• SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....

  That is a nuts statement.  I assume you can link to it?

  I really don't understand why people can't just be honest.  I've said before and will again I'm American, ergo I value AMERICAN life over any other life and certainly American life over foreigners comfort. 

• bloc said on Oct 05, 2009....

  i disagree with the implicit conflation of torture with mere discomfort. 
  
  
  Here is the link
  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/177370/SC-community,-is-this-torture%3F#comment_779332
  
  
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....

  The ultimate question is does smb actually have any credible sources other than his/her personal opinion. Because... drum roll...
  
  The fact remains:
  
  It is not 'documented that our [enhanced] interrogation methods gained lifesaving intelligence. And. Using the smb logic table. They were [tortured].
  
  If smb has evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. Post it. Yes?
  
  And a creditable source is not to include the 'personal opinion' of some other discredited source like Dick Cheney.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....

  Okay fair enough on the conflation of torture with discomfort. Call it whatever you want to call it.  If it saves American lives I'm all for it.  Obviously there are a multitude of reasons why we should try every other method first, just like we should try everything possible before going to war.  But when all is said and done I don't care.

• sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....

  It is documented our [enhanced] interrogation methods gained lifesaving intelligence therefore they were not torture.
  
  Empty headed gibberish.
  
  
  CIA memos on interrogation requested by Cheney finally released.
  
  Confirmed: Intel obtained from detainee interrogations helped stop terror attacks. Unconfirmed: Whether any enhanced techniques were used in the interrogations that yielded that intel.
  
  
  Related:
  
  Top Bush Terrorism Adviser Admits CIA Docs Didn’t Prove Torture Worked
  
  Obtained: The CIA Documents Dick Cheney Says Vindicate Torture
  
  Wallace, Sammon cite dubious Washington Post article to defend Cheney, enhanced interrogation
  
  Turning Our Back on Torture

• kelly said on Oct 05, 2009....

  "But when all is said and done I don't care."
  
  
  It's going to take a very long time before the human race frees itself from the muck and slime that it crawled from, but I think that it will eventually happen.  We won't remain atavistic knuckle draggers forever.  It's already happening, despite a prevalence of the above kind of thinking.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 05, 2009....

  It's true.  It'll happen.  But it'll be just a few centuries before we go extinct.  Any species or in this case breed that doesn't defend it's own "By any means necessary" is not long to survive.  Doesn't mean we should start there, in fact clearly we shouldn't.  Even in nature evolution has evolved displays/bluffing that serve no purpose other than to make one side back down prior to/instead of fighting. 

  What's more is that you can make a strong debate about Europe's policies particularly towards Muslims and see what happens when a (and I use quotes because I don't have more accurate words than I'm using) "superior" nation accepts immigrants as equals instead of as people who came to a better country for a better life. 

  Bottom line is that any man who isn't willing to do whatever it takes to keep his country safe shouldn't be leading it.

  Edit:  And I believe that mistakes can be made in the pursuit of our nations.  I also believe that Obama will/has probably already/will resort to torture if/when it seems necessary.  If I didn't I would have voted McCain. 

• sheltercrow said on Oct 05, 2009....

  Sean: You equate the United States torture policy as what a 'breed' does to defend it's own? You better wind up that cuckoo clock.
  
  As some of the more reasoned of our 'breed' have stated. The United States is now more of a target then ever.
  
  And remember what happened to the USSR when it played the Afghanistan game. It lost all it's marbles.
  
  Another thing to remember. Afghanistan cannot independently support any security arrangement. It's too poor. Which means that it's all our marbles till the eventual collapse. Pakistan isn't in much better shape.
  
  Last thing to remember is that we're 11,778,359,810,099 marbles in debt.
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 06, 2009....

  Did you guys develop amnesia?  The memo that Obama released states that the waterboarding of Kalid Sheik Mohammed stopped an attack, you all read it.  So you either have to admit that "torture" works or admit that our version of waterboarding is not torture.  I didn't back you guys into this corner you did it to yourselves. 

  Once again you guys just jump right over everything and go right to torture when you can't prove it.  As long as you guys make the claim I am going to ask for proof.  There not a single reasonable substantiated case of actual torture against anyone during to the Bush years and no amount of pithy titles and catchy little phrases insulting the right is going to change that. 

  I'm a "torture defender" because you guys can't back up what you say?  It is kind of sad.

• sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....

  stopmediabias: You have placed yourself in the position of again being irrelevant. This time in a post about your own nonsense.
  
  Your motto? If at first you don't succeed, repeat yourself.
  
  Then refer to more nonsense using your current target - any liberal will do - as the source. You live in a demented dream world.
  
  Where is that tiny violin?

• kevinunknown said on Oct 06, 2009....

  I have tried in the past to argue with SMB about torture but it was a bit difficult because as far as he is concerned “America does not torture” he just simply doesn’t accept that it goes on so you can’t argue about the rights and wrongs of it because he is blindly ignorant. Fortunately this ignorance also means that people don’t (or shouldn’t) pay much attention to him.

  I personally agree with torture in extreme circumstances such as the ticking clock scenario, unfortunately sometimes there is just no other choice. It’s very easy for us to sit here and talk about how “wrong” it is but at the end of the day we don’t have to make the tough choices that people in the intelligence community do, furthermore we are not privy most of the time to the whole picture as they are so how can we criticize them? Since 9/11 there has been no attack on American soil despite increased hearted towards America so they must be doing something right and the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program has allot to do with that, whether you like it or not its these guys and their counterparts that are keeping you safe.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....

  The thing Kevin is that attacks on American soil were few and far between before 9/11.  You can't really use that as a justification of anything.  Hell with the torture debate we are having and the insanity of the American Right if I were Al Qeada I'd just sit back and let us continue tearing ourselves to shit.

  Shelter:  Are you suggesting we pull out of Afghanistan?

• sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....

  Sean: See Rethink Afghanistan

• bloc said on Oct 06, 2009....

  @sean
  
  
  I also take issue with the idea that torture keeps us safe. I think I've made a convincing case over the years that when all is said and done, torture is a net negative on our safety. Torture very quickly leads to interrogations like this one:
  
  
  “There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....

  And I've stated time and time again that I agree that torture probably does have a net loss for us.  But that's at least in part because we are stupid enough (or Bush was) not to deny it.  I have no doubt that every country tortures, just like I have no doubt that Clinton tortured and Obama will torture.  He'll close down Gitmo, move the torture chambers back to some triple top secret location that doesn't and will never exist and then when people claim we torture we'll stick to the time honored "nu uh" defense.

  Perception is what matters here.  Obama could personally waterboard every man in Gitmo and as long as we keep it on the hush hush the rest of the world won't turn against us.  On the flip side we could have some isolated cases (though I have no doubt that they were sanctioned at the very least through the immediate chain of command.) of torture and take pictures and suddenly everybody hates us.  

  Sorry shelter, I don't watch youtube nor read links to articles.  If you can't articulate what you've learned from the sourse I don't much care what you parrot.

  Bottom Line:  I don't think anybody should be put in charge of the protection of this nation that cannot say the following.  I am ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to keep America and her citizens safe.  End topic.  Finding out WHAT is most effective is an entirely different discussion.  Just like I'm not a war monger but I do believe there are times when people should go to war.  I personally think any nation that is participating in ethnic clensing should be overthrown by any means necessary.  Obviously we've got our own problems and have to deal with this in a sane manner but it's a shame that we are all just kind of looking at Darfur (in particular but really pic any sub-saharan African country) and saying, gee that's horrible.  It's kind of okay for the US right now as we've got two wars already and don't have spare bodies.  But once we do it'll go right back to being horshit.

• sheltercrow said on Oct 06, 2009....

  Sean: Really? So being stupid is a choice? Suit yourself.

• bloc said on Oct 06, 2009....

  @sean
  
  
  I think there are two important issues, you touched on one, which is perception, but the other is general efficacy. People being tortured will tell the torturer what they think will make the torture stop, not what is true. I've thought about this a lot over the years and I can not come up with any plausible scenarios where torture would be useful.
  
  
  think about it, how do you know who to torture? You would have to know upfront some specific piece of information you want, and you would have to be sure they know this piece of information. I don't believe there are many scenarios in real life where this is true. 
  
  
  Getting back to something I say a lot, torture is used to get people to tell you what you want to hear, not what is true. Why in the world would we use it for real intel?
  
  
  Also, I truly doubt that we secretly torture people because we've seen that it's impossible to keep these things secrets. Someone with a conscience will be involved and they will leak the info. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 06, 2009....

  @Shelter:  A monkey can post links.  A man can articulate information.  You're the idiot and its reflected in your responses from just about everybody and in your readership.  Half the time YOUR the only one who comments on your blogs.

  @bloc:  I'm willing to accept the data gathered that suggests torture isn't efficent.  Its consistent enough.  I think the problems with your logic though are pretty glaring.

  How do you know who to question?  You don't.  So of course you don't know who to torture.  Of course people are going to say anything to get the torture to stop, but why are they going to tell the truth in the first place.

  I would really like to see studies if any exist from the USSR or the Viet Cong.  Because I'm curious if this truly works as advertised.  I know I would never give up information that would hurt my fellow Marines or my country.  I sure as fuck wouldn't do it if I wasn't being tortured.  I love my country and assume that my enemies love their countries.  You would have to make a helluva case for how I would be saving lives by betraying my nation.  Example.  Given what most people believe even today sixty plus years down the line if I was a captured Japanesse Soldier you might get me to tell you how to get to the Emperor quickly instead of cutting the Marines loose on the mainland of Japan and forcing the civilians to the forefront.  Or something similar.  Course those were guys so bad ass they were flying planes into boats.  I doubt they would talk no matter what.

  So the question for the moment is would you?  If you were captured by Al Qaeda would you tell them where Obama was?

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2009....

  there are many psycological tricks to get people to talk. For many, they are proud of their "work" and want to tell people about it. We've had FBI agents testify to this fact for terrorist detainees. Saddam was talking to the guard that befriended him. It's not that difficult to convince a captive that you are on their side and working in their interests. I've posted details of these issues in the past. I'm not sure where the glaring problem is. 
  
  
  It seems that many of the issues we disagree on coming down to your views on what is or isn't logical, and my view that the human psyche isn't based on mathematical logic. 

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2009....

  Here is a great book on the subject of logical thinking, or a lack thereof. 
  

• sheltercrow said on Oct 07, 2009....

  My readership? I don't have any readership you fool.
  
  Ya know, when someone keeps posting patriotic dingbat dung you know their out of their depth. Sound familiar?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2009....

  My readership? I don't have any readership you fool.
  

  That was exactly my point Shelter.  You're irrelevant. 

  You didn't answer the question bloc.  Would you betray your nation?

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2009....

  @sean
  
  
  I can say that I wouldn't, but my point is that the human brain works in funny ways. I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but do you really think everyone that says this is accurate? 
  
  
  It's like the military, you can never tell who will hold up when real combat starts, and typically the most boisterous are the first to shit their pants. 
  
  
  But let's take this a bit farther. The human psyche has needs. Social interaction is one of them, and if you are isolated for years from anyone excepts your captors then it's very easy to give in to basic human needs. This is why sensory deprivation is torture, it destroys the human psyche and creates an empty shell of a human being. 
  
  
  Give some serious though to what it would be like to be isolated for years and what the torment would do to a psyche. Imagine being in solitary for years, with no exposure to natural light, no sense of the time of day, being deprived of real sleep for months on end, hearing no real sounds, and having your only food being given to you through a slot in the door. Absolutely no human contact for a year. How fragile do you think most peoples psyche would be after that? Would you bet on their ability to live up to abstract ideals?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2009....

  After years I doubt you know anything of interest.  I doubt you know anything of worth after probably  little over a month save perhaps your chain of command if that is of interest.  Troop movements and individual missions would be so obsolete in years that unless you had a time machine (which would eliminate the need to interogate in the first place) it would serve no purpose.

  Combat is a high stress enviroment.  In a world where torture is defined by the porn rule of "I know it when I see it" anything that doesn't involve tea and crumpets will be torture when it counts (when you're on trial)  I know you seem to be sane on the issue but you can't give me any reason why "Good Cop. Bad Cop" isn't torture.  The whole "you don't want me to give you to ALIENated cus well he does things I don't agree with but he gets results.  If I can't get you to talk well my superiors."  Well I don't see how you can claim you didn't just threaten that man's life.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2009....

  I think we too often fall into a simplistic view of war. War is about a lot more than military tactics. I'm sure that many terrorists do know useful things after more than a month. They might know how money is transferred, how communications are hidden, how munitions are moved across borders, etc. 
  
  
  Does your scenario cause extreme pain and suffering? There are certainly grey areas, but there are with all things. The problem is that what you are describing is tea and crumpets compared to what the Bush admin authorized. I see no point in debating such fine distinctions in light of the severity of what actually happened. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2009....

  I doubt your run of the mill guy knows how money is transferred or communications are hidden etc etc.  You're already supposing we have captured a high value prisoner.  And a lot of your arguments are based on the fact that we don't know if we do or don't have such a guy and thus we have to err on the side of caution.  You do make a point that they might know these things but without knowing they know these things it would be difficult to guide the conversation in a direction to encourage them to give up this information.    But you do make a good point.  For why every single suspect should be kept in prison until an operation is over because we don't know what they might know.  But that seems both innefficient and cruel to me.  Granted War is special circumstances but I basically believe we should execute those who cannot be re-entered into socieity, those who can we need to work as hard as we can as fast as we can to get them back along their lives and those who are wrong place wrong time we need to cut loose instantly.

  I've already ceded that what the Bush Admin did was torture.  Though I believe their main sin was not hiding it as well as every president before him.  I still have great issue with the way we define torture. 

  Despite lots of provided data I also find it highly unlikely that (especially in the short term) that torture is less effective particularly when we can't solidly define what is torture.  You can't say we don't do something that doesn't have a definition to begin with.

  I'd like to end with something mentioned in a previous post that felt wrong but I did'nt know why at the moment.

  I believe that we have discovered chemicals to make people happy.  To make them sad.  To make them tell the truth and to make them see things that aren't there.  I believe we have found that dogs get hungry at the ring of a bell even if they have no stomachs (though to be fair being hungry is likely more complex than that).  In short there seems to be a whole lot of human behavior that can be mathematically worked out if you know the formula and beyond that adjusted to our needs if we wish it. 

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2009....

  "You can't say we don't do something that doesn't have a definition to begin with."
  
  
  Nothing outside of abstract mathematics has an absolute definition. Murder doesn't have one for example, yet we have no problem trying people for murder. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2009....

  Yeah Murder does have a definition.  Several infact.  Murder one requires PREMEDITATION.  (ie. planning)  Murder 2 just involves intent to kill.  Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter , etc etc.  We are actually quite nuanced with the definitions.  Same with Theft, Grand Theft, Burglarly, armed theft.  Again heavy on the nuance.  Even at the most basic level murder involves killing.  If your victim survives (through intent or incompetence) it becomes either attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon depending on what the DA's judgement call is but there are clear definitions for each.

• bloc said on Oct 09, 2009....

  I promise you I can find many cases where it's unclear if something was murder or not. There is a lot of grey area in there. Do you think there isn't?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 09, 2009....

  Not in the definitions I don't think so.  Now if you are asking if there are jury decisions I disagree with yeah but I think the definitions are very distinct, to the point of their being several different definitions that basically over arc to a point of stupidity.  I don't believe you should be found "less guilty" for a lack of better terms because you happened to miss the heart when you shot some guy and through modern science he was able to survive.  Your intention was the same and that is what we shoudl be be focusing on whenever possible  But I digress.

   

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2009....

  Let me focus on one aspect then, premeditation. Do you think it's always clear if something was premeditated?
  
  Here are two examples that come to mind off the top of my head, and one issue worth considering.
  
  1. A spouse finds that their partner is cheating and kills them. Was it premeditated?
  
  2. Someone steals something from me, I decide to go to their house and confront them about it. Once there, we get into a fight and I pull out a gun and shoot the person? Is it premeditated because I planned to go over there?
  
  Now here's the real kicker. Premeditation is mostly the thoughts in someones brain. You can't prove what is in someones brain, therefore it's a highly subjective standard. Don't get me wrong, there are clear cut cases where there is a trail of evidence, but there are a lot of cases where the trail isn't clear. If you aren't convinced then let's dig into these two examples.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 10, 2009....

  1.  You're unclear.  Does he walk in on them and kill them or does he find a pair of boxers that aren't his.  Rather important distinction.

  2.  You chose (intentionally) grey area.  Its not about if you planned to go over.  Its about if you plannned to kill him. 

  It seems that you are debating the nuances of the law not their existance in the first place.  Their existance is enough for my point.

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2009....

  Regarding 2, I've known someone that was charged with a felony due to premeditation because they decided before had to go someplace to find someone.
  
  1. He has known about it for a while.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 11, 2009....

  I've known two people who were charged with DUIs for SLEEPING in a car that they had the keys for.  How something is applied doesn't mean it isn't written clearly.  Hell we have the Supreme Court to interpret what was written, I highly doubt that anything in the Constitution directly protects abortions no matter what the Court might claim

• bloc said on Oct 11, 2009....

  back to the other scenario, premeditation is filled with grey areas. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 11, 2009....

  It really isn't though.  If you can create a reasonable doubt that your intention wasn't to kill you get bumped down to murder 2.  That's not grey, that's a different charge all together.  Besides even if I accept your premise the grey area is in how the arresting officers and subsequent law enforcement chooses to charge you.  Hell a loto f times officers will charge you with every crime that evn sorta resembles what you were doing in th ehopes that something will stick.  that's not because the laws aren't clear, it's because people get of on technicalities.  Regardless we know what murder is.  It causes death.  Even when you combine all of the murder and manslaughter things together it causes death.  We can't say the same for torture.  The closest we can get is torture causes discomfort.  Well so does not sleeping on my Sleep Number matress with a cup of hot cocoa.

• javadewd said on Oct 11, 2009....

  Okay, I know I've been sniping about it as of late, but here's my beef...
  
  One of my clients is a criminal defense firm. They should be of a liberal mindset, you'd think, but both lawyers are practicing Catholics. They're business revolves around getting criminals off. They're very good at it.
  
  They use what I call legalese, or basically the language that lawyers speak, in order to describe things and to argue points. For example, they would never use the word "torture" to describe the goings-on of the CIA or the current or past administrations if they were their lawyers. Since everybody is innocent until proven guilty, the idea that "alleged abuses of alleged war criminals" would be considered our "torturing of terrorists." Call it semantics if you wish...
  
  Because you have to really break this argument down into two major parts for it to seem valid enough to drone on and on about it. Bloc has [and the left have] taken the former -- torture -- while the right [in general] has taken the latter -- terrorists -- and unfortunately there have been so many holes being poked into both sides of the argument by subsequent blather that it has either [in my mind at least] annihilated the whole argument or totally marginalized its whole relevance. Bloc seems to keep trying to strike the flint at it, but after so many hits the noise simply gets on peoples' nerves.
  
  If this was a case (ala "Family Guy" or "American Dad!") where we were tossing elderly Korean acupuncturists into secret CIA detainment facilities, then yes, the right would be insane to attempt to defend (much less mention) it. If this was a case (ala WW2, etc) where the US and its agencies were gassing Arabic Muslims for the sake of genocide, then again, the right would find themselves in the deepest of deep shit and even I couldn't argue for them at that point. Neither is really the case. Those at gitmo are at gitmo for good reason, especially at this point.
  
  On the flip-side of the argument if our government was simply maniacally tickling dangerous terrorists with a feather, there would be outrage, especially if for every toe we tickled, yet another American city was attacked by terrorists, regardless of the level of the attack. The left would have no leg to stand on in an argument such as that, because at that point it wouldn't take much of a consensus to determine that tougher interrogation methods would be necessary. I guess the idea of threatening a terrorist's family with death is the equivalent of threatening a toddler with a spanking. The terrorists simply look at you like an idiot and simply brush it off. Given the cultural aspects of terrorists, such a reaction makes sense. Now if we were to dowse them in pig's blood or something, then that would be more culturally accurate to the reaction we would be seeking, wouldn't it? Even though it would be considered a non-lethal method, it is still not allowed for cultural reasons. That's a problem.
  
  So if bloc's idea is to strike some sort of balance to this argument, then there would have to be some sort of line in the sand drawn -- a bar or standard if you will -- that would satisfy both sides. If that is the idea, then guess what? I get it. It just doesn't seem like any of the "torture" series of posts are moving in that particular direction. It seems more like they are trying to win an argument of the US should simply leave the terrorists alone, and that's just not going to happen, because they are terrorists and they hate us and they want to kill us, plunder our wares and rape our wives and daughters... That's simply what terrorists do.
  
  Now who has bets that bloc stops reading this comment at about the second paragraph?
  

• bloc said on Oct 12, 2009....

  I was going to comment earlier that I was impressed that you called them suspected terrorists (in another post). This is important and often forgotten. 
  
  
  Yes, technically the Bush admin hasn't been convicted of torture, sadly there isn't a prosecutor looking into it either. I think the case I've made is solid, and I'm curious if you believe a prosecutor should be assigned to look into it? Here's my brief case for a prosecutor. 
  
  
  1. Our government prosecuted and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding american. 
  
  
  2. The Bush Admin authorized waterboarding, they admit it. We have memo's with their signatures on it, and they waterboarded one person 183 times in one month.
  
  
  3. Therefore, it's a clear case of torture and we need a prosecutor. 
  
  
  Your assumption that torture works is not one that I accept. I've linked to many experienced interrogators who have explained why torture is not an effective way to obtain information.
  
  
  Second, I find it absurd to suggest that people like me want to leave terrorists alone. I want to treat them like we treated germans we captured during world war 2. I want to interrogate them effectively, in a way that doesn't compromise America's soul. We don't need to become evil to fight evil. In fact, we'll be far more effective if we keep our clear moral high ground. 
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 12, 2009....

  Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Any idiot who watched Dragnet could recite that, so I'm certainly not the first. As far as a moral high ground, I would wonder what Friday would do with a terrorist, especially if that terrorist organization had just killed, maimed and/or otherwise accosted his friends and/or family?
  
  Again, I realize that in your mind, everything is Bush's fault. Yet, you are one who complains that Christians use circular arguments, so to me it just appears hypocritical... Which then leads back around to the whole "moral high ground" argument again. What would Friday do? WWFD? He is but a man. He has rage, no matter how tempered, against evil and its servants.
  
  Our government prosecuted and convicted Japanese soldiers for water-boarding Americans. Great, then we should have handed over terrorists to the Japanese. That would have solved everything, but then it wouldn't be Bush's fault... Or would it?
  
  The Bush Administration authorized water-boarding. They admit it. We have memos with their signatures on it, and they water-boarded one person 183 times in one month. Damn... And he survived, too. Wasn't he also released and was found a week later as a high-ranking officer (a post left open while he was gone) in Al-Qaeda? We should have especially given him to the Japanese. Perhaps they would have finished the job.
  
  Therefore it's a clear case of torture and we need a prosecutor... To prosecute the terrorists? Oh, wait. Since they are suspected terrorists, we should aid them with the Arab Criminal Liberties Union. We should take our operatives out of the field, reveal their identities on public record and waste the tax-payer dime defending the rights of people who send underlings to blow up our families with some LA-based dream team. Hell, let's put it on pay-per-view and idolize these folks, too. Maybe they'll use the Chewbacca defense!
  
  Again, it goes from "torture" to "terrorism." You keep working that angle to death and people are going to start ignoring it. For some odd reason, I think they already have, bloc.
  
  I assume that torture works? Is this like the assumption you made that I'm not a decent person? I would love to walk around in your head for a little while. I'll bring some Pledge and a duster. I'm sure there is a layer of something that needs to be cleaned out between them ears of yours. Wait, that goes back around to the "tickle torture" comment I made... If you're keeping up...
  

• bloc said on Oct 13, 2009....

  That didn't make any sense. Are you saying that it's ok to torture suspected terrorists?

• javadewd said on Oct 13, 2009....

  Sorry for the quick answer, I'm at work, but...
  
  It's obviously okay for you to torture non-terrorists, you're torturing us with what appear to be circular arguments.
  
  I'm just using the data you are saying is fact to show you that there is still something amiss in your argument. Do with it what you will, I guess. According to you, the Japanese felt the need to torture. Held accountable as they were by the means you state, they still did.
  There are evil people in this world, who they side with is their choice -- whether with the Japanese, Americans, or even Arab terrorists -- but if we have evil people on "our side" and they torture "for kicks" (which doesn't seem to be the case) then they should be dealt with like the Japanese were dealt with. I just can't stand behind the idea that this was the case.
  I seriously think you're not reading my comments in their entirety, but oh well. You have to admit that I'm behaving, and in some round about way you could still master the argument, but you're going to have to be more clear about your particular angst. On the surface, it's agreeable, I just don't think you're explaining it right, which is opening you up to scrutiny and the rest of us to nausia.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 13, 2009....

  Part of the point Java is that we can't risk torturing the wrong person.  It's the same as the why people are against the death sentence because what about the innocent.  For me it's simple math.  How many people are saved (and people in prison are still people) because you put down a criminal vs how many do we accidently put down.  If someone could PROVE that by killing one innocent little girl nobody else would die for a year, that little girl best get to stepping cus I'm hunting.  Greater good n all.

  The other part is that by torturing and I think bloc is often too quick to ignore this point, by torturing publicly we make the world hate us.  We increase the number both of sympathizers and of actual terrorists.  However this only happens if word gets out.  I have no doubt that the French torture, but they are smart enough to lie about it.  I have no doubt that Obama will (if he hasn't already) authorized torture against a suspected terrorist.  I want to say known but the reality is until you literally have a guy on film blowing something up he is a suspected terrorist.  Osama Bin Ladin is a suspected terrorist in the technical sense and he's admitted/taken credit for shit.

• bloc said on Oct 13, 2009....

  I don't think torture could be kept secret like you believe it is. I'm certain there would be whistle blowers. 
  
  
  @java
  I read your whole comment, it just jumped around a lot and I had a hard time following it. Are you saying that it's not torture if the purpose is to gain information, but that it is torture if the purpose is to satisfy ones "kicks"?

• javadewd said on Oct 13, 2009....

  Actually, Sean, I was sticking the "alleged" part in to show that yes, bloc, we have evidence that it was most definitely torture, and yes, bloc, we have evidence that these folks were definitely terrorists and not some poor Korean acupuncturist that one of our agencies just snatched off the sidewalk in order to needlessly torture them.
  
  I'm hoping I can help tie this all together with taking your argument from a different perspective with this question : How do you extract needful information from a terrorist? You can't tickle it out of them. You can't pet their heads, sing them lullabies and it just magically appears. Several "experts" have described many good ways to do so, some bordering on the topic of water-boarding. So why would you figure that these terrorists were tortured? Lack of time, patience or experience of the interrogating officers, perhaps? Do you really seriously believe that this was all done haphazardly? I just think there is a missing component here and it makes guys like bloc goofy on the "torture" end of the argument while guys like alien go goofy on the "terrorist" end. We should be more focused on the bar here and what brings our interrogators to the point of torturing terrorists.
  
  Again, with a little comprehension, understanding and [God forbid] compromise, perhaps we'll all get to the bottom of what is the truth. We don't have to agree on it, either. In fact, we could both disagree, with our morals and beliefs intact, and still reach a logical conclusion to this argument.
  

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2009....

  "and yes, bloc, we have evidence that these folks were definitely terrorists and not some poor Korean acupuncturist that one of our agencies just snatched off the sidewalk in order to needlessly torture them."
  
  
  Well, this is true of some, maybe most, of the detainess, but we do know that some of them were innocent. They were not snatched in order to needlessly torture, but because our people made mistakes in identifying terrorists. This is one of the reasons that due processes is so important and why this is such a big issue for me. What we have is a situation where our government asserted the power to snatch anyone off of any street in the world and torture them without due processes. Many of these people were not captured on a battlefield, which is a different situation in my eyes! I find it very troubling when the government wants the power to "harshly interrogate" anyone before proving they are guilty of something. 
  
  
  "Lack of ... experience of the interrogating officers, perhaps?"
  
  
  This is one of the big reasons imo. Cheney brought in private contractors that didn't have any background in interrogations.
  
  
  "Do you really seriously believe that this was all done haphazardly?"
  
  
  In some senses, yes. 
  
  
  "We should be more focused on the bar here and what brings our interrogators to the point of torturing terrorists."
  
  
  I'm pretty sure it wasn't the interrogators decision. We know for sure that the FBI interrogators objected strongly to these techniques. We also know that private contractors were used. We have yet to see any evidence that trained interrogators asked to use these techniques, but we have seen evidence to suggest that it was ordered or encouraged from on high.
  
  
  "In fact, we could both disagree, with our morals and beliefs intact, and still reach a logical conclusion to this argument."
  
  
  I agree completely. My main argument is that people in the executive branch shouldn't be above the law if they can get a lawyer to write a memo saying that their actions are ok.  I think there should be a prosecutor assigned to look into the high level officials, I'm not sure if that is considered a compromise or not.
  
  
  Also, javadewd, I'm not sure if you've heard me talk about this one issue. If we look at the abu ghraib photos in the light of the memos that have come out since that whole thing went down, we see the exact techniques that Bush authorized used at abu ghraib. As a former enlisted soldier I find it very troubling that we punished low level soldiers only, for what appears to have been officially authorized techniques. Bush and Cheney have publicly called these soldiers everything short of evil, yet the techniques they authorized are harsher than what we've seen from abu ghraib. The only difference is that we have pictures from abu ghraib. Mysteriously, the interrogation videos of padilla, an american citizen captured in american, were "lost". The video of the waterboardings were destroyed, and some other visual evidence was lost or destroyed, I forget which. 

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2009....

  I apologize in advance for pulling a sheltercrow and posting a bunch of links. At least mine are clearly on topic :) These links support some of the claims I made above if you are interested.
  
  
  " Charles Duelfer of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group recently revealed in his book, "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq," that high-level U.S. officials urged him to consider waterboarding specific Iraqi prisoners of war so that they could provide evidence of an Iraqi role in the terrorist attacks -- a request Duelfer refused. (A recent report indicates that the suggestion came from the vice president's office.)" source
  
  
  This is a first hand account from an FBI interrogator who interrogated Abu Zubaydah. I won't quote it because you must read the whole article which is here. 
  
  
  " In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts—with Abu Zubaydah’s case one of the most glaring examples.

  Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq." source

  “Ninety percent of what we got was crap.” a CIA officer on the intel obtained through torture. source

  "Senior Federal Bureau of Investigation officials thought such methods [harsh interrogation] unnecessary and unwise. Their agents got Abu Zubaydah talking without the use of force, and he revealed the central role of Mr. Mohammed in the 9/11 plot. They correctly predicted that harsh methods would darken the reputation of the United States and complicate future prosecutions." source

  And this one is long, but details techniques that are effective and aren't harsh.

• javadewd said on Oct 15, 2009....

  For the benefit of understanding, please excuse my pregnant pause. I have to go get my wife breakfast and take care of a few appointments before I can actually take the necessary time to read all of this...

• bloc said on Oct 15, 2009....

  sorry for making it so long, i usually try to keep it short. It's just that there is a lot of details to this issue that I've tracked over the years and you and I just started talking about the issue so .... long comment. 

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Eh, not a problem. I did finally get a chance to read them over this morning.
  
  Okay, the "Daily Beast?" I'll let the Washington Post slide -- although Clarke seems to be promoting his book -- but not the NYT. The NYT practically gave our enemies our positions and motivations under Clinton and Bush. Those bastards are simply anti-American traitors and they'll write anything. I would continue that statement with "to make a buck," but they're dying off. I wouldn't be so prickly over your sources, but the left (and you once or twice as I recall) slammed me on a few of mine that were more than a little biased (understandable), and I'm simply holding up to you a comparison. I'll digress and say that I bet over the years you have some really good sources, so between you and I you really don't have to drive home your point with them on this, but these can't be the creme of your crop. Loved the Penelpe Cruz layout in Vanity Fair and did Jane Mayer ever make the NYT best sellers with her book? I thought somebody smeared it...
  
  All I'm saying is that all along I have seen your argument on this issue. In a perfect, unbroken world I would say that torturing is 100% undeniably wrong. This is not a perfect world, though. We have actual terrorists, mass-murderers, child rapists and assholes who want to connect jumper cables to the testicles of puppy dogs. Evil exists. Evil believes that we won't hurt them, because we are good, and therefore as Dark Helmet says "evil will always triumph because good is dumb," so evil will continue to do evil, and ramp up evil occassionally just to show us that they can continue to be evil. Sure, it may not be "right" to sink to their level, but a good slap to the head certainly staves off evil for at least a moment. By design, enough good slaps to the head to evil and we have what would be deemed a moment of "peace." Is head slapping torture? There are simply too many forms of what is defined to be "torture," and that has always been a large portion of my point.
  
  Would I torture a child rapist? You betcha! Especially if the victim (or any one of the multiple victims) involved my child. Would it be the right thing to do? Probably not, but it would certainly silence the hate for injustice in my mind to see such a bastard get his due. It wouldn't be so much vengence or revenge as it would be justice. By showing child rapists that the rest of us will not tolerate their actions and the punishment of such actions would be so severe that evil itself would wince, then perhaps the next sick fuck would reconsider performing them now or in the future.
  
  Would I torture somebody like Michael Vick, who brutally beat and killed dogs? You betcha! No living being -- human or breathing -- deserves to be treated or die by such means. Again, this comes right down to justice. All of us hate injustice, unless you're a criminal, and then you cannot survive without injustice. We gave this guy a second chance, because he does by all means have a great talent. If he has truly repented of his actions (read into that as you will, but I simply mean "permanently turned away from"), then mercy and grace abound (again, go crazy cowboy) and justice is in fact served without the harsh overtones of violence and humiliation. It's rare, but justice is justice whereas revenge is a dish best served cold.
  
  Would I torture a terrorist? Now I trust you realize that this would mean knowing that this terrorist is in fact a terrorist, one confirmed working for a network of sorts, who has been caught red-handed and/or on multiple occassions in the act of terrorism. I would think that such people who do exist do not regard human life with any sanctity and would prefer to die under the watch of infidel captors. Therefore, they should not be allowed to die in battle... In fact, they should be allowed to live for as long as their body will allow... In as much pain as humanly possible... Or until their conscience catches up with that pain. Perhaps in a vat of pig's blood up to their ankles... I guess only Allah knows to what degree actual violence is necessary, but then again I don't talk to Allah...
  
  Would I do this to a Timothy McVeigh? Sure.
  
  Would I do this to someone who knowingly commits first degree murder against a known abortionist? Sure, out of sheer justice. They knew going into their act that there would be punishment, so I wouldn't want to disappoint them or God.
  
  Would I do this to a Tea Partier? Absolutely not. Regardless of what congress says, they simply do not build bombs in their basement! If one did, then my position would certainly shift and probably much more dramatically than you might think!
  
  Now to the idea that Bush/Cheney suggested and/or authorized these measures, the ends to the means, the end result and so forth, I honestly don't believe that anybody in the executive branch of our US Government should have to defend their actions on such issues, because if they did, then Clinton would have to explain the last-minute carpet bombing of Serbia.
  
  I was actually (I know, hold your breath before gasping) a fan of Clinton's for the first couple of years, even though I didn't vote for him, mainly because he seemed as harmless as a used car salesman. Tack on the wave of interns who mysteriously showed up dead throughout DC, a blow job from one in the Oval Office (at least JFK had enough respect for the office to use an off-site hotel room), and this one cowardly military action [which did serve its purpose quite well], then he was off my top ten list. By Bush defending their actions (and to what end is still inaccurate if not misleading but irrelevant to my point) they simply opened themselves up to scrutiny. The American people didn't like it, and now Bush is gone. End of story...
  
  Or is it? What about Obama... Terrorists were practically dancing in the streets at the news that a potential Muslim (what they were told) had taken the presidency! Spin, spin, spin, but those under Obama do the same thing... The media [in Obama's palm] simply doesn't report it. If they did, they'd be racists. In the meantime, both blame Bush for everything... Perfect political skategoat. This is where the idea of prosecuting anybody in the executive branch for past actions simply falls flat. Nobody will prosecute their second-coming Messiah, so therefore it's a moot point.
  
  Now if necessary, respectfully and methodically pull my argument apart...
  

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  There are a lot of points I would like to dig into, but to save time I'll pick a couple.
  
  
  You seem to be conflating torture with an eye for an eye form of justice. I.e. 
  
  
  "Evil believes that we won't hurt them, because we are good ... Sure, it may not be "right" to sink to their level, but a good slap to the head certainly staves off evil for at least a moment. By design, enough good slaps to the head to evil and we have what would be deemed a moment of "peace.""
  
  
  I don't believe this is the issue, and this is vengeance not justice in my eyes. Also, the idea of evil should be debated, but that's a long one. I'll just say that I don't believe in a black and white world with good and evil. I think we are all on a continuum between these two. 
  
  
  I think the main issue to me is one you didn't address. I don't think the state should have the power to snatch anyone off the street and torture them, especially before they have been proven guilty of any crime. It's important to remember that many of these people were not captured on the battlefield. Our founding fathers saw the dangers in this sort of thing, and setup a bill of rights, and checks and balances for those in power. I feel very strongly that these should remain in place, that they are the foundation of America's greatness, and that Bush's torture policy undermines America.
  
  
  One last thing, "In a perfect, unbroken world I would say that torturing is 100% undeniably wrong."
  
  
  I've said in the past that I'm not an absolutists about this. In a true ticking time-bomb then do what needs to be done. However, torture must remain illegal. If used the torturer must stand before a court and justify their actions. At the end of the day, the process for dealing with these extreme scenarios is already in place, Presidential pardons. But we need checks and balances, and basic human rights to stay intact. 
  
  
  Btw, we did have a real ticking time-bomb recently. Remember the terrorist that killed Doctor Tiller. He claimed that other violent action was planned against abortion doctors. Oddly, those defending torture on this site, not you, did not call for it in this ticking time-bomb scenario. I wonder why? Maybe it's his religion or his race?
  
  
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  Okay, so I am to understand that you believe that those who tortured did so out of vengeance? Please correct me if I leaped there...
  
  If you started a thread on evil, I would have to nakedly divulge my beliefs on good vs. evil. When you have the time, so bring... I'll pack a lunch.
  
  I think I'm seeing the divide now. The state didn't (and doesn't -- where within the borders of our country?) snatch just anyone off the street and torture (as an act of vengeance) them. As I recall the CIA snagged these guys from the middle east or in transit, plus if it had been within the US borders you must admit that they are not US citizens with habeas corpus, miranda, or even Constitutional rights for that matter. Also if the country by which they were "up heaved" designated them as criminals, too, then their rights governing such would be put into play, not the US's. Quoting the founding fathers in such a matter of international policy would -- oh my God I can't believe I'm saying this, but -- be quite arrogant of any American to try to project its laws upon the global community... You were better off trying to take the approach of using the Geneva Convention, but I'd rather attempt see your point on this niche, because I think there is a major misunderstanding in it.
  
  Oh, I am not trying to paint you into an absolutionist corner, please don't take up that misnomer, but I appreciate the clarification. And I like the route you go with it, but then help me with the left's approach to the whole "blame Bush, prosecute the executive branch" idea... Have I misunderstood that this is not your own opinion as well? If not, then clearly that's my mistake.
  
  I'm amazed that more folks defending torture didn't use it as an equal opportunity tool, but as you say, it should remain illegal, those who perform it should be accountable to an extent (if not pardoned, etc.) and didn't that guy crack like an egg after a few hours? I donno, had it really been that dire -- I think of those television shows where the psycho nut-job has the little girl buried in a box by the lake -- that it could have and probably should have been used.
  
  And besides, for the break in monotony, the whole idea of Streebeck interrogating Muzz... "Just you, me, your balls and this drawer." The act of torture no doubt goes on more often that you think. In fact, wouldn't a donut go good with this coffee?
  

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  "Okay, so I am to understand that you believe that those who tortured did so out of vengeance?"
  
  
  No, that seemed to be what you were implying torture is for. 
  
  
  "As I recall the CIA snagged these guys from the middle east or in transit, plus if it had been within the US borders you must admit that they are not US citizens with habeas corpus, miranda, or even Constitutional rights for that matter."
  
  
  The answer to the first part is no, not for all of them. For the second part they do get some of those rights if in this country. 
  
  
  Moving to the next section, I believe a prosecutor should be assigned to investigate the decisions in the executive branch. I don't believe the executive is above the law, and torture is clearly illegal.
  
  
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 16, 2009....

  No, I was emphasizing "justice." You don't torture somebody over the color of their hair or something... This isn't grade school. You were losing me with the whole "maybe it's his religion or his race" thing.
  
  So, okay, where did they get them then and what rights are they actually suppose to get? I thought I had rightly plucked your stance from another post, but perhaps I missed something...
  
  If Dick Cheney held a cattle prod against my nuts, and I were a terrorist, then I wouldn't stop until I was either dead or wiped out Dick Cheney. I don't think that was the case, though, otherwise Dick would have taken them all hunting, and with all due respect I don't even think Dick was in the room like when Dick Jones knocked off Bob Morton on Robocop [on a TV monitor] or anything. To what end would a prosecutor serve? A private contractor did it, whether he had permission or not doesn't give an investigator the right to go poking around in the executive branch, that is unless of course the contractors were "performing these acts against their will and subsequent conscience" which I honestly doubt.
  

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2009....

  If the executive branch ordered it, or tried to cover it up. The President is bound by law to the treaties that we've signed, and we've signed one saying we won't torture.
  
  Back to your first question, we harshly interrogated a hole lot of people. Some we snatched off hte streets of europe, and one was an american snatched up in america. The Bush admin held this american for 3 years without any charges and asserted in a court of law that they could hold him as long as they wanted. I don't have time at the moment to dig up the specific details of other cases, but they are on my blog under the torture tag.
  
  Back to "justice". This is what I was getting at, you seem to view torture as a form of punishment for a crime or something. This isn't what was going on in these cases though.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  I was just reading in another post (alien's I think) where Curm was saying that Obama may have made it official that we don't torture, but is sure that years from now it will be found that it was being used "unofficially" or something like that. He said it much more eloquently.
  
  If they "tried to cover it up," then okay, so you 'out' that... So what? IMO they shouldn't have bothered to defend their actions. If the executive branch ordered it -- and come on, who does the paperwork for torturing somebody 186 times? -- then that would have been really dumb, but again... What does that prove/show? An abuse of power? Two words: Monica Lewinsky; Ring any bells? Granted getting blown in the Oval Office trumps water boarding, unless she's just into that sort of thing...
  
  The CIA snatches people off of the streets of different countries, but most of the time (with few exceptions) do they do it without the country's permission. Again, if the country where the snatchee was snatched considers the snatchee a terrorist, then the CIA usually has permission to snatch. Most of the time the snatchee can contest the laws of that land, but is not privy to US Constitutional rights.
  
  This one that was snatched up in America... Was he a US citizen or a foreigner? Was he here legally or illegally? Was he suspected of being a terrorist or a confirmed terrorist? Was he coincidentally found at more than one incident? If he was foreign, did his home country consider him a threat or just us? Did the three years of holding have anything to do with pulling field operatives that were in deep cover at the time? Was the attorney making that statement due to the fact that if you make a charge against a foreigner that the clock starts ticking on producing the evidence and they didn't want to create an impossible window for discovery and therefore cause a mistrial with the ability for this foreign delegate to counter-sue for unjustifiable incarceration? These are the gaps that I see whenever you bring out such examples. If such information were straight-forward and accurate (from the NYT? That's totally laughable) then guys like you (and me) wouldn't get all riled up about it, me thinks.
  
  Okay, based on what I think you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong here), in these cases the [suspected] terrorists were getting "pinched" like we do with the mob. They don't "pinch" well, because they are not the mob, they are terrorists. They are criminals. They are evil. Since we couldn't deliver justice (thanks to the left wanting to give them the equivalent of a trial for a US citizen, to which they are not privy) we therefore had no leverage, either, and that is why America looks weak. Are you saying therefore we tortured them to not look weak? It seems like a very creative tangent, but I'll entertain this or a corrected version if you can explain it.
  
  Do note that now we are now shifting the definition of torture, if only for the sake of clarification, which is what I was originally trying to point out to you from jump.
  

• bloc said on Oct 17, 2009....

  He was a us citizen. He was suspected, how can he be confirmed without a trial? You were the one demanding this level of process earlier, right? Why are you now assuming that the people tortured are guilty and evil without proof? Should we give that much power to the executive? Is that america?
  
  I find it odd that you think the state should have the power to torture people. That's very odd.
  
  Again, the main point here is the rule of law. Is the President bound by the law or not? Simple question.
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  I'm confused how...
  
  "how can he be confirmed without a trial? You were the one demanding this level of process earlier, right?"
  
  ...is a response to...
  
  "Was he a US citizen or a foreigner? Was he here legally or illegally? Was he suspected of being a terrorist or a confirmed terrorist? Was he coincidentally found at more than one incident? If he was foreign, did his home country consider him a threat or just us? Did the three years of holding have anything to do with pulling field operatives that were in deep cover at the time? Was the attorney making that statement due to the fact that if you make a charge against a foreigner that the clock starts ticking on producing the evidence and they didn't want to create an impossible window for discovery and therefore cause a mistrial with the ability for this foreign delegate to counter-sue for unjustifiable incarceration?"
  
  You're going to have to fill in the gaps here, bloc. It looks like either you jumped to a wrong conclusion or misunderstood something I said, because I didn't say what you implied that I said.
  
  I also never said that I "think the state should have the power to torture people," but again, I don't want to sit here and point a finger at you and say you're putting words in my mouth... I'll give you the opportunity to try to back these two conclusions up.
  
  If the "main point here is the rule of law," then specify which rule of law you're talking about. Is the President bound by the law? Are you asking if the President is above the law? And if he were "bound by the law," explain how so many have been so drunk on power that they subvert he law by means of infidelity and then ask me either of those questions again -- This time specifically! Otherwise your simple question becomes a can of worms that you'd either ignorantly label simple in order to trap me with a simple answer or you're just not taking this debate seriously and I'm wasting my time here.
  

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  You want to talk around the issue at hand.
  
  Our government has tortured people. This is clearly illegal, and far more serious than an affair. The comparison is really shocking that you would put them in the same ballpark.
  
  Btw, there was a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Clinton and has broad powers to look into unrelated things. Given that, don't you think a special prosecutor to look into alleged torture would be appropriate?
  

• javadewd said on Oct 20, 2009....

  No, you don't want to define your point, and that's the problem with your multiple posts on the same subject, round and round we go. I compare a static rule of law to another static rule of law, but since you cannot define your rule of law, then mine looks like an impotent comparison. It could simply be that you misunderstood what I was doing there, so I'll give you another opportunity to define this illusive rule of law that you keep harping on. Perhaps you should have defined it way up there three dozen comments ago. I can't figure out if it is because you are unwilling or incapable and that is quite frustrating... TO EVERYBODY!
  
  But I'll digress into your next leap, which seems a bit more answerable...
  
  
  [T]here was a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Clinton and has broad powers to look into unrelated things. Given that, don't you think a special prosecutor to look into alleged torture would be appropriate?
  
  
  Do you really want a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Bush that has just as broad of powers as the special prosecutor assigned to investigate Clinton? If so, need I remind you that the poor bastard who was assigned to Clinton, Ken Starr, actually opened up quite a few cans of worms to the point he actually expressed regret about a few in 2004. He is now a dean of Pepperdine Law School.
  
  In short, the result that everybody wanted never came to fruition. That is the fate of the "special prosecutor" that you want to assign to Bush.
  
  Go ahead... As much as I disagree about doing it, it won't go any further than it already has, because past history proves it. It will come to nothing, so fire away!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 20, 2009....

  I have a question.  Does by definition a special prosecutor who investigates something have to make his discoveries public? 
  
  To me it's an important question because if he has to then we might be best off leaving Bush alone.  It really depends on if we think it will come out on it's own or not.  While Obama is already talking about us fixing mistakes he may as well get one more if it's inevitable. 
  
  If however it doesnt HAVE to be made public then absolutely a special prosecutor with as much or more power than the one who went after Clinton should be asigned.  The charges aren't even comprable.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 20, 2009....

  They neutered Starr at every turn. Had he revealed all of the interns who were killed in DC area around that time, it would have made a mess for the Clintons (...or the Clinton-istas? Somebody resurrected that phrase as of late...) so if you want to pull the trigger, go ahead. Not only will it not lead to the result you want, but it could by all means backfire. That's not some sort of mongering, it's proven history.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 20, 2009....

  If that is the cost maybe we've let them all get too protected.  That didn't answer my question however.  Is there a law that this must be made public or can it all be investigated on the dl, shown to Obama or some secret panel and decided from there?

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  @sean
  I do not believe so, especially if they decide not to prosecute.
  
  @java
  Torture is illegal, that is point one. I don't know how I can make that clearer, and I don't think that anyone disputes it. At best, The Bush Admin came very close to torture, and I think they cleary did torture. This leads to point two, I believe that a prosecutor should be assigned to look into this because Presidents are not above the law in the America I know.
  
  Another point I made, Bush deprived an american citizen of his constitutional rights, specifically the right to a speedy trial. The american citizen was held for three years with no due process in that time. He was subject to many, but not all, of the "harsh interrogation techniques". Again, this was done to an american citizen before he was given any form of due process. I find it odd that conservatives who are fearful of government power aren't up in arms over this. Odd
  

• javadewd said on Oct 21, 2009....

  On your first point : Torture is illegal. Jaywalking is illegal. Crime is crime. Breaking the law is breaking the law, only the punishment for breaking that law is large or small. Also, thanks to trial lawyers, the amount of money or legal skill is required for "getting away with it." I don't understand your statement "Bush Admin came very close to torture, and I think they clearly did torture," so did they or didn't they? I assume you mean they did, end of story, right? Otherwise you're not only muddying the argument, but you're also redefining the meaning of the word "is" as in "torture is torture." Again, may I point out that this is one of the big reasons I keep [ you may feel that I am needlessly ] arguing with you. I think you're pretty intelligent, bloc, sad to admit I know, but I am just trying to sharpen and hone your argument, because instead of sounding profound and decisive it just sounds like a bullet point. Gimme a break and throw me a bone, will ya!?
  
  Maybe when you go to write your next one you'll have enough information that you won't have to write another post about your feelings on "torture." We can only hope!
  
  On your second point, you would think I would be allowed to disagree and we could all agree to disagree, but sure -- as I said before -- go ahead and assign a "special prosecutor" to the Bush/Cheney torture case. It worked out so well with Ken Starr under Clinton! My point here isn't that it's a good or bad idea, but why don't we both get realistic here. I don't think any government official is above the law, either. Should there be a grand jury? Sure, okay. What happens when there isn't enough evidence? Okay, let me rephrase that for us laymen here : What happens when there isn't enough unclassified evidence and then we have to declassify evidence that incriminates other branches of government (i.e. Democrats, far-left, etc.) and/or other countries? Outcry... No? I'm sorry, but whoever your "special prosecutor" would be will end up handcuffed from jump. I don't even think that is fair from this angle and in the end it won't accomplish what you [or the left] are after. I'm not saying it's a futile effort on the part of the left, all I'm saying is let's put just a bit more thought into it instead of leaping at it like a witch hunt... If you [and the left] are serious about pursuing such an action instead of just jumping up and down like a bunch of kids.
  
  On your third point I need you to help me narrow what I think you are talking about, so allow me to hold up a comparison and you help me fill in the differences so we can all have a frame of reference (tried this before me thinks, but you didn't really catch on so I'm elaborating -- hope it isn't boring for you). Okay, Ashcroft just got roped into court because his office did something very similar to another US citizen. From what I gather, this may never come to trial and reparations for this offense from a government department will be paid out of court. Should a similar case be pursued against the Bush Administration, do you believe that the court should pursue it any harder or to any further degree than Ashcroft's office was? And if so, why? Media circus? Lefties having a circle jerk session about "defeating" Bush... Especially if it is settled out of court...? Come on. Besides, what's the latest on this cat? I'd hate to squash your argument by finding out that he became some lieutenant of Al Qaeda.
  

• bloc said on Oct 21, 2009....

  Bush tortured, period. I "muddied" the point because you argued earlier that we can't say that they tortured until they are convicted of it in a court of law. Until then you wanted us to "muddy" it by saying "alleged" or something along those lines.
  
  so point 1, Bush tortured
  
  on point 2, a discussion needs to be two way. You are trying to play the role of judge or moderator or something, and you are not addressing the issue head on. So you believe that we should not prosecute law breaking by the Predent if it may involve coconspirators or if the President hides behind classification status? That's an odd stance for a government fearing conservative, no?
  
  on point 3, he was finally charged after 3 years and was convicted on one of the new terrorism laws. One of the vague ones about like conspiracy to commit terrorism. You again did not address this issue head on. The government asserted the power to detain american citizens without charges, and did it to this guy for 3 years. What is the conservative view of liberty in this respect? I thought conservatives believed strongly in individual rights, oddly they don't seem to apply in this case for some reason. Why? What do you think shoudl happen to a President that violates the core tennets of the bill of rights?
  

• javadewd said on Oct 21, 2009....

  You know what, bloc, your thread has become very long. It has become less and less interesting to me, personally, but maybe others will want to "honestly debate" you about it. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm playing some sort of role of judge or moderator or something and that you feel that it is totally my fault that you can't hone in on your point in a more agreeable way. Yes, I've attempted to take a more neutral stance in order to show you that not everybody vehemently disagrees with you stance, it's just that you come off from a perspective that is disagreeable or perhaps more to the point un-agreeable.
  
  Instead of making your points clearer, you use this weird leftist bullet-point throwing logic that is just a real turn off. I don't expect people to agree with me, and I make it a point to be clear when I don't agree, but it is unfortunate that you have to act like an ass about it like the lefties. The left's attitude seems to be "Yeah, we won," so do as your messiah commands you and be transparent and bi-partisan... Oh, wait, he isn't doing that, either.
  
  So without further ado, I'm wrapping up my end of this conversation on your three points. I may actually reply if I feel like it, but I'm lacking enthusiasm to do so at this juncture.
  
  Point 1: Bush tortured. Okay, if you say so. If you said Bush gave the order to torture, I'd be more in agreement. I still can't see how you can prove that Bush tortured, but then again it depends on your definition of how Bush performed torture or the meaning of the word "is." Have I already agreed that someone under the guise of Bush tortured? Sure. Have I already made it plain that you don't have to site sources to convince me that torture occurred on his watch? Sure. Have I already agreed that you could call up a "special prosecutor?" Yes, and I disagreed with your assessment and gave my reasons why I felt it was a bad/futile idea. Don't agree. I'm not asking you to agree with me.
  
  Point 2: [W]e should prosecute law breaking by the President even if it may involve co-conspirators or if the President hides behind classification status. I am telling you that by going after Bush about this situation a "special prosecuto" could easily open up a can of worms that could leave the left in shambles for having even brought this up, especially if it exposes Democrats, other branches of government or allied countries, but instead of encouraging you to do so for my own amusement, I am simply stating past history, much in the same way that you claim to be presenting facts. If that is outside the bounds of this while "honest debate," then perhaps it isn't honest at all... Or somebody is just really damn touchy for some unknown and unarguable reason... Which again is just annoying.
  
  Point 3: [The American citizen who was held for three years for being an alleged terrorist] was finally charged after 3 years and was convicted on one of the new terrorism laws. One of the vague ones about like conspiracy to commit terrorism.
  
  So then just off of what you're telling me here, a convicted terrorist (because at this point he did have his trial and was convicted of one of the new terrorism laws, even a vague one) didn't get his due process. That's unfortunate. No, seriously, it is, and I'm sure he has every right to complain about it, but again, so what? At this point it is not a problem with the executive branch. If nobody in the judicial branch is giving this cat the time of day over his beef, then we've got bigger problems, don't we!?
  
  Also, the government did not assert the power to detain American citizens without charges. They asserted their power to detain this one guy without charges and if it led to a conviction at all, then the time of his incarceration had to have had something to do with how they built the case. Sure, I would hope that the government can account for this extraordinary amount of time that must have been necessary to do that, but if it involved unclassified material, then all we can do is wait and see when it is declassified. I don't understand where you're leading on this point, but it doesn't take a trial lawyer to figure out that at some point you're simply barking up the wrong tree.
  
  All your other questions I feel are unjustified and no matter how I'd answer them it wouldn't help drive your point home any further than you've already attempted. For example :
  
  What is the conservative view of liberty in the respect of some convicted terrorist being delayed three years for due process?
  
  Well, he's a CONVICTED TERRORIST bloc, so I'd have to say again, so what? Why don't we just tie his appendages onto separate horses and fire a gun in the air... He's a TERRORIST!
  
  I thought conservatives believed strongly in individual rights, oddly they don't seem to apply in this case for some reason. Why?
  
  We do not condone the acts of criminals, nor do we support the idea of allowing convicted criminals to continue to perform criminal acts in society. It doesn't stop politicians, though!
  
  What do you think should happen to a President that violates the core tenants of the bill of rights?
  
  I think they should get their own library, fly around the world getting $250k per speech, have their overly ambitious criminal of a wife to become the mouth-piece for the biggest jackass of a president that this country has ever had and cut deals with China for our technology and military secrets... Oh, did you mean Bush?
  

• bloc said on Oct 27, 2009....

  Let me make this point again. You have no problem with the government holding an american citizen for 3 years with no trial or charges, I do, so did the founding fathers, and so does the constitution. What happened after those three years is irrelevant.
  
  I have absolutely no problem if investigations of criminal acts by the Bush Admin implicates democrats or other countries. Why should we? Why should that be a reason not to investigate law breaking?
  

• javadewd said on Oct 27, 2009....

  Let me make you whine and cry some more you vicarious pansy --
  
  I have no problem with our government holding a convicted terrorist (American citizen or not) for as long as they need to hold them so long as they are convicted. When they convict them, they had better have a damn good excuse for doing so. I'll gladly let the convicted terrorist fight his appeal in court and ball to the nearest sympathetic judge.
  
  You, on the other hand -- since you want to put words in my mouth -- prefer to give aid to convicted terrorists for the sake of making your sense of loyalty to the global status quo feel all warm and fuzzy.
  
  You obviously have no problem investigating the alleged criminal acts by the Bush Administration, but as soon as the democrats and other countries that it implicates start to derail them by whatever means they come up with (including assassinations, smear campaigns, media distractions through perpetuated disasters) you will simply blame Bush again, even though the guy won't have anything to do with any of it. That's the liberal disease, until the fad fades.
  
  At that point, everybody loses and guess what? Nothing really changed. Here. Take a shovel and start digging a hole in your back yard. When you get about six feet, lay in the hole and just start putting the dirt back on top of you. It makes about as much sense for any politician to keep pushing such an action. Again, suit yourself. Your principles are obviously more important. Better yet, give food and shelter to a terrorist. They need all the help they can get.
  

Comment on "The insanity of the torture defenders"

Currently tagged	politics stopmediabias torture no empathy more nonsense SMB head wrap (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment