Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
unless someone objects by 9 E.S.T. I'm counting this as a win.

Don't be hasty. You're going to have fill out a Waiver of Inapt Hypothetical Form to get this win. When you're the Hank Aaron of the PB, you don't want to wind up with an asterisk.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
unless someone objects by 9 E.S.T. I'm counting this as a win.

You count it as a win that I deemed your post too moronic to respond to, on a day when I've been consistently responding to Not Me?

Good for you, Fluffy. Everyone prefers that the local idiot be happy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Question --- if we should be proud of it, why did the AUSA negotiate for Lindh's silence on the conditions under which he was interrogated? And is it just a huge coincidence that Abu Ghraib also happened under the same DoD's watch --- that's what you're saying, right?

Not proud. Somewhat sickened it was, or seemed at the time, necessary. Should we torture (have Pakistan torture) the no. 3 AQ guy (what's his name, Ali something)? If we can expose some pltos/cells? If you say yes, should we only torture the "top 10."

And making Lindh sit up for 3 days? This is a guy who was in the basement uprising, lived in fucking caves for months, c'mon.

If we're a country now thinking, contrary to 200 years of tradition distinguishing us from the rest of the barbaric world, that torture is occasionally justified under certain circumstances, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT FUCKING DEBATE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START TORTURING PEOPLE. Not after. Before.

Sorry no. No plebecite for how to deal with al Queda. We need to go with how do we get them talking.

And then, if we torture people for "justifiable" intelligence reasons, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A MOCKERY OF OUR DOMESTIC CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY USING THOSE CONFESSIONS TO SECURE CONVICTIONS. Are we clear? Get this to your boys in D.C.

When did we do this? Lindh is in jail for being a Tal;iban, not for any dirt he spilled. Shit. We're letting real terrorists go because our system is not structured to deal with the reality. That guy we learned they let go, because to try him we'd have to let him know about all our intelligence sources, so we deport him. We know he was plotting to blow shit up and our criminal justice system points to "send him overseas." He will kill people, understand? We know it, and yet the system you feel we've thrown out dictates we can't practically try him.

I'm so fucking angry I'm typing slow- spitting the words out- stand down Atticus- you're wrong here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You count it as a win that I deemed your post too moronic to respond to, on a day when I've been consistently responding to Not Me?

Good for you, Fluffy. Everyone prefers that the local idiot be happy.

Islamic people find it offensive to have bare feet pointed at them. Did you intentionally pick your avatar to be racially offensive?


Edit: Conf. Seriously: What part was moronic- that indians were a huge majority in the 1600's or that many died because of the treatment by the white man?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If we're a country now thinking, contrary to 200 years of tradition distinguishing us from the rest of the barbaric world, that torture is occasionally justified under certain circumstances, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT FUCKING DEBATE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY START TORTURING PEOPLE. Not after. Before.

You are naieve if you think the US has not continuously engaged in torture over the last 200 years.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Islamic people find it offensive to have bare feet pointed at them. Did you intentionally pick your avatar to be racially offensive?

Are we back to that routine, you stupid racist fuck?

:bang:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Are we back to that routine, you stupid racist fuck?

:bang:

I like my avatar so much I might write the GP and suggest he get a Ben Wallace fro. That is how lincoln decided to grow a beard.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You count it as a win that I deemed your post too moronic to respond to, on a day when I've been consistently responding to Not Me?

Well if Hello didn't take a LOA from work to weepingly follow Reagan's coffin around the country, you would have someone other than me to converse with.

Speaking of Reagan, does anyone remember the series of G. Trudeau's comic strip during Reagan's admin that was referred to as "In Search of Reagan's Brain"? Remember how the lefties used to try to say Reagan's ideas were so stupid and would never work, especially his confrontational approach to end the cold war? The parallels to the way the lefties view GWB's visionary approach to the war on terrorism are striking.

I also wonder if Trudeau regrets that series now that we know RR had Alzheimer's.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
The parallels to the way the lefties view GWB's visionary approach to the war on terrorism are striking.

Now that I am thinking about it more, remember how they would scream that RR was endangering us all and risking WWIII with his approach? Remember how much the Europeans, especially the French, hated RR? Mitterrand used to call him "le cow-boy in the White House."

The parallels are astonishing.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not proud. Somewhat sickened it was, or seemed at the time, necessary. Should we torture (have Pakistan torture) the no. 3 AQ guy (what's his name, Ali something)? If we can expose some pltos/cells? If you say yes, should we only torture the "top 10."

I don't want people tortured in my name or for my safety. Period. Check with your administration --- they say they don't either. They say they haven't. Are they liars, Hank? Club?

Sorry no. No plebecite for how to deal with al Queda. We need to go with how do we get them talking.

I didn't realized we surrendered control of the government to Perle. No plebecite, but I'd like to see us complying with international law and human rights principles that we SAY we're complying with. 'Cause otherwise we lose a bit of moral authority when our guys get beheaded on videotape, yes?

When did we do this? Lindh is in jail for being a Tal;iban, not for any dirt he spilled. Shit. We're letting real terrorists go because our system is not structured to deal with the reality. That guy we learned they let go, because to try him we'd have to let him know about all our intelligence sources, so we deport him. We know he was plotting to blow shit up and our criminal justice system points to "send him overseas." He will kill people, understand? We know it, and yet the system you feel we've thrown out dictates we can't practically try him.

Once again, I'd like to have this debate BEFORE the Administration proceeds with it. Last night I went to bed confident that we didn't torture people into confessing and then toss them into our criminal justice system. Torture was something Israel did a lot of handwringing about, but our hands were clean, even though we might have some unsavory allies. It was one of the things you could count on. I feel kicked in the gut.

At least we're clear --- the Right Side thinks torture IS justified. There's no hair-splitting about what happened at Abu Ghraib or to Lindh, because you're saying it's okay even if it was the worst thing we imagined. All I wanted to know was whether you'd admit it was policy. Now we know: if it was policy, you're proud of it and your Administration is ashamed.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are naieve if you think the US has not continuously engaged in torture over the last 200 years.

Cite, please.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
At least we're clear --- the Right Side thinks torture IS justified.

No, dumbass. The issue is that the left defines anything that is uncomfortable or scary to be torture.

Torture is pouring battery acid in someone's eyes, but is not putting panties on their head.

Keeping people naked isn't torture.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Cite, please.

I'm sure you are fully capable of googling it.

Do you think all of the training manuals we have on the subject are for academic value? I have also heard many Viet Nam era generals state on the record that we tortured people during the VN war. Over the last 30 years, we also have taken prisoners to places like SA, and waited in an adjoining room, while the Saudis tortured these people for us, which really isn't any better.

War is never humane, and no matter how much we want to believe that torture isn't necessary, unfortunately it is.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
War is never humane, and no matter how much we want to believe that torture isn't necessary, unfortunately it is.

I have no problem with us taking the high road as long as taking the high road doesn't mean more dead Americans.

AG it is pretty easy for you to sit there on your fat fucking ass spouting off your principles when your fat fucking ass isn't in the military getting shot at.

I heard a clip of Biden questioning Ashcroft the other day and he was going off about how the reason we sign the GC is because when our soldiers get taken POW, the GC protects them. Then he looked at Ashcroft and said, soldiers like my son. Ashcroft reminded him that he has a son in the military, too. Took Biden's thunder away.

I would like for Biden to provide me a citation to one example where our POWs were protected by the GC. What war was that? WWII? Vietnam? Korea? Gulf War I? Gulf War II? What a fucking idiot Biden is.

Get real people. The GC has never protected American POWs, not once. And the chances it will ever protect our POWs are slim to none unless we go to war with the UK or one of our other allies. I don't even think the fucking Mexicans would adhere to the GC if we went to war with them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
At least we're clear --- the Right Side thinks torture IS justified. There's no hair-splitting about what happened at Abu Ghraib or to Lindh, because you're saying it's okay even if it was the worst thing we imagined. All I wanted to know was whether you'd admit it was policy. Now we know: if it was policy, you're proud of it and your Administration is ashamed.

1) Stop barking such hyperbole. No one has made any such balnket statements (unless the Right Side is comprised solely of G. Gordon Liddy)

2) Kepp refusing to split-hairs, but it is apparent that certain forms of interrogation were policy in Afghanistan and were not policy in Iraq.

That there was a break in the adminstration of such policies is evidence in a failing in the system subject to review and, where necessary, punishment to individuals or failure to comply.

3) I still think the word "torture" - despite attempts to classify it in the GC and other treatises - is a subjective one and one that can never have an absolute definition.