Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh . . .

stay focused. don't confuse nutjobs.

aV

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh . . .

Ya know, you're really making me just guess about this, but if this was a cute comment meant to underscore some moral equivalence between our Iraq actions, and the actions of the Baathists, the foreign Islamic insurgents, or the let's-take-it-now Iranians, then you've very nicely proved my point.

On the other hand, if you just couldn't think of anything to say, I take it all back.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ya know, you're really making me just guess about this, but if this was a cute comment meant to underscore some moral equivalence between our Iraq actions, and the actions of the Baathists, the foreign Islamic insurgents, or the let's-take-it-now Iranians, then you've very nicely proved my point.

On the other hand, if you just couldn't think of anything to say, I take it all back.

Settle down, Hannity. Don't read too much into a joke. Kind of like when none of us really thought you were serious when you were defending Quayle's intellectual ability.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are doing a bait an switch. The only thing we are talking about is the morality of the issue. The legality of the issue is not in question.

We can certainly avoid fighting wars. The French have done it through history.

I think you don't want to talk about the morality of the issue, because you cannot rationally distinguish killings or other brutal acts as part of war, on the one hand, and torture, on the other hand, other than by pointing to what is currently "legal."

It seems to me that what we have done in the case of war is to engage in a balancing test, where we have determined that the horrors and evils we inflict are outweighed by the benefits. I am only suggesting that the same anaysis should be done for torture. I can see no other rational weigh to distinguish among these horrors.

Is there a circumstance to justify our use of chemical or biological weapons?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any other powerful man, like a President or Senator.

Kay: Michael, do you realize how naive you sound. Presidents and Senators don't have people killed.

MC: Who's being naive Kay?

Oh, I can be naive and have poor taste in men, I admit it OKAY?


I have to tell you Hank, for once, I think I want to fuck you. I'd still have to bag your face (or do the missionary style position so if you're tall enough your face will be towards the headboards and out of my line of vision) but this is a much sexier avatar.

Yeh Yeh Yeh, take it to the FB.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
You haven't been watching TV, have you?

There are groups of people out there who are looking to kill huge swaths of other people for various perceived indiscretions, like not following the right nutjob's version of what some god told him we should all do, or not willingly granting supreme authority over all to the whacko leader they've chosen for themselves. We've stepped in to slow that killing down. The "power to determine the fate" of tons of people is derived from whatever power we can muster to stop those whackos and nutjobs, and I can testify that that power is there. "Vainly"? Right. You're like Adder, standing firm that Saddam and his ilk constituted inconveniences to some people.

Like this guy?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are doing a bait an switch. The only thing we are talking about is the morality of the issue. The legality of the issue is not in question.

We can certainly avoid fighting wars. The French have done it through history.

I think you don't want to talk about the morality of the issue, because you cannot rationally distinguish killings or other brutal acts as part of war, on the one hand, and torture, on the other hand, other than by pointing to what is currently "legal."

It seems to me that what we have done in the case of war is to engage in a balancing test, where we have determined that the horrors and evils we inflict are outweighed by the benefits. I am only suggesting that the same anaysis should be done for torture. I can see no other rational weigh to distinguish among these horrors.

Throughout history, civilized societies have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, that there were limits to what was and what was not acceptable conduct. Deliberately attacking civilians has been deemed immoral and unacceptable. Safe conduct for negotiators is another example. Torture of prisnoers is yet another.

I can't think of any other way to say it. Torture is wrong. It is not dropping bombs. It is not engaging in battle. It is not honoring the humanity of the combatants on each side. It is deliberately inflicting pain on another human being qua human being, not fighting a soldier on the field of battle.

Morality and rationality don't always walk hand in hand. If you can't see it any other way, then please accept that I take this as a matter of faith.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any other powerful man, like a President or Senator.

Kay: Michael, do you realize how naive you sound. Presidents and Senators don't have people killed.

MC: Who's being naive Kay?

I'm not being naive, Hank. I'm just honoring Bilmore's desire to keep this non-partisan.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Like this guy?

Noonday grows fantastic onions. Very sweet.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Like this guy?

Good lord.

At what point in life do you start lying about where you're from, and disclaiming any knowledge of Texas? Seems like you could claim good cause by now.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
You haven't been watching TV, have you?

So, when we try to stop these killers, are we playing god? Does that fit your definition? Do you perceive that everything we do to try to stop these killers is somehow morally equivalent to the actions and motivations of these killers? If you want to talk about soul, compassion, and conscience, and have people keep a straight face around you, consider that what we're doing ranks far higher on the moral scale then the actions of the Baathists trying to re-seat the murderous dictatorship, or the mullahs looking to rule by their personal vision of gawd, or the simple murderous thieves taking what they can because they can. If that concept staggers you, then your answer to Club about there being no point of communication is right.

If we engage in torture, then we are no different from Saddam. Where do you derive the belief that it is okay to adopt the tactics of the Baathists and the mullahs and Al-Qaeda and not be just as morally culpable?

Because our motives are pure? Because we're better than them. Bullshit. If we are willing to torture, maim, and kill them all if we have to, then we are them. What makes us different is the fact that we are governed by laws, and we adhere to them. Pure power is not deemed an aceptable way to lead and govern.

If we throw all that aside, then we have nothing left to claim to be better. We have forfeited the high ground. What staggers me is that you can argue so vehemently about your individual rights and freedoms, but you deny that those rules apply to the Iraqis.

What is your basis for the distinction? That some of them want to kill us? What the fuck do you think we've been doing? That they want to impose their will and their way of life upon the citizens of Iraq? Isn't that what we're doing?

What the fuck, Bilmore? What the fuck?*



*(New board motto.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ya know, you're really making me just guess about this, but if this was a cute comment meant to underscore some moral equivalence between our Iraq actions, and the actions of the Baathists, the foreign Islamic insurgents, or the let's-take-it-now Iranians, then you've very nicely proved my point.

On the other hand, if you just couldn't think of anything to say, I take it all back.

What is there to support the lack of moral equivalence?

Remember, we're not talking about the invasion or the toppling of Saddam. We're not talking about the efforts to democratize Iraq. We're talking about beating the shit out of people, raping their daughters (or trying to credibly threaten to do so), denying them food water, and sleep.

What makes it better when we do it than it was when Saddam did it?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That they want to impose their will and their way of life upon the citizens of Iraq? Isn't that what we're doing?

See, here is where we just can't communicate. Someone points a gun at your head, and pulls on the trigger. I stop them from shooting. In your view, I have arbitrarily and imperiously imposed my will - my will being, that you should live - on you.

No, that's not what we're doing. Sheesh.

I buy the Dershowitz argument. If some asshole has a nuke set on a timer in Minneapolis, and I can get him to tell me where it is by torturing him, consider him to be without fingernails or eyes. I can do many things in defense of life that I can't do as offensive action. You spend too much time on the surface idea of how it "looks", and not enough on what it serves. Yeah, sometimes the ends justify the means. What makes us different is the moral stance of the end we seek. A moral stance that says "I will enforce my rule with shredders" brings no moral sanction to an action. A moral stance that says "I will stop that man from shredding others" does. Your nobility costs others their innocent lives, but makes you feel good, and that strikes me as serving your own self-image far more than serving life.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
See, here is where we just can't communicate. Someone points a gun at your head, and pulls on the trigger. I stop them from shooting. In your view, I have arbitrarily and imperiously imposed my will - my will being, that you should live - on you.

But that isn't what you are aguing in favor of. A more apt analogy would be as follows: You know someone wants to kill me, and you know that his brother knows where the gun he plans to use is hidden.

You are arguing that it is okay to break the brother's fingers one by one until he tells you where the gun is.

[Replaced_Texan]

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion...511628reh2.pdf

Denial of petition for rehearing.

Language in the separate concurrence regarding Activist! judges.