Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The concept of human rights doesn't have a whole lot of force if other people can decide that you've forfeited them. Not very innate.

This point of view put forward by liberals always vexes me. It is often voiced as "who are you to judge...." Our whole society is based on the fact that people can take away other peoples human rights. We take away other peoples right to liberty all the time. We put them in jail, and the decision to put them there is made by other people. Our whole society is based on that process. Without the ability of some people in a society to take away certain people in the societies human rights, no one would have any rights. Without a justice system, there are no rights.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I understand that you think they deserve it.

You miss the point. This is not about retribution. The actions taken against Mohammed is to save innocent human lives. Mohammed, by his action, has discarded any rights that he may have. To sacrifice innocent human lives to protect the rights of a man that does not deserve any is immoral.

You throw out some general platitude without thinking about the specific application, and such short forsight often results in immoral acts. For example. - the platitude that it is always wrong to lie - and so you tell the Nazi that you have Jews in your attic. You seem to have another platitude - it is always wrong to torture. Wrong. It is a moral imperative to torture when the act of torture will elicit information that will save innocent lives.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's just say that the rest of us aren't exactly moved by a sympathy for the plight of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds of the world.

That is not how I see it. You and many other people seem very concerned about how he is treated. It is misplaced concerned and results in you arguing for immoral acts. Once Mohammed demonstrated his willingness to kill innocent people, the concern for his well being should have been discarded, and your concern should be focused on the people that he is going to help kill. They still should have rights because they are innocent. They have a right to life. But you seem willing to sacrifice their right to life, in order to protect the rights of a man who does not deserve and does not get rights. Once one loses the abililty to distinquish between the innocent and guilty, and the rights they should enjoy, then you lose the very discerning ability that is the very foundation of a just society.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So noted. I have never heard you explain what does constitute torture, so I get this vibe that the "they deserve it" idea is combining with the "it isn't that bad" idea in your head.

The use of the term torture is vague and there is not a common reference for us. How about if we use rights. A captured prisoner of the US government can have what would have been his rights had he not committed certain acts, be infringed, if such infringement will protect the rights of innocent people.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In what sense? Torture successfully is used for intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, and sadism, although conservatives who formerly took a pessimistic view of the power of governmental institutions to revise human nature apparently have now concluded that membership in the Republican Party and election to U.S. government office will immunize people from any instinct to anything unpleasant.

What about torture to elicit information that will save innocent human lives.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yglesias:

• At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.

Every once in a while you show a glimmer of rational thought and I think you may have possibly a very small and limited B.S. detector. But your blinders with this administration are amazing. If someone came out and said that Dick Cheney was going to torture little children, and placed it on a liberal blog, you would put up a link to it and say it came from a reliable source. Yes, I am sure that this option was put on the table, but was immediately dismissed.

We are not going to nuke Iran. It is not going to happen (unless they attack the US with a WMD). And anyone that tries to imply otherwise should be immediately dismissed as an idiot. If Osama Bin Lindan can take out the World Trade Center and we don't nuke his hideout in Afghanistan, what makes you think we would ever nuke Iran.


:bs:

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Compared to what? If you start waterboarding a guy, you can't use the approaches the Army and the FBI prefer, which they feel produces better and more useful information. In that way, it's counterproductive.

Assuming we can get the information reliably and with in the same time frame without torture, then we should not use torture. If torture does not give us reliable information we should not use it. But if torture of terrorists will get us information that will save innocent human lives then torture should be used.

If that guy from the military that wrote that book was correct when he said torture has no practical value, then it should not be used. But if the guy from ABC is right, that torture has procured valuable information, that could not be obtained any where else (and definitely not in as timely a fashion), and the procurement of such informationhas saved human lives, then torture should continued to be used.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by andViolins
Thats not a translator. Thats UN General Assembly president Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain.

aV

Oh. That was probably sexist of me.

I must go and self-flagellate now.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
*I remain steadfast in my belief that waterboarding - which amounts to nothing more than scaring someone - isn't torture.

I have questions about that too -- because as I understand it there is no physical injury. (When I first heard of it -- I actually thought it was darn creative.)

Especially when you consider that every CIA interrogator in a position to use that technique has been subjected to it once -- to know what it does. No one "test-drove" the rack or Iron Maiden.

The story I read about that a couple years back was that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed (note the spelling Spanky) toughed it out the longest of anyone. He lasted almost three minutes, which the interrogators thought was amazing.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yglesias:

• At this point, I think I need to bring up what one might call the Craziest Goddamn Thing I've Heard In a Long Time. This story came to me last week from an anonymous individual who I would say is in a position to know about such things. According to this person, the DOD has (naturally) been doing some analysis on airstrikes against Iran. The upshot of the analysis was that conventional bombardment would degrade the Iranian nuclear program by about 50 percent. By contrast, if the arsenal included small nuclear weapons, we could get up to about 80 percent destroying. In response to this, persons inside the Office of the Vice President took the view that we could use the nukes -- in other words, launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Iran -- and then simply deny that we'd done so. Detectable radiation in the area of the bombed sites would be attributed to the fact that they were, after all, nuclear facilities we'd just hit.

Smart idea. Definitely something to know and consider in your planning. Need to have some folks argue the pros as well as the cons.

Probably shouldn't do it, but . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Especially when you consider that every CIA interrogator in a position to use that technique has been subjected to it once -- to know what it does. No one "test-drove" the rack or Iron Maiden.

Assume for a moment that this did work. do you think the publication of this information- "hey it's scary but won't hurt you," might make it the tiniest bit less effective? we are so not mentally prepared for what is coming.

The story I read about that a couple years back was that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed (note the spelling Spanky) toughed it out the longest of anyone.

then what did he do?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
What about torture to elicit information that will save innocent human lives.

Did you hear President Clinton on NPR this morning? His suggestion was that torture or these extraordinary measures shouldn't be accepted as a matter of policy, but in extraordinary circumstances such as the rare instance of the ticking bomb that everyone seems to think is so common, there be a FISA type court review after the fact.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Did you hear President Clinton on NPR this morning? His suggestion was that torture or these extraordinary measures shouldn't be accepted as a matter of policy, but in extraordinary circumstances such as the rare instance of the ticking bomb that everyone seems to think is so common, there be a FISA type court review after the fact.

one good thing about that is that we'd still be able to bring liquids carry on.

the thing on NPR lately that I liked was about Chai running. (was it Chai?) you concentrate on lifting legs from the hips instead of pushing off the feet. it is supposed to really decrease injuries.

edit: chi running. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6070170

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
one good thing about that is that we'd still be able to bring liquids carry on.

the thing on NPR lately that I liked was about Chai running. (was it Chai?) you concentrate on lifting legs from the hips instead of pushing off the feet. it is supposed to really decrease injuries.

edit: chi running. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6070170

Speaking of which, I just registered for the Houston Race for the Cure. PM me if you want to donate in support of my run.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Apparently honor has been restored to the White House by pilaging what there was at the Department of the Interior.

Good thing we have Iraq to distract the public from the continued handouts at DoI

(NY Times; reg. req'd)

[Shape Shifter]

I hereby interrupt this discussion of serious issues of the day to bring you some amusing satire:

• THOMAS FRIEDMAN
  EXPLAINS THE ISSUES
  OF THE DAY.
  BY SEAN CARMAN
  - - - -
  
  The Situation in Iraq
  
  It's clear we've entered a new and critical phase in the Iraq war. We can still win this thing, but only if we carefully read the signals coming from the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions, and tailor a response that promotes our strategic interests.
  
  This is where I fault the Bush administration. It seems the administration never understood the divergent interests of Iraq's political players, and compounded that error by pursuing an ideological fantasy at odds with real-world geopolitics. It's even possible to argue—and I stress "possible"—that the invasion itself was a monumental and unsalvageable foreign-policy catastrophe.
  
  But whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's still time to pull this one out. It just depends on those in power doing absolutely the right thing based on the information they have, taking into account our interests, and the interests of others in the region. I can't put it any more clearly than that.
  
  
  
  Lieberman's Loss in Connecticut
  
  If Ned Lamont's upset victory over Joseph Lieberman means anything, it's that a longtime Democratic senator fell out of touch with his liberal constituency.
  
  But does it herald a sea change in national politics? I'm not so sure. At this stage, things could still break either way. We won't know how the electorate as a whole is feeling until after the fall elections. Some people think I should make a more definite prediction. Hey, I'm a columnist, not a Vegas bookie.
  
  
  
  Our Shared Values
  
  Sometimes it's helpful, in a troubled world, to keep in mind the values every culture shares.
  
  Think about this: Every culture, from the ancient Greeks to every modern state, considers murder to be morally wrong. The intentional taking of another human life without legal justification? Out of bounds. No question.
  
  We universally condemn other things as well. Poorly made electrical appliances, like the toaster that never gets anything golden brown. We all hate that. Overlong stays by in-laws is something else I would point to. Pederasty. Definitely high on the list. On the positive side, we all have at least one holiday on which families come together to celebrate a shared religious belief or cultural heritage.
  
  Gives you hope, doesn't it? We've just got to stay in there and keep pitching.
  
  
  
  The Teletubbies
  
  I've spoken to a lot of child-developmental psychologists, and still all I see is a quartet of emasculated babies in a post-apocalyptic landscape speaking high-pitched gibberish to a machine that feeds them custard. I'm sorry. I don't get it.
  
  
  
  Why They Hate Us
  PART ONE
  
  In 1982, when the Israeli military was shelling southern Lebanon, I had a memorable encounter with Kalil Aberzad, the proprietor of a sandwich cart in southern Beirut. I used to buy roast-beef sandwiches from Kalil, and considered him a friend. On the day I last saw Kalil, everything on the street he had called home had been laid to ruin, including his cart, which he claimed had been obliterated in a direct hit by an Israeli missile. I was skeptical the Israeli military would target a sandwich cart, but it was true that the bombs had buried the quiet corners of Kalil's neighborhood beneath a dusty landscape of scattered concrete, twisted iron, and shattered glass.
  
  As I made my way through the rubble, Kalil ran up to me, his shirt in rags, his hair a mess, and his skin stained with dirty sweat and blood. He grabbed my lapel and cried, "Mr. Friedman! How can we live if a country can rain bombs down on us like this? You tell me that, Mr. Friedman! You who know so much! What in God's name are we to do?"
  
  
  
  Moving to Laguna Beach
  
  Like a lot of other guys, I often think this would be the answer. Nice cottage, within walking distance of the ocean. Maybe a hammock, a grill, and a close-by electrical outlet for the blender? Sailboat in the marina for when you want to be alone?
  
  You gotta admit, it sounds pretty nice.
  
  
  
  Why They Hate Us
  PART TWO
  
  I've said before the world doesn't really hate us. Rather, a large number of people in the world—a majority, technically—resent our government's support of repressive dictatorships in the Middle East and Central America, our use of radical extremists as proxy insurgents, and our failure to give due consideration to the Palestinian cause.
  
  They don't hate us, in other words, they just hate our foreign policy.
  
  Fair enough. Don't ignore me just because you don't like the woman I brought to the dance, right?
  
  But, at a certain point, people transfer their hatred of something to those responsible for causing it. If you don't like the woman I brought to the dance, eventually you'll blame me for her presence. Especially if you are the ex-wife, and you hold the woman I brought to the dance responsible for ending our marriage.
  
  My point is, we seem to have reached a tipping point, past which the people of the world really do hate us. Not just our government. They hate us. You and me.
  
  "OK, Tom," I hear you say. "Great. Now they hate us. But I've got a job at Home Depot and three kids to support. If I could take back my vote for George W. Bush I would, but I can't. That's not how our system works. So what do you want me to do?"
  
  That's a fair question, and one I'll be addressing in future columns, as the dynamic and direction of these problems become more clear, both to me and to the public at large. Could a sad history of misplaced American foreign-policy priorities be coming back to haunt a twilight empire?
  
  Maybe. It's just too early to say.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/9/7carman.html

Back to talking about those corrupt motherfuckers in the White House.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
But your blinders with this administration are amazing.

:doh3:

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Evidence that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.

Under Ronald Reagan, the United States refused to adopt amendments to the Geneva Convention because the administration thought the amendments would extend treaty protection to terrorists:

The NY Times agreed that the Senate ought to reject the amendments because they would extend Treaty protection to terrorists:

Actually, while I'm not familiar with that Protocol, this doesn't mean that the Conventions as they now exist do not apply to terrorists. Was that Protocol ratified, by how many countries? Depending on the answer, it could constitute international law, for whatever that's worth.

That said, this does show that the U.S. had previously rejected and did not sign onto the notion that such protections should apply to "guerillas," "terrorists", etc.

Anyhow, as I've said, I thought there was really no question that the Conventions did _not_ apply to al Qaeda types. The question is more whether we should treat them that way in any event.

S_A_M