Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 120

SlaveNoMore · 09-20-2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

taxwonk
Thanks, Hank!!!!

BTW, I offered not one, but two proofs that torture, or for that matter simple coercion, don't guarantee results.

Wonk 362
Hank 10

Actually - Hank had a valid point last week you clearly missed.

Here's the visual reason why your third "proof" is fucking irrelevant in the eyes of half this country.

Now - for the sake of argument, the rest of this post is not personal - it is directed towards the other 3/4 of you.

Half the country doesn't get boggled down is esoteric arguments about "what could" and "what if."

They see terrorists - they see folks defending them - then they think of this. People burning to death jumping out of buildings.

Oddly, most of the folks in my personal circle that want to hide these images and move on from 9/11 are the same folks that loudly demand we hamper the military/CIA from defending this country.

Ignore the argument and turn it into something it isnt. Ty's "innocent prisoner." SAM's "drunken American" on our streets.

I'm fucking sick and tired of this bait and switch. Have a problem with Bush's CIA position, then say why.

eta links to deceased NY 9/11 websites deleted at requests of others

SlaveNoMore · 09-20-2006, 02:40 AM

Muslim military coup just took over Thailand.

Comments?

Spanky · 09-20-2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Muslim military coup just took over Thailand.

Comments?

The new leader may be muslim, but I wouldn't call it a muslim military coup. This guy was put in charge of the military partly because he could deal better with the Muslim insurgency in the south (being that he was muslim). He is clearly not some rabid muslim. He is close to the King, who is not muslim.

Spanky · 09-20-2006, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Have a problem with Bush's CIA position, then say why.

I would be interested in these specifics also.

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-20-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is that what we were talking about? Police actions within the US?

All this time, I thought we were we talking about Congressional clarification of allowable conduct during CIA interrogations on foreign soil of unmarked, un-uniformed terrorists from "armies" that are not signatories to the Geneva convention.

I was responding to what seemed to be your statement that the options and actions of those seeking to protect the U.S. from harm should not be limited in any way -- by using as examples (analogies) other instances in which we do impose limitations.

If you think that there should be any limitations, please feel free to explain what they are -- in terms of geography, citizenship, etc. -- and please be honest enough to acknowledge that your Administration has essentially fought a rearguard action since 2002-03 trying to protect the "no limits" position -- even as applied to U.S citizens on U.S soil.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-20-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
When we are talking about interrogation on foreign soil of unmarked un-uniformed terrorists our rights are never at issue.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So there is no reason to restrict the interrogators to protect our rights. Restricting them so they can not do their job as effectively as possible does not help protect our rights or benefit us in anyway, where restricting them does put us at risk.

(a) I disagree as to your first point.

(b) Well, that is the rub, isn't it? Even placing morality aside -- which I don't -- does adherence to the Geneva Conventions, which as ratified treaties are the Supreme law of our land up there next to the Constitution actually harm efficiency of interrogations or put us in any risk?

The Army seems to think not. Many professionals say "No." If y'all could cite one who says yes, I'd be happy to consider what
they have to say. Otherwise, Spanky, I'll have to go all Hank on you.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-20-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Link to article

"Among the manual's conclusions: The threat of pain is a far more effective interrogation tool than actually inflicting pain, but threats of death do not help."

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 09-20-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm fucking sick and tired of this bait and switch. Have a problem with Bush's CIA position, then say why.

I've said it, as has Taxwonk. Stop pretending we haven't.

Because it is immoral. It is wrong. I think it is likely to be largely ineffective -- AND will result in torture of many innocents (or relative innocents) along with the guilty.

(Kind of like the death penalty, in my view, in that if we had perfect information, I think I'd be much more willing to abide it, because I'm not an absolutist.)

We should not do it.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski · 09-20-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've said it, as has Taxwonk. Stop pretending we haven't.

Because it is immoral. It is wrong. I think it is likely to be largely ineffective -- AND will result in torture of many innocents (or relative innocents) along with the guilty.

(Kind of like the death penalty, in my view, in that if we had perfect information, I think I'd be much more willing to abide it, because I'm not an absolutist.)

We should not do it.

S_A_M

I have decided to leave this board. I gave you all time to correct the problems I identified, and you failed. To those on the left who think "good riddence," I suggest you go back and see how many of the "serious points" raised by slave or spanky find their origins in a Hank post, although perhaps presented with a twist of humor. The board will become that much less.

Gattigap · 09-20-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

I don't agree with your position, Slave, but it's clear to me that continuing to talk about it isn't very useful.

Peace out.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-20-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've said it, as has Taxwonk. Stop pretending we haven't.

Because it is immoral. It is wrong. I think it is likely to be largely ineffective -- AND will result in torture of many innocents (or relative innocents) along with the guilty.

(Kind of like the death penalty, in my view, in that if we had perfect information, I think I'd be much more willing to abide it, because I'm not an absolutist.)

We should not do it.

2. And, Slave, if you think that you need to post pictures of 9/11 because someone here has forgotten, you can stop.

BTW, it's possible for people to be horrified by 9/11 and by waterboarding and by the idea that our own government wants to be able to lock people up for whatever reason without ever giving them a chance to go to court.

Hank, you never lack for serious points, but lately you bury them under all sorts of other tripe. See you on the FB.

taxwonk · 09-20-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
with all the personal attacks I've had to endure here from the Tys and Sams, I had almost quit this board. I did come back though because you and SS and Panda all seemed like you were interested in discussing issues instead of singling out those who beat you in arguments. Now even you must stoop to blind hate attacks? If you just ask me to stop posting here I will. you don't have to create hate to drive off alternative views.

Look back at your post that generated the response. Then suck it.

Shape Shifter · 09-20-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I have several reasons why you're wrong on this, but I have to keep it secret. You'll just have to trust me on this.

I think it's because they are unable to admit they made a mistake in doing this. They - and especially bush - are pathologically unable to admit they ever made a mistake on anything. bush thinks he's God's anointed, so how could he do anything wrong?

Hell, even the pope apologizes, and he's infallible.

ltl/fb · 09-20-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Hell, even the pope apologizes, and he's infallible.

He didn't really apologize. He did the fake apology.

taxwonk · 09-20-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow. Well that pretty much puts an end to that argument.

:dance: :dance2: :sportswav

Actually, it doesn't end anything. It simply represents more disinformation.

Quirin dealt with spies. Soldiers out of uniform are spies and subject to execution. That simple. The detainees at Gitmo and in the other prisons are not all soldiers out of uniform. We have swept up too many people that we aren't sure are combatants or not.

If they are combatants, in the sense of being hostile enemy soldiers out of uniform, then we should execute them. If they are merely people who we suspect may or may not have information concerning the identity or whereabouts of terrorists, then they are not combatants, and Quirin doesn't apply.