The torture clowns
Craig A. French, Emporia
Friday, May 15, 2009
THE post mortem of the Bush administration has begun. It has started, logically enough, with calls for various kinds of action regarding the administration’s handling of “enhanced” interrogation methods, AKA torture, and the process by which those methods were approved, disapproved, approved yet again, and then disapproved once more as if those kinds of decisions were made by a crazy sort of dart board game involving multiple random players and a tension ridden, rococo and arbitrary scoring system.
When I read that one approved method involved throwing a detainee against a “flexible wall” I almost snorted coffee out my nose. What? They actually approved tossing someone up against a flexible wall? No kidding? You mean, like throwing them against the side of a tent?
Our drill instructors used to do that to us Marine Corps recruits in boot camp, only they used empty wall lockers for the purpose instead of flexible walls. The wall lockers were more impressive than walls or tents. Everyone standing outside the Quonset hut hearing that kind of racket and seeing through an appropriately open door one of their private peers literally flying across the room into a huge crash, bang, boom, were stricken fearfully dumb for the first week or two. Then, of course, those of us who got to do that fly and crash thing began reporting that, really, it was kind of fun. Then it became entertainment. But, as with all interrogations, I suppose, entertainment is a relative thing.
What was with those lawyers at Justice and in the White House arguing about providing carnival entertainment at interrogations? It turns out they were a bunch of clowns. Did they also make rules allowing the interrogators to break out in frowns while they launched those detainees across the room or was Pvt. Lynndie England following orders by smiling and laughing as she tortured? Did they actually know they were being funny men, fall guys, complete jerks, embarrassments to their mothers? Do they even have mothers?
I am reminded of the slapstick that happened in the Nixon White House during his second election. Real, actual adults created a group of keystone cops type burglars called “The Plumbers” who went around breaking into offices at night to look through file cabinets for files that might embarrass their president’s “enemies”. The information might be “leaked” or something to be made public or perhaps used in more nefarious ways. Who knows? Those plumber clowns were never successful. They were, by comparison, pretty good clowns, never doing anything actually hurtful but being laughable as they failed. The Bush administration’s lawyers at least got to experience a bit of success, if that’s what it would be called.
It wasn’t all fun and games, though. Strapping someone to a board with his head down and then pouring water into his nostrils and retching mouth while shouting is hardly funny. Doing it over and over, 86 times in one case, over a hundred times to another guy, is just plain sick and wrong. Were they spilling secrets? Not according to the FBI. What they were doing was blubbering and spilling whatever came into their tortured heads, true or made up, just stop. That kind of thing is, indeed, torture, even if fairly light relative to other, more common, more intense kinds of torture which have been practiced by innumerable governments and wannabes and other evil clowns through the centuries.
Our government led itself over the edge of a slippery slope with those decisions, indecisions, half truths, innuendoes, and tomfoolery. Is this an example of how other countries in modern history got started with their own torture games?
I doubt it. We are America . We know such things are wrong. The lawyers who were attempting to justify it knew it was wrong, too. I suspect they did not want to say it was OK even though they knew others in the administration would demand that of them. Instead of doing their job and delivering opinions they actually believed in, they did a stupid, silly, awful, useless, terrible thing. They created their own virtual reality replete with virtual red rubber noses, huge, floppy shoes, funny, wild wigs, and they came out dancing, singing off key, and honking old bicycle horns to the applause of evil men in high offices made low by their very presence.
Certainly the new administration should be applauded for having ended anything and everything like torture. Yes, those memos should have been released. We should all read them, all 124 pages, one after another. We should tell our children and our grandchildren about it and how stupid and mean and cruel and just plain wrong it was to do that. When we have to fight back against bad people we do not crawl down in the hole with them to become what we hate. We pull our goodness, our rightness around us and we demonstrate the values for which our country stands, thus refuting such deeds.
We are Americans. We are above that.
I really don’t think we should prosecute the people who participated in the terrible farce, though I worry about any of them now being in responsible positions of power or authority. Most certainly, we should protect the people in the field who physically perpetrated the crimes of torture under duress of punishment, themselves, for failing to carry out orders. Those lawyers and administrators and elected officials who approved such measures, though, we should dress them up in those clown outfits again, and bring them out doing their own version of the perp walk, and jeer at them and maybe throw soft, rotten tomato puree, something that will just alarm them a little, not actually cause them pain akin to death or organ failure which is how they defined torture. You know? Something less, even, than smacking them into a flexible wall or a raucous wall locker.
We just want to make sure they know, too, they are clowns. Bad clowns. Really bad clowns.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Well said! We can NOT stoop to the level of the terrorists. It's morally wrong to torture another. And Bush was such a self-righteous person who claimed to be a Christian yet he approved this. Everytime Bush made some comment about being a Christian, I cringed. He set such a poor example for other Christians. I know I am far from perfect but I would never approve holding people without trial for years and torturing people to try to obtain information. For one it is just plain wrong, for another, how could you trust the information you gained from that? I would think they would say whatever they thought the torturers wanted to hear just to make it stop. Isn't that what happened during the Inquistion and Salem witch trials? My heart bleeds when I think of the road this country has gone done in the last 20 years. I just hope it's not too late to get us back on the moral path.
May 15, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bellbottom (anonymous) says...
I bet you would sing a different tune the first time anyone you loved was threatened. I for one thank God everyday that we had someone that was willing to do what ever it took to keep us safe.
May 15, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdznv9...
May 15, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
How would torturing someone help my loved one? I would take a bullet or whatever to try to protect my family. I would not stand by and say, go ahead and torture that person on the off chance he'll tell us something we can use. My point is that using torture does not give you reliable information plus it is immoral.
May 15, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Oh how quickly we forget the pictures of 911 that they won't show us on TV any more or the pictures of servicemen being draged through the streets or the beheading of a journalist.
We are at war with terrorists
PULL OUT THEIR FINGERNAILS, TOENAILS, HELL JUST BEAT THEM. If it saves lives the end justifies the means.
If you don't know how that might help a loved one or a soldier or a journalist or any one of the people that could have been killed in more attacks like 911 you need to get a life.
May 15, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
I guess I would be more supportive of the no enhanced interrogation techniques ever philosophy if it were reciprocated by our enemies. As such, and to tbluma's very blunt point, I have not seen one shred of honor, decency, remorse, concern for collateral damage or respect for innocent lives from Al Qaeda for any nation's citizens. How else do you deal with a group of savages that have it in for you and are actively pursuing cooperative ways to accomplish their aim?
Oh I know. Lets hogtie and discredit our intelligence community. Lets prop up those deadly terrorist clowns that will be leaving Gitmo soon for God knows where and regard them as honorable enemy combatants. Lets give them lawyers too. I am left shaking my head and wondering if we really want to win this war or will we have to wait for the body count to get to an acceptable level before we go and destroy those who absolutely mean to destroy us?
May 15, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Mr French......I admire and respect your well-presented thoughts. I can't add a thing except to stand with you against the on-slaught you are about to receive. Thanks again.
May 15, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sundancekid (anonymous) says...
It's the 21st Century, must we resort to "eye for eye" techniques? We, as a nation, our more credible to standing tall and taking the high road even when other countries do not.
Well said, Mr. French!
May 15, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Sundancekid,
So the innocent people that die(d) in terrorist attacks here at home and around the world are acceptable losses as long as we maintain the high ground? Just trying to understand.
May 15, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
madpoet, do you cringe every time Obama claims to be a Christian? Why are some at Notre Dame upset by him giving the address if he's so far above reproach?
I posted this in another thread, but here goes again, since Mr French claims the current administration has "ended anything and everything like torture"....
Obama Orders Continuation Of Illegal CIA Renditions
http://www.infowars.net/articles/febr...
===================================
Claude Moraes, a British Labour MEP who was part of the European committee investigating CIA renditions, said it was hard to criticise Mr Obama because he had "god-like status at the moment........
The "god like status" that Mr Moraes speaks of is highlighted by the response of Human Rights Watch, the global oversight organization. Despite vehemently opposing Bush-era secret detentions facilities and torture tactics HRW seemingly supports Obama's decision to allow rendition to continue.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times.........
While around the world, Obama’s measures were interpreted as completely reversing the Bush administration policies of torture, extraordinary rendition and secret prisons – starting with the declaration of the complete closure of Guantanamo Bay – deeper inspection of the details of his Executive Orders suggests, unfortunately, that cries of joy are slightly premature.
Obama’s public disavowals of torture do not actually represent the end of the systemic practice of the CIA’s traditional interrogation techniques, conducted without public scrutiny for decades. Rather, they portend a sheepish return to secrecy – or in other words, a return to the obvious recognition that open declarations of covert US practices such as torture as official policy are detrimental, not conducive, to US hegemony.
.......The end result was a successful re-configuration of the public presentation of US military intelligence practices, coupled with nominal legal caveats permitting them to continue relatively unimpeded – essentially a giant PR exercise. Meanwhile, the vast post-9/11 domestic national security apparatus denying habeas corpus, undermining due process, and facilitating mass surveillance as well as intrusive social control powers brought in by the Bush administration was not repudiated, but retained.
......The illegal and brutal practices of the secret U.S. intelligence apparatus date back decades, they did not arrive with George W. Bush and they will not depart with him.
-------------------------------
Might want to hold onto that applause for just a bit longer, Mr. French...... at least until we hear what Ms. Pelosi has to say.
Besides, we've never tortured. The CIA just told us that, and they lie to Congress all the time. I know they do because Pelosi told me so :)
May 15, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sundancekid (anonymous) says...
Nice try on spinning my words, Bill O'Reilly. No, those loses are not acceptable. However, I fail to see why we must stoop to the same low levels as those who wish us harm.
Diplomacy, trade embargos, domestic security...
May 15, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I still have alot of problems trying to figure out what is morally right and wrong when it comes to war. Morally, I'm ok if I shoot someone in the head, or if I run out of ammo, run at them and stab them thru the heart with my bayonet, or break bones/snap their neck/stab them repeatedly in hand-to-hand combat, toss grenades at them, drop bombs on them, use a flamethrower, run over them with a tank, etc..... I've taken the moral high ground there, but not when it comes to extracting information that could potentially prevent alot of the above. It's a funny line drawn between the two that seems to wander all over the place. Maybe if the enemy decides to stick to "the rules" then I'll soften a bit.....
May 15, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
We as a nation sat on our thumbs in the 30's while hitler,musolini and tojo or whatever his name was built up their regimes.
No one knows how many people died from their efforts.
While I have never been in the military it has been close to home.
My uncle was on Guam when it was captured and spent the whole war in a POW camp.
If he were alive today I would like for you pasifists to ask him if he thought what we may or may not be doing to terrorists to glean info. would be worth it or ask the Jewish people what they would do to avoid the death camps.
To me that's all we're preventing before it happens.
I
May 15, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The 'Al-Queda manual", which was made public, "counsels Islamists to “complain of mistreatment while in prison” and say that “torture was inflicted on them.”.........."At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."
Personally, I hate to see them lie in court. I think anytime they make a statement like that we should beat the living crap out of them right then and there. Just so they can take the moral high ground and not be lying.
May 15, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Sundancekid,
Nice try equating me to a political pundit, Jeneane Garafalo. Ok, lets do it your way. What country or sovereign power are the terrorists a part of so we can establish diplomatic ties? What do the terrorist trade that we want other than detonators, explosives, killers, religious indoctrination and hatred? Got to establish trade with them before an embargo will work. I agree with you totally regarding domestic security. Again. I am genuinely trying to understand if there is a better, more effective way to deal with these extremists so lets please keep it civil.
May 15, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
allintogether, its not fair to compare Ms Garafalo to O'Reilly. I have watched O'Reilly defend and take the side of Obama quite often (last night again, for example) - and he regularly shows viewer email of complaints that he is too liberal. Ms. Garafalo, on the other hand, will never be accused of having an ounce of conservative view anywhere in her body, or even a brain, for that matter. Lots of people think that O'Reilly is way to the right because.... the people that they watch and listen to tell them so, and carefully pick the soundbites they want to "prove" their point. I know Ms Garafalo has no brain, however, because I've heard smarter things uttered by tree slugs. And I humbly apologize to tree slugs everywhere for the demeaning comparison. :) Maybe we could lock the terrorists up with Ms G for a week. Nah, I'd rather be waterboarded. At least I won't end up hanging myself that way.
Anyway, "Peace In Our Time" - ala Neville Chamberlain - didn't work out so well. Or so the crazy right-wing nuts claim. But was he taking the moral high ground at the time?
May 15, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
Twist your logic, not the facts, please.
http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2009/04/2...
May 15, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
allintogether (anonymous) says...
Open_eyes,
I did not intend to compare O'Reilly and Garafalo. Just parry Sundancekid's ridiculous assertion that I was an embodiment of O'Reilly and insert a ridiculous assertion of my own. Trying to keep it light so no one spoils for a fight. Hope everyone weathered the weather that just blew through. I need it to clear off so I can grill with impunity! Yeah Friday!
May 15, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
tbluma.....Being uncomfortable with my country utilizing torture does not make me a pacifist. I was in the military and conventional wisdom at that time in the military was the best way to avoid our troops having to endure such treatment was by avoiding treating our enemys that way. We realized then, as we do now, that taking the high ground was no guaruntee of reciprocation, but staying on the high ground then later gave us the moral authority to prosecute for war crimes later....and we did.
I realize our current enemy presents some unique challanges that muddy the waters.....and I also readilly admit that in the hours and days following 9/11 I was for bombing the entire muslem world back into the stone age. And I still believe we should continue to pursue our enemy where ever real information takes us.
But just because most of us yielded to the passion that raged after the attack.....doesn't mean that we have to contiue to be ruled by that passion. Maybe it's time for cooler heads to prevail.
May 15, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sundancekid (anonymous) says...
Garafalo? O'Reilly? Neither one is a true journalist. Journalists are trained to provide facts, not to stir emotions. Otherwise it's just a commentary designed to persuade. That's not journalism.
Quit listening to Air America. Turn off FOX News.
Listen to NPR.
May 15, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I know, allintogether - I was just joking. :) Sundance just pretty much proved it in his/her latest post. Garafalo is an actress..... duh....... and I do listen to NPR.... sortof..... Fox has some former NPR journalists as commentators..... :)... but, per O'Reilly this evening, Fox isn't owned by Haliburton, so given the fact that NBC is owned by GE, which stands to make billions upon billions of $$ off of Obama's policies, and in light of that when you see an Obama advisor publicly state "At the White House, as we always like to say, we love MSNBC." ........ would you call anything they put out journalism?
Biscuitboy, I agree with most of what you just said, I only differ to the degree that we will use "strong interrogation methods". I really don't think we are going to get reliable information by sitting down and having polite tea with them, unless we promise to release them with a vial of anthrax or plutonium in return for information. So everyone seems to agree we need some "stronger" methods, but its an awful fuzzy line to draw - waterboarding, at the forefront, does no permanent damage, is done with a dr present - I see a difference there between say, breaking bones or other methods of physical abuse. Or at least I want to believe that it is, that there are methods we can use to get information that is not forthcoming in extreme cases, with approval. But, if it is now time for cooler heads to prevail, does that mean we should go back and now convict those taking action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? What if we are attacked again, say we see the Sears tower in Chicago brought down, or some biological agent put in a water supply somewhere, and we capture some people on the inside of that particular plot and Obama allows "rendition" methods to be taken? And uncovers/stops further plots as a result? Shall we convict him 8 years down the line for actions he took "in the heat of the moment" that he believed to be in America's best interests to keep us safe?
May 15, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2009...
May 15, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Eh, just ask someone who lost family in 9/11/2001. Besides stooping to the terrorist level would mean sawing off a soldiers head with a dull blade. GRRRR. Those videos made me very VERY angry.
Whats a little water going to hurt? Even if its simulated drowning? Its still not sawing a head off with a dull blade- That is torture.
The people crying about gitmo... where the heck else are they going to be placed?
May 16, 2009 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
This is no different than the people hunting for the nazis wanting to get them hanged.
May 16, 2009 at 12:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I for one....and if I understand correctly, President Obama for another....doesn't want any prosecutions for any of this. That's not to say that there are not those that do....but they are not me. That's because I do understand the passion that followed the attack....and I know that tea and crumpets are not paticularly effective at "gleaning" information from a reluctent person that is posing an imminent threat to our nation.
But because I don't want prosecutions for those people (doing what they were told was alright to do) trying to avoid further harm for our people doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't seek to learn exactly what did happen and why.
My primary area of concern here is to understand to what extent the government used these techniques to try and tie Saddam Hussein to Al-Queda to justify the decision to attack Iraq. This was not a case of imminent threat.....but if it occurred was more like a case of CYA...and as such is a different bag of nuts,
Even then I do not think the low level operatives.....(remember the few "mis-fits" at Aba Gahrab) should be prosecuted. But if our leaders are found to have authorized the use of enhanced interogation techniques (read torture) for political gain and expedience then it becomes a whole different matter. I am not at present saying they did....I'm just saying we need to find out.
May 16, 2009 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...
I don’t know Mr. French and I do not mean this in any way as a personal attack…but I cannot believe how naive this point of few is, flying in the face of all we know about al-Qadir and how it works, the world of Islamic terrorists, etc.
How quintessentially Pollyannaesque. It must be wonderful to live in a world of sunshine, puppies, and lollypops, oblivious to the real world and the people who want to kill you, your children, your grandchildren, your country, your religion, and your very way of life. God help us all.
May 16, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, Obama doesn't make a huge point of being a good Christian. Others keep bringing his religion up, mainly to try to discredit him since his former pastor (and I use the term loosely) was so politically incorrect. Jesus teaches us that the most important thing is to "love thy neighbor" and to treat all others as you would Him. I understand anger over the killing of loved ones. When my good friend Kurt was murdered, I could have taken a club and beaten his murderer to death myself. I lived with that anger and hate for years. And you know what it did? It was like a huge stone on my heart preventing me from enjoying life and warping my view of life. I finally let it go. It was the hardest thing I've done, but I did it. I learned a valuable lesson that hate is a destructive force that clouds judgement and causes good people to do unspeakable things. If you let your anger and hate go you can step back and look at situations in a more rational manner. By torturing prisoners, we justify the terrorists attacks on us in their minds. It causes other countries to dislike us and be less likely to support us. And how can we claim to be any better than the terrorists if we treat them the same as they do us? We can't control their behavior, but we sure can control ours.
Thanks, biscuitboy for bringing up the military attitude towards it. I saw an agent on the news the other day saying he was against using torture since it was proven as unreliable in obtaining true information.
May 16, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"By torturing prisoners, we justify the terrorists attacks on us in their minds. It causes other countries to dislike us and be less likely to support us. And how can we claim to be any better than the terrorists if we treat them the same as they do us?"
The dead bodies of "infidels" justified their actions in their minds.
When did we "treat them the same" ? There was permanent damage done to the people in those planes and buildings, damage that you don't come back from. Comparing the two makes no sense. I do agree that our government and military should act more professionally than terrorists but it's not easy to follow all the rules when the enemy has to follow none. The decisions made were not made flippantly, I can assure you that. It was and is easy for people to judge these actions without all the evidence and it's interesting to see now that President Obama is privy to more information, he is changing his views on some of the way the alleged terrorists are being handled.
Love thy neighbor is actually second by the way.
Mat 22
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
May 16, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
It shouldn't matter if it was the first or second, serously. It's one of the two commandments Jesus gave out as the most important. The point is that we should try to follow it. It is hard, I have already admitted it. Life is hard. The easy path is often the path to destruction. We give way on just one little thing, then another and next thing you know, we're in a big hole we've dug ourselves with all the "little" compromises we've made. We have to stand firmly by our moral convictions or risk becoming the very thing we claim to hate.
May 16, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks.....How does torturing thy neighbor equate to loving him? Is this what they call "tough love"? lol
....Just curious....
May 16, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
madpoet, I appreciate your answer, and your convictions, but I will differ with you on the point that we justify their attacks in their minds.
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but they don't need any justification, nor do they care if they have any. That part of it is all just a big PR game to them. Look at Pakistan. They signed a treaty, (the Taliban), which they promptly broke, and when the Pakistani government retaliated, then they publicly stated that since the PK gov had attacked the treaty was void. This fact people just don't seem to be able to wake up to. We're not dealing with anyone that has a shred of honor or decency to them. Of course, putting out a cartoon of Mohammed is justification enough to riot and kill dozens of people, make sure you don't misspell his name in one of your posts here or they will be justified in dropping a nuke on you. That's the problem with thinking rationally - it doesn't work against an irrational opponent.
May 16, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy
"How does torturing thy neighbor equate to loving him? Is this what they call "tough love"? lol
....Just curious...."
Please show me were I said it did.
I personally wouldn't torture anyone(some people may disagree after reading some of my "serious" posts) but I am not the U.S. government and most people think my kind shouldn't even be represented so what I personally would or would not do matters very little if at all. I was just saying I can see how it came to what it did. I never equated torture to loving thy neighbor. You twist my words like Uri Geller's spoons.
May 16, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes......."that's the problem with thinking rationally-it doesn't work against an irrational opponent."
Does that then mean we are are also to act irrationally?.....and if irational thought causes them to do horrible things might we then be in danger of doing the same thing?
seriouslyfolks......lol (laughing out loud)....it was an attempt at humor.....You need to try some decaf....
But on a more serious note seriously.....you say you can assure me the decisions made were not made flippantly...and insinuate there is evidence I do not know. Does this mean that you are privy to some kind of information the rest of us do not have...or are your assurances based on assumptions. Whatever the case....I for one would love to know all the information as to how and why these very decisions were made....especially as they pertain to the alledged use of EIT'S to prove Saddam Hussein backed al-queida.....even after Saddam was captured and there was no imminent threat whatsoever that I can see.
May 16, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
LOL biscuit- no, that doesn't mean we have to act irrationally. I just meant that we can't assume that our foes will honor any agreement or make any rational move (such as not strap a bomb on and walk into a school full of innocent children and detonate it). We have to think and assume they are capable of any action, no matter how repulsive or irrational it might be. I mean, lets face it - they WANT a nuclear holocaust to be started. We can't assume the old Cold War style rational thinking of assured mutual destruction will faze them one bit.........
May 16, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You are absolutely right about that....and in my humble (though often offered) opinion.....there in lies much of the rub for us. Since World War Two the United States has spent countless trillions of dollars building the pre-imminent military machine in the world to make it safe for democracy. Imagine the frustration upon learning it had all been to some extent for nought.
What good is smart bombs and billion dollar bombers against an enemy that hides in a crowd of your friends so he can pull a trip wire and blow he and them to bits. We found ourselves fighting an enemy that we just barely knew existed and and knew even less about. All we knew was that our most powerfull military on earth was virtually powerless against them
We were frustrated..angry,,,confused....and more than just a little afraid. We have improved since then and we continue to get smarter....but that's what's needed to fight this non-miltary enemy. Less brawn and more brain.....beacuase as we have already learned in Afghanistan.....spending a few trillion dollars carpet bombing those mountains with daisy-cutters accomplished virtually nothing except run up more debt.
What we haven't seemed to have learned yet is fighting an invisible enemy requires other things too than a front line military. It also requires stealth, cunning. lots of diplomacy, and a good measure of the old winning the hearts and minds. And some of the decisions made early on in this war....weather made for understandable reasons or not.....have not made that job any easier. The sooner we learn that and correct those situations, the better off we might be. jmo
May 16, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC7xcI...
May 16, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
You people worry about putting vicious criminals under some stress all the while the prisoners they are holding are being beheaded and dragged through the streets or posted as video links. From where I sit it looks like we could have tortured them a whole lot more and still had the high ground.
May 16, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
That's why I personally don't torture people.
May 16, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
YY4U:
Agree with most of that but we have to finish what we started in Iraq.
May 16, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well this is all kindof a moot argument anyway, because there are enough loopholes in the executive order Obama signed 2 days into his presidency to ensure that we can continue some "strong-armed" interrogation methods if and when we choose, if we are to believe the ealier link I posted (and it was not the only one nor the only source I found). It's admirable that Mr. French is, to borrow a poster from the X-Files, an "I Want To Believe" person, but in reality, little has changed. As was stated in the article, "a giant PR exercise" - as is much of politics, on both sides.
May 16, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
YY4U:
I really don't want to get into a big argument here, but you stated something that I would like to point out the misconception of---and this is not directed at you, only springboarding from your post.
"Perception is reality."
Sadly, a lot of people believe that statement, but that wording is false. The truth is simply that perception TRUMPS reality in people's minds. We tend to let what we perceive become our belief about reality, but reality isn't changed by what we believe. Future results are, but not the reality of the events that have occurred. For example, your perception of me does not change who I am, but it does change how you respond to me. Once you have a perception, it is impossible for me to do anything to change it without your willingness to allow it. But still, I am not the one changing, only your perception is. Knowing this can be an excellent tool for me, but misunderstanding it could lead to a lot of inconsistency on my part---I could persist in changing myself to try to randomly fix your negative perception of me, making things digressively worse. When we believe the wrong wording about perception, it obscures our limitations and we make dire mistakes trying to change those things that we have no power to change, placing an unreasonable burden of guilt on ourselves upon failing. If we understand those limitations, we can work within them to attempt to influence and then walk away with a clear conscience and uncompromised defense.
May 17, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
madpoet, if Obama doesn't make a huge point of being a good Christian, or "bring his religion up", then why did he devote an entire chapter called "Faith" in his book Audacity of Hope? He states in there the exact same views on same-sex marriage that Miss California stated - so was she "bringing her religion up" or "making a huge point of being a good Christian" any more or less than Obama? Sure seems like it, given the flak she has been taking for it, while Obama catches zero for the exact same view.
In 2007, from "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/16/politics/main3371629.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3371629
He told an evangelical church in that he "seeks to be an "instrument of God" and expressed confidence "we can create a kingdom right here on Earth." Rev. Welton Gaddy of the liberal Interfaith Alliance said the senator "has sounded precisely like George W. Bush" in recent church appearances.
In other words, either he only makes it a point of being a good Christian when it is politically expedient to do so (pretty much like most politicians) - or the media just portrays him in the light it wishes us to see him in.... as it does with other politicians..... I don't see him flaunting it any more or less than GW, just being treated differently for it...
Gee, I wonder why that is..............not really..........
YY4U - in this case, it doesn't matter (to our foes) what our intents are. They will twist them to fit their reality as they perceive it or want it to be. In other words, in their eyes, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I'd rather be damned alive than damned dead.
May 17, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Why are we taking prisoners in the first place? They should have be dumped at sea when they emptied their toilet tanks.
May 17, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nks (anonymous) says...
The ones who should be tried are the ones who are allowing this information to go public.
All of this information is doing nothing but causing an outcry by the goodie two shoes Americans and endangering our servicemen/women and all Americans abroad.
IF anything, they should have ended the treatments and destroyed any documentation that it happened.
Is it humane, probably not, are the terrorists humane, hell no!
I bet there are many Americans who lost loved ones to the terrorist cowards that would have been standing in line to pour the water.
May 17, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
At the risk of opening a can of worms.....I am having one problem here.
There are obviously some people in the muslem world that have a beef with us. I personally don't believe that beef is legitimate, and I believe that most people who post on these boards would agree with that....if with nothing else that I say.
Nevertheless, looking at it in the broadest possible terms they fear we are trying either directly or indirectly to destroy them and their way of life.....and that sounds just like what we fear they are trying to do to us.
But we theoretically hold all of the marbles. We are after all the most powerful military nation the world has ever known. What seems to frustrate us so much is they don't play by the rules.....whose rules?.....our rules. They resort to dirty tactics like suicide bombings and killing non-combatants instead of playing by the rules......standing up and fighting "like a man".....a fight they would be bound to lose.
So what they have done is change the rules. That should come as no big surprise to people who post on these boards....we do it all the time. When faced with a point we can't win in "fair" debate we resort to name calling and bullying.....or we change the subject. And though lunatics they may be.....they generally or not fools which is what they would need to be to fight us by our rules.
And our frustration and anger at dealing with this change has I believe caused us to throw the baby out with the bath. We have sacrificed many of our ideals and principles then to play by their rules...and in so doing we have allowed them to make significant progress towards doing what we believe they were trying to do in the first place.....destroy our way of life.
since all of this begun...we have changed our way of life more than they have...and we apparently (at least judging from some of the post on here)live in more fear of our way of life than they apparently do.
I SAY NONE OF THIS TO JUSTIFY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE......I only mention it that we might think about what we are doing before we just react in a knee-jerk fashion.
May 17, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
They do not fear that we are trying to directly or indirectly destroy them and their way of life. Their goal is total world domination, and they will do it by whatever means possible. They do not care if we take the high road or the low road, only that in the end, they win. They do not care about justification, nor do they care about ours. I agree that we cannot sacrifice all our values and morals and stoop to their level, as does pretty much everyone here I am sure. And also most if not all will admit to their rage and wanting to bomb them back to the stone age originally, and use whatever means necessary. But ALL we are talking about here is exactly where this sliding scale on "morally correct" interrogation practices should be placed. I don't condone what I consider torture of a barbaric nature. But I DO condone some strong interrogation methods to be used. Question is, just what methods, and how far are we allowed to go? Is the line drawn only at physical methods but not psychological ones? Why or why not? Id probably rather be waterboarded than be forced to listen to Ms Garafalo for an hour......... :) ......Waterboarding, no permanent harm, dr present. That's what the question for all this is - exactly where do we place the bar - above or below waterboarding? Besides, this is the ultimate goal anyway - with nary a shot fired..... make sure you listen to what the Muslim leaders say further into this....
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=6-3...
May 17, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes......Who's fault is the changing demographics.....I have heard for most of my life that the dominant demographic in this country of ours would soon be hispanic.....now your link is telling me it will be muslim. But short of bombing every culture with a higher birthrate than our's back to the stone age.....the only apparent solution to the crises is a dramatic increase in the white birthrate. And if we all get into a procreation war before long overpopulation will insure that our children inherit a far different world than we live in anyway.
.......and according to your link...it's already to late for the white world to affect a change.....so what now.
May 17, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes....having never been waterboarded I can't say for certain that I would rather endure it than listen to Garafalo for one hour.....but I probably could say that about Hannitty lol.....who by the way has never lived up to enduring it for charity as per his boast.
It has become popular of late to claim that waterboarding is something only slightly less pleasent than setting through a sermon by a long winded preacher...but the reality is it was considered torture as far back as the Spanish Inquisition...(a time when the Catholic church showed a pronounced tendency towards barbarism itself).....and the United States reportedly convicted one Japanese officer of a war crime for using it on U.S. soldiers. So....what to think?...
May 17, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
In the Revolutionary War - warfare at that time was fought very formally, with the two sides lining up and shooting at each other (to put it very simply). The American rebels engaged in more guerrilla tactics, which at that time the British simply weren't prepared for, and much less able to stand against. So the Americans engaged in "immoral and illegal" methods of warfare. Spies and traitors at that time were commonly hanged, also. So if we want to go back to previous rules of engagement, fine - no bombings, no cruise missiles, no predator drones - we just line up and take turns and see who is the better shots. And everyone in Guantanamo gets a 5-min quickie trial and then is hung.
So are we less moral now than then?
As for fearing capture more than death..... that's a riot. Is that what is going on inside the head of a suicide bomber? You are right - no 72 virgins if they are only captured - LOL. I remember the stories (even during Abu Graihb) that prisoners were fighting to stay in American custody - it was being turned over to the Iraqi authorities that they feared.......
I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of waterboarding, (even though I'm sounding like it). I'm just saying I still believe we need to keep some strong interrogation methods at our disposal, and many of those "strong" methods will be of course decried by those who believe tea and crumpets while listening to Mozart is the only way to get credible information. Trying to decide where that bar should be set is a very morally tough task, fraught with (righteous) complaints on both sides. JMO
May 17, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let's catch our breath and take a small reality/chill pill. We are not talking about taking every single captured enemy combatant in for a daily waterboarding after each meal. We are talking about using this particular technique only on very limited high-value detainees who we know have more knowledge that is not forthcoming which we believe is of an extremely high value.
Just out of curiosity..... does everyone here consider isolation torture? What about loud music? Sleep deprivation? What about force-feeding captives who refuse to eat? Still going on....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0...
Here's the preference of captured comatants - THEIR views..... not the views of those of us who just assume we know what they prefer:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archiv...
May 17, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes......that is the point I'm trying to make
During the Revolutionary War we were the ones that didn't play by the rules.....rules for the most part written by Great Britian and the rest of Europe. And they hated us for it.....They demonized us....they treated our prisoners terribly bad (a la British prison ships in New York harbor)...and they maintained their attitude of righteous superiority through out the war.....and they lost.
They lost because they were never able to adjust their thoughts of invincability and look at a changeing world in a new way......and they evetually became our strongest ally.
I doubt if the world will ever return to the good old days of an expanded Manifest Destiny.....where the white man stands above all others as a benevolent despot for the little black and brown people of the world. The sooner we recognize that Manifest Destiny is gone forever.....the sooner we will have a chance to react with the changing world in a more beneficial way. jmo
May 17, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
YY4U:
Thank you for your kind perception of the intelligence of the posters on these stories, including me.
On the point about the worlds' perception of the US changing with the current war on terror, I must disagree. I contend that the world already perceived the US negatively for a variety of reasons, but this conflict has given them a platform to announce their dislike. A large majority of Americans were taken by surprise about this and in their lack of understanding the general principles of perception, they have clamored to "over-correct" to win back the favor they perceived that we had. Chaos has ensued in these ethical debates as a result.
My point with all this is to say that we need to demote(not discount entirely) our fear of what they think to a less prominent position by admitting to ourselves that they will believe what they want to believe no matter what we do. We need to focus most of our thoughts on doing what we deem to be ethical and effective in these matters using general ethical guidelines and then, having a clear conscience, make no apologies.
On a side note, as a person with a negative perception of clowns, I find the title of this article particularly disturbing.
May 17, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I would rather be demonized, and win the war, then be loved and lose.
As someone who did some travelling in Europe during the 90's I agree with YY4U's statements about the worlds perception of America. I was surprised how many people disliked us then (Clinton was pres at the time, since everyone thinks we were idolized around the world until GW). As he said, this has only given them a platform to voice what was already there. I don't know all the reasons why, but in some ways it doesn't matter who you are or what you do, the biggest kid on the block is always going to be the biggest target and the easiest to blame for the worlds ills.
We lost soldiers lives in Kosovo, and Clinton dodged the service - so would you put him in the same classification as Rumsfield & Cheney? To you truly believe that they "LOVE" to send young people into harms way for personal greed? Do a little research into how much $$ GE (which owns NBC) stands to gain from Obama's policies. Do you think nobody will suffer as a result of those policies? Do a little research into how "green" technologies will put 3rd world countries at a disadvantage (as if they aren't already). Do you think GE cares more about them or their own $$?
May 17, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And I have no clue whatsover how "Manifest Destiny" of the white man got into this, or what in blazes it has to do with any of this.
May 17, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
YY4U.....once again you have said in a few words what I have been trying to say in reams. And yes....Clinton did "dodge the draft" as the GOP has hastened to remind us at every opportunity for close to fifteen years now. But at the risk of being the only person to ever stoop to partiasanship on these boards....let me remind you again of Dick (keep us all safe) Cheney and his five...(count them five)....applications and appeals filed to avoid service in the military.....and more specifically service in Viet Nam.
But of course while Cheney is still all over the TV telling us how the current administration is not doing a good enough job to protect him. His "draft dodging" is never mentioned and to do so is to dive to the depths of partisain depravity. But even now we still need to be reminded about Clintons lack of service.
.....Yes I did take off on a tangent with the Manifest Destiny remark.....that's a topic for another day.....mia culpa...sorry!
May 18, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes.....While you were absolutly right to call me out on my diversion into Manifest Destiny.....surely then you will understand when I ask you just what the ownership of NBC has to do withj the topic at hand. Or is that just a diversionary tactic to mave the discussion away from the military service, or lack of it. of Cheny, Rumsfeld, and other hawks of the last administration.
May 18, 2009 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
To a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
May 18, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )