Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
Did you want to see the beheading tape? I thought you expressed the view that no one in his right mind would want/need to see that -- how is this any different?

Just so we're all perfectly clear about the quality of trolling going on here, what Not Me said a few weeks ago was that no one should need to see the pictures of people jumping from the World Trade Center:

Originally posted by Not Me, on May 12, at 11:28 p.m. PDT
Did you need to see the people jump from the WTC to know the horror of what they must have been going through? Did you fucking need to see it? Is just hearing it not enough for you to get the effect?

That is my point. What is wrong with people that they cannot understand these things without visual stimuli.

Last night, she took the opposite position in equally certain terms:

Originally posted by Not Me, on May 25, at 11:45 p.m. PDT
So what is this? We cannot post pics of Americans suffering? Why? What does this do? Hurt the Dem cause by reminding you who are enemies are? But yet we have to see pictures of something akin to fraternity pranks shoved down our throats to make us feel like we have collectively done something wrong?

What a fucking bunch of hypocrits.

Yes, the wounds are raw. Burying your heads in the sand and forgetting what it is we are up against only endangers us all.

The word is spelled "hypocrite," and it refers to the practice of expressing feelings, beliefs or virtues one does not hold or possess; insincerity.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, and your continued insistence that only these things constitute torture only shows your ignorance, idiocy, and self-denial.

Huh? I never said that these were the only things that constitute torture. But I did say that panties on the head aren't torture. You apparently disagree. I refer you to the pic of the WTC with the guy falling again so you can better understand the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So beating someone just halfway to death is okay? Punching someone unconscious is okay?

If you mean is it proscribed by the GC, I believe it is proscribed. I have never said otherwise. I don't even know why you are bringing this up when I never said it is OK to violate the GC.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you disputing that these things happened?

I am disputing that there is any evidence that senior officials ordered people to do this or condoned it.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are you disputing that prisoners died in US custody in homicides?

No. Some of them were ruled justified, like the guy escaping. I believe the rest are still being investigated.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Certainly what she did is forbidden under the Geneva Convention, which, as I said, specifically forbids acts intended to degrade or humiliate prisoners. Do you dispute that, too?

I dispute that every violation of the GC constitutes torture. I also dispute that every violation of the GC is a war crime as that term is commonly used. War crimes is a term that is commonly used to denote egregeious and heinous acts. Panties on the head isn't a war crime, although it may be a violation of the GC.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As to whether it is "torture" -- well, were her acts designed to cause severe mental injury? To "soften up" prisoners for interrogation? If so, then yes, it was torture, as defined by treaties the US has signed.

Cite please. I want to see the defintion of toture that includes what she did.

Sidd, we are having a semantic argument here and you lost.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let's put it this way -- how would you respond if American prisoners were treated this way -- chained naked, pulled around on leashes, put in positions designed to cause pain, wired....? Would you consider that yet another example of Arab barbarity? Or do you see this all as good, clean fun, followed by a beer bash and a frat party?

I would be against it and call for those involved to be punished if there was evidence to prove it was done. Just like I have done for the Abu Gharaib abuses.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or let's put it another way. Under your view, the burning and mutilation of four American mercenaries in Fallujah should be seen as "no big deal." After all, they were already dead. It's not like they were getting raped or anything.

No, that is not correct. You are reading things into what I said that aren't there.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or let's put it another way. If all this is "no big deal", or if all this is "necessary to fight terrorism," why is the Admin prosecuting England and her cohorts? Did Bush imprison a pregnant woman for political expedience?

I didn't say it was no big deal, especially if rapes and murders occurred. And I have repeatedly said they should be punished. But the punishment needs to fit the crime, too.

What does England being pregnant have to do with anything? Being pregnant doesn't entitle someone accused of a crime to be treated any differently.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Meanwhile, any intrusion upon individual liberty inconsistent with traditional Republican values can instantly be characterized by Slave as merely "red meat for the GOP base." Because the GOP base relied upon for Bush's reelection holds all of the values espoused by the GOP on this board in contempt, and vice versa.

Did you happen to get kicked in the balls on the way to work today?

Or are you just trying to Out-Sidd Sidd in the outrage department?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
If you could see the man's face and identify him, I wouldn't have posted it. Just curious about how you feel about the famous OK City picture of the firefighter with the baby:

http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-96/04-07-96/1aoak.htm

Is it nothing more than prurient leering to look at the photo?

To me, it really all depends on why someone is looking at the photo. With the beheading video, I really think many if not most people just wanted to see the gore. That is very different from why I posted the pic of the WTC or would post the pic of Baylee.

eta - it also depends on the picture itself. With the Berg case, it was a video of a murder complete with audio and the identity of the person was clear. That is very different from a still photo of someone who is falling and cannot be identified.

I didn't look at your link (pictures of dead babies are not really my cup of tea either), but if I were the parent of that baby, I would not have wanted that picture paraded around, that's for sure (I vaguely remember a picture fitting that description on the cover of Newsweek or something -- is that the one?).

How do you know if the person falling from the building cannot be identified by his loved ones? You may not recognize him, but someone close to him probably does.

I'm not saying you're wrong to have your views, I'm just pointing out (or trying to, anyway) that people who feel differently are not necessarily "burying their heads in the sand" or whatever you said. People have valid reasons for not wanting to see that stuff. I had (have, sometimes still) horrible dreams after seeing that picture (or one like it) on 9/12. When I saw it, the first thing I said to my husband (we were sitting at a restaurant -- like 1/2 the city, I think -- and everyone had to pay cash, because the phone lines weren't working) was, "I cannot believe they printed that photo." If I never see it again, I won't feel like I've missed out on something -- nor will I forget anything about that day and its still-lingering effects.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The word is spelled "hypocrite,"

In the future, I will be sure to run the spell checker function before I post.

Ty, my point was that I don't need to see the pictures to know and to remember and neither should anyone else. Unfortunately, not everyone is like me. There was and is no need for me to view the Nick Berg tape and if it weren't for the fucked up use of the term "torture" and exaggerations about what went on in Abu Gharaib, there wouldn't have been a need for anyone to post pictures to give people some perspective.

You just don't get this concept of context. You also don't understand the points I was making.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did you happen to get kicked in the balls on the way to work today?

My personal time = my business.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Probably for the same reason you foam at the mouth when anyone says "Hillary."

You have me confused with the sock down the hall.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
My personal time = my business.

So now you're trying to Out-DS DS on the libertarian schtick.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by dtb
I didn't look at your link (pictures of dead babies are not really my cup of tea either), but if I were the parent of that baby, I would not have wanted that picture paraded around, that's for sure (I vaguely remember a picture fitting that description on the cover of Newsweek or something -- is that the one?).

That is the one and the mother does not object to the picture. The link includes a story about her and the effect of the picture. Here is a quote:

• For a while, [the photographer] worried his picture might be upsetting the baby's mother. But a couple of weeks after the bombing, he saw [the baby's mother] on the evening news saying she was proud her daughter had come to symbolize the innocence of the victims.

There is also a discussion of the disputes over the profit-making use of the image, but that is a different issue.

Originally posted by dtb
How do you know if the person falling from the building cannot be identified by his loved ones? You may not recognize him, but someone close to him probably does.

Are they reading this board? If not, then what does it matter.

Originally posted by dtb
I'm not saying you're wrong to have your views, I'm just pointing out (or trying to, anyway) that people who feel differently are not necessarily "burying their heads in the sand" or whatever you said. People have valid reasons for not wanting to see that stuff. I had (have, sometimes still) horrible dreams after seeing that picture (or one like it) on 9/12. When I saw it, the first thing I said to my husband (we were sitting at a restaurant -- like 1/2 the city, I think -- and everyone had to pay cash, because the phone lines weren't working) was, "I cannot believe they printed that photo." If I never see it again, I won't feel like I've missed out on something -- nor will I forget anything about that day and its still-lingering effects.

That is not uncommon since you were in NYC when 9/11 happened. I am sure those who were in Oklahoma City when that bombing occurred have similar feelings when they see pics of the murrah building. But I don't see the problem with posting those pictures if it is for a legitimate reason.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Are they reading this board? If not, then what does it matter.

Are they not? If so, then maybe it does matter.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Ashcroft: 'Credible Evidence' Shows al-Qaida Planning Attack in US

Now who are we going to invade? Ty, you should start a pool. I'll take Mexico.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now who are we going to invade? Ty, you should start a pool. I'll take Mexico.

Whoever loses pays for the board for a month.

I like these bets.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is the one and the mother does not object to the picture. The link includes a story about her and the effect of the picture.

Good on her, then. I just know how I would feel, and I wouldn't like it (I don't think; and God willing, I won't ever find out how I would actually feel in such a situation). Clearly, it's not an outrageous view, as the photographer was concerned about it. Or maybe he [the photographer] and I are the only two loonies on the planet.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So now you're trying to Out-DS DS on the libertarian schtick.

No, I just like being kicked in the balls. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now who are we going to invade? Ty, you should start a pool. I'll take Mexico.

I say Iran. On second thought, we won't need to invade Iran after the representative republic is establised in Iraq and the Iranian people revolt against the Ayatollahs.