides to return to the discussion I would ask him to consider the French use of torture in Algeria.
France used torture extensively as part of its counter-insurgency strategy in Algeria. Many of the techniques they used were, ironically, used y the Nazis against the French resistance during WWII.
I would ask Jay, since he believes torture is such an effective counter-insurgency tactic, why France eventually lost control of Algeria.
Frame, going back to the first part of your rebuttal, you bring up Timothy McVeigh. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
McVeigh was not part of a worldwide organization hell bent on the destruction of all of the ‘infidels.’ In addition, the interrogation techniques were are employing against people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed are not for punishment or even to elicit confessions. It’s used to gather information, and as I pointed out, it has been effective in that regard.
It doesn’t matter if our enemies have “no inkling”of what the word humanity means. We can still lose ours by acting inhumanely towards them.
No, we do not. If the techniques used are able to prevent an attack — any attack — and lives are saved as a result, then what we’ve done is served humanity, not lost it. We can no longer stand by and be reactive, going after these people only after they’ve killed tens, hundreds or even thousands.
But even these “machines” and “mosnters” have been shown to respond to less aggressive techniques if they are handled by professional interegators. There is a way to maintain our honor and dignity as a society and get the information we need.
And I have already stated that these techniques are only used when conventional interrogation methods do not work. Interrogators didn’t drag Khalid Sheik Mohammed and start grabbing his shirt or slapping him. They used conventional methods at first. Even before they started in with these methods, they used false threats like saying they were going to kill his family. His response? “They’ll be with Allah sooner.” It was at that point, they moved on to these other tactics.
So if this is a particularly odious quality of a terrorist, and a reason why we should not care that they are being tortured, what do we call it when our professional interogators show the same ability to physically harm another human being with pride and and without mercy?
This is a silly argument. You’re comparing people who took planes filled with fuel and people and slammed them into buildings loaded with more people to interrogators doing a job to gain information to prevent more of the same.
The Danish cartoon controversy was started when some cartoonists SET OUT to inflame muslim populations. Radicals in the muslim world then stoked that anger for their own ends. The Danish cartoon controversy was created and sustained by radicals on both sides in order to advance radical agendas. I have a right under the First Amendment to hand out racially inflammatory literature on the street. But would only do that if I was a radical racist who wanted to PROVOKE a negative reaction in order to then blame the people I just provoked. So using the Danish cartoon analogy is really a bad way to go Jay.
Oh here we go. It was the cartoonists fault and the newspapers fault. Give me a huge break. People are responsible for their own actions. It’s as simple as that. I guess Theo Van Gogh is to blame for his own murder. After all, doing a documentary on radical Islam was going to provoke a negative reaction. Therefore, he had it coming to him, right?
What rationale, moderate voice tells you that muslims around the world hate us because we arrest terrorists? What reasonable voice tells you that open and fair trials of these detainees would inflame the moderate muslim world? There’s no question that, like the Danish cartoon controversy, radicals would try to exploit whatever it is we do. But it would be that much harder for them to win the support of moderates if we weren’t detaining people without charge and if we weren’t torturing them.
And how did that change anything? What did we do before all of this Frame? What was it that set them off in 1993? 1996? 1998? 2000? 2001? I don’t recall us ‘alienating’ moderate Muslims throughout the late 80’s and early 90’s. Yet they still came at us. What was the response of the moderate Muslim world? “Oh that is horrible, but…”
It is not our job to pacify moderate Muslims in order for them to do what is right. It didn’t work before.
“If the techniques used are able to prevent an attack — any attack — and lives are saved as a result, then what we’ve done is served humanity, not lost it.”
Jay, is it a mischaracherization of your position to say that you beleive the ends justify the means?
No, because I am not a believer in something as simplistic as “the ends justifies the means” which is basically a blanket statement and I don’t like to get hung up on absolutes.
I believe that there are times when good can be achieved and it must be weighted against the wrong to be done in achieving it. We did’t just drop the bomb in Japan based on a whim. It was bad. Thousands of innocents died. But it also prevented a long, bloody and ultimately more violent war in the Pacific.
Natrually, Jay, I wouldn’t want you to get all hung up.
You support torture because the wrong that torture represents is outweighed by the good that torture can accomplish. That good, according to you, is measured by “numbers of lives saved.”
A couple of things flow from this position.
First of all, you can forget playing any more semantic games by calling things like waterboarding an “aggressive interogation technique.” Indeed, why are we even limiting ourselves to waterboarding? Why not bring back the rack or the iron maiden, you know, the full Spanish Inquisition?
Afterall, if saving more lives is what counts, why be bashful about techniques? If mock executions, electric shock or surgery could save lives, why aren’t we using these techniques? Are you going to argue that they aren’t effective for getting information? Really? Why?
But, Jay, let’s also return to your original statement:
“If the techniques used are able to prevent an attack — any attack — and lives are saved as a result, then what we’ve done is served humanity, not lost it.”
Now that ‘if’ at the beginning is a mighty big if. Since I know you don’t like to get hung up on absolutes I’m sure you will agree that torture will not save lives in every instance that it is applied. Afterall, there can be no guarantee that torture will always lead to saved lives.
Indeed, I think you will have to agree that this will be the case in most instances that we use torture. chances are in most instances torture will not lead to saved lives at all and thator that no direct correlation will be able to be made.
So in a sense you do not support torture because it saves lives, you support torture because, in your eyes, it has the potential to save lives.
But if saving lives is the only thing that redeems torture, and there’s no guarantee that torturing someone will lead to any lives saved, how can you justify the use of torture at all?
So to recap, is it morally acceptable to electrocute ten people on the outside chance that they might have information that would save one person’s life?
First of all, you can forget playing any more semantic games by calling things like waterboarding an “aggressive interogation technique.” Indeed, why are we even limiting ourselves to waterboarding? Why not bring back the rack or the iron maiden, you know, the full Spanish Inquisition?
Afterall, if saving more lives is what counts, why be bashful about techniques? If mock executions, electric shock or surgery could save lives, why aren’t we using these techniques? Are you going to argue that they aren’t effective for getting information? Really? Why?
But we’re not using those techniques, so let’s stick to what is being used.
As for the rest of your comment, what guarantees do we have in life other than death or taxes? Does our system of justice guarantee that no innocent person will be sent to jail? Does obeying all posted speed limits, wearing your seatbelt and having airbags guarantee you won’t be injured or killed in a car accident?
If you’re going to be opposed to what they are doing, then defend your position. Don’t try to back me into a corner by getting me to ‘admit’ that my position is incorrect because it cannot guarantee lives will be saved.
“But we’re not using those techniques, so let’s stick to what is being used.”
But why aren’t we using those techniques? Can you explain to me the rationale for using waterboarding but not electro shockor mock firing squads?
And, Jay, one plank of my argument is that torture is immoral, period. The other planks are that it is ineffective and inefficient and that it is counterproductive.
Obviously the last two arguments are subordinate to the first.
Torture is immoral because it violates every principle of justice, human dignity, individual rights and basic fairness that Western civilization has stuggled to articulate and defend for the last two centuries. Torture is inherently wrong because it always violates these principles and rights every time it is applied.
In rebuttal to this argument you have suggested that preserving modern Western principles of justice and rights should be subordinate to the good of saving lives. You make this assertion even though torture does not and cannot guarantee that lives will be saved.
So Jay, the burden is entirely upon you to suggest why, given the serious immorality that torture represents, we should nevertheless engage in it on the slim chance that it will produce some greater good. What is the rationale for using torture if it can’t guarantee it’s effectiveness?
You simply cannot compare our torture policies to our everday system of government because our system of torture has been designed specifically to avoid the checks and balances that our everyday justice system has built up over two hundred years of jurisprudence.
Our system of justice is designed to acknowledge human fallbility and error and is replete with checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are not sent to prison or executed. It recognizes that errors get made and above all, it is a transparent, open system.
Where’s the transparency and openness, not to mention, the checks and balances in the current system we’ve set up for torturing people? There is no transparency and openness. Indeed, there can’t be. That right there is a recipe for abuse, it doesn’t matter how professional you think our torturers are.
So here’s where it stands now: There is no guarantee that torture will ever save anyone’s life and there’s no system to adequately ensure that abuses of our torture policy (is that not he height of absuridity) don’t occur or that when they occur, those respoinsible will be punished. Indeed, the lack of openness and transparency virtually guarantees that abuses will go unreported or unpunished because only those involved in committing the abuses will even know that they ocurred.
At the same time, torture doesn’t only hold the potential to save lives. It also holds the potential to endanger lives. This is true because torture inflames moderate populations and that it has a high probability of producing false information that nevertheless must be followed up on, thus diverting resources from more effective and efficient methods of investigation and security.
Look at the French experience in Algeria. How much longer was that conflict prolonged BECAUSE torture and reports of torture radicalized otherwise moderate the local populations? The French ultimately lost that conflict and Algeria won its independence. Many historians have argued that this was the result of the French losing moral support both locally in Algeria and back at home as a direct result of its torture policies.
We know from such historical evidence that torture produces a noxious response from the populations against which is directed, in this case, arabs and muslims. But to turn around and demand that moderate muslims have to ignore their moral reaction and accept our reasoning for torture is simply asking to fail.
Jay, we have some how surrvived as a nation for two hundred without officially sanctioning torture. Now you think we should. I’m afraid that put the burden ENTIRELY on you to make the case for why.
Your sole defense comes down to your beleif that torture saves lives. I think I’ve made the case that there’s much, much more to it than that.
The fact of the matter is that we have other less morally onerous means of getting information from even harderened detainees that are efficient, are reliable and don’t produce such a counterproductive backlash.
The bottomline is that we can, in fact, save lives without compromising our morality.
Do you have any closing arguments?
So Jay, the burden is entirely upon you to suggest your opposition is why, given the serious immorality that torture represents, we should nevertheless engage in it on the slim chance that it will produce some greater good. What is the rationale for using torture if it can’t guarantee it’s effectiveness?
Frame, you haven’t said a word about any ‘guarantees’ until just recently, when it was proven that such tactics do work. So which is it? Are you opposed to using the techniques because of what you believe it means with regard to justice and human dignity or are you opposed to it because it cannot guarantee results?
I never argued that it guarantees results, therefore there is no burden on me.
You simply cannot compare our torture policies to our everday system of government because our system of torture has been designed specifically to avoid the checks and balances that our everyday justice system has built up over two hundred years of jurisprudence.
I’m not comparing the policies. I was merely pointing out your flawed argument about guarantees.
Our system of justice is designed to acknowledge human fallbility and error and is replete with checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are not sent to prison or executed. It recognizes that errors get made and above all, it is a transparent, open system.
Where’s the transparency and openness, not to mention, the checks and balances in the current system we’ve set up for torturing people? There is no transparency and openness. Indeed, there can’t be. That right there is a recipe for abuse, it doesn’t matter how professional you think our torturers are.
Frame, you are arguing a bogus point. These are not American citizens. They are not claimed by any country as they are not soldiers representing any particular country. They are not engaging in any form of conventional warfare. They’re playing different rules. We cannot site back and go through the same motions thinking that treating them like bank robbers is going to be effective.
Jay, we have some how surrvived as a nation for two hundred without officially sanctioning torture. Now you think we should. I’m afraid that put the burden ENTIRELY on you to make the case for why.
We have never faced an enemy like this in our existence Frame. Not all German soldiers in WWII were Nazis. Many of them were simply soldiers. And they fought with honor and dignity and within the boundaries of modern warfare.
This is an enemy that doesn’t play by the rules. For them, there is only one rule: kill as many as you possibly can by whatever means you can. We have to take extraordinary steps to deal with an enemy that is using extraordinary tactics in which to kill people – innocent people.
The fact of the matter is that we have other less morally onerous means of getting information from even harderened detainees that are efficient, are reliable and don’t produce such a counterproductive backlash.
You keep bringing this up and I keep having to remind you about Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He was subject to conventional interrogation methods. They did not work. Didn’t work Frame. Did not work. What worked? A combination of the six techniques I listed.
They were used as a last resort, and only used on a hard case like Mohammed. You’re under the impression that such tactics are going to be used on whim, when there is a long bureaucratic process of higher ups having to sign off before such tactics are used.
A planned attack on the Library Tower in LA was thwarted as the result of information we got from Mohammed. On a typical day, around 3,000 people work in the building.
Now, if the moderate Muslim world wants to get worked up over us using these tactics against somebody like Mohammed, then so be it. I would like to see such outrage directed at the very people like Mohammed who kill in the name of their religion, but I won’t hold my breath.
And I’ve said all I can say. Obviously we won’t agree, but thanks for the discussion.
“Are you opposed to using the techniques because of what you believe it means with regard to justice and human dignity or are you opposed to it because it cannot guarantee results?”
First of all, my central argument against torture is that it is immoral because it flies in the face of human diginity. You can’t so easily sweep away the steady advancement of justice and human rights that has, for much of the modern era, centered crucially on the aboherrence and abolition of torture.
Like you said, Jay, “People are responsible for their own actions. It’s as simple as that.” and this administration, with the support of people like you, has decided to take us down an immoral path that can lead to no good end.
My point about the guarantees is simple. The only thing, in your argument, that abolsolves torture of its moral malignancy is is ability to save lives. Mind you, not simply its ability to truthful elicit information (which I have never denied), but specifically its ability to elicit information that will save lives.
This is, no mater how you want to slice, an argument that the ends justifies the means. But if the means can’t consistently produce the ends you’re looking for is it still worth it?
How do we justify the use of torture when it elicits merely information and not life saving information? Or what if, which is most likely, torture produces no useful information, that nevertheless requires us to spend resources following it up?
You tell me that torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed saved 3,000 lives. Really? Only torture could have accomplished this task?
Not increased airport security? Not air marshalls? Not humint on the ground with more informers and investigators? Not better cooperation between law enforcement agencies? In short, only torture saved 3,000 lives and not the hundreds of other things that we could do keep us safer without:
1) Compromising our moral values
2) Radicalizing moderate populations
3) Corrupting our own system of justice
As to the secondpoint, I give you again the French experience in Algeria. The French lost the moral/political war in Algeria and at home because of reports of their extensive torture program. You can dismiss the contemporary response of moderate muslims but we dismiss the lessons of history at our peril.
And yes, Jay, we don’t agree but I won’t thank you for the discussion. Your position and reasoning is, quite frankly, morally repugnant on every level.
I have to say one more thing add.
In your mind, the highest moral calling for the government is the preservation of life.
Accordingly, if torture saves lives then it’s a moral good.
But you’ve got it all wrong.
The highest moral calling for our government should be preserving our way of life and the principles we stand for.
That is the moral basis upon which the government can compel its citizens (forcibly through a draft or voluntarily through moral appeals) to give up their lives in sacrifice for the greater good.
Torture runs counter to our way of life. Indeed, it is anathema to our basic principles as articulated in the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the people we are torturing are not American citizens. “To torture” is not American. That’s what counts.
By advocating and practicing torture, the government abdicates its higher calling of preserving our way of life in order to satisfy a baser, fear-based desire to simply preserve life.
That’s why torture is wrong in all circumstances and that’s why your arguments are, as I said, so morally repugnant on every level.
And yes, Jay, we don’t agree but I won’t thank you for the discussion. Your position and reasoning is, quite frankly, morally repugnant on every level.
You couldn’t end it without resorting to being a dick could you? I guess you couldn’t take a shot to your rep in front of Factcheck and Midderpidge.
My position is not morally repugnant. Your position is morally bankrupt. Why? Because you hold this position that pretends to make you morally superior. You talk about justice and humanity, but it rests on the completely and utterly absurd notion that there is no moral difference between grabbing a guy by the shirt and slapping him in the stomach and those blow people up, cut of their heads, and fly airplanes into office buildings.
So you go ahead and puff your chest out and pat yourself on the back, congratulating yourself on your own selfish view of being a voice of reason in the arena of justice .
Me? I’ll take a thwarted terrorist attack and won’t lose a wink of sleep knowing the bastard who gave it up was made to feel cold or had to stand up for a long time.
“I’ll take a thwarted terrorist attack and won’t lose a wink of sleep knowing the bastard who gave it up was made to feel cold or had to stand up for a long time.”
And that’s exaclty the function of euphimism, Jay, so you can sleep while inhumane acts are being committed in your name.
And no, Jay, I was not being a dick. Supporting torture is morally repugnant and I would be betraying my own principles I said it was okay to agree to disagree on the issue. It is not okay to agree to disagree on this issue.
“Because you hold this position that pretends to make you morally superior.”
But Jay, my position is morally superior to yours because it’s based on higher principles than mere survival. It’s based on defending those principles in the face of danger instead of surrendering them at the first sign of threat.
Your only guiding principle is that the ends justify the means and you’ve ended up rationalizing an immoral means to satisfy an utterly fear-based end.
You suggest that I am equating our “professional interogators” with terrorists.
Remember, Jay, you’re the one who asserted at the beginning of this discussion that the morality of torture was subjective. Really? So why not the morality of terrorism? Is it because terrorists attack innocent people? But Jay, we sent an innocent Canadian man to Syria to be torture without ever bothering to check any of the evidence against him. Why? Because the torture was supposed to produce the evidence. And guess what? Under torture he confessed to training with terrorist in Pakistan — something that never actually happened.
The fact of the matter is that killing innocent people in a terrorist attack and waterboarding someone are morally equivalent acts because they both proceed from the premise that the ends justify the means.
The only morally acceptable position is to condemn both activities with equal force. That isn’t moral equivalence, Jay, that’s the objective morality defined.
So yes, Jay, I do have the morally superior position. So you can see why it would be utterly hypocritical to play nice with you.
wfobrey iqez vzqt snoj quylpgebc xkizmra abmqwx