A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky


But in this recent conflict there is a lot of upside to using torture and almost none of the downside to torture you get when you use it in the domestic criminal justice system, or use torture on captured enemy combatants who were in uniform.

when torturing, do you recommend looking the victim in the eyes?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This whole thing started with you using the losers as the base of your argument that torture is good.

I never said that. Are you stupid, have a low reading comprehension, or just too lazy to read what you are responding to. For the one thousandth time, I used them as an example to refute the people that were stating that torture never works. Full Stop. I even stated that the fact that the Nazi and Soviets used torture bolstered the argument that the use of torture is always immoral. I said I could respect the argument that torture works, but is immoral, but the argument that torture never works is total B.S. The Nazi and Soviet examples were used to support that what I thought was an obvious assertion.

Originally posted by taxwonk Should we do this because our leaders have become small, cowardly men who haven't the vision or courage to enter a conflict honestly, and truthfully assess the cost for the people who will be expected to bear it in money and blood?

Is this a bad joke? What is this a politcal speech you make to old ladies? This paragraph may sound nice but it is absolutely meaningless. If you make a cogent rational argument I will respond but don't waste our time with such unsubstantive grandstanding drivel. I thought you were a lawyer? Am I wrong?

Originally posted by taxwonk Should we do this because the enemy is Brown and therefore doesn't deserve the same measure of respect?

Yes throw out the race card. That is a real rational approach. No one said that so why throw that out there unless you have nothing intelligent to say?

Originally posted by taxwonk Or should we do it because we're simply less decent?

Less Decent? They hijack civilian airliners and run them into civilian buildings, killing thousand of innocent women and children are you are saying we are less decent?

Why don't you try and make a rational defense to at least one statement you have made. Give me an example of an act someone should take that is immoral.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
So we agree that the kicker is finding out who are bonafide spies and Al Queda operatives. So as long as we have a good way of figuring out who these guys are then you have no problem torturing them. Is that correct?

"No problem" overstates my position (I don't think that torture should be official policy, for a number of reasons), but for purposes of this particular discussion, we can stipulate that.

How do you know that this [tortur of misidentified civilians] is such a problem? If it is, it needs to be resolved. The use of torture may not be good here because it doesn't seem to me that torture is a particularly effective tool in getting true confessions. It might work for getting people to give up information they don't want to give up (like turning in a friend etc), but I don't see how torture can be used for getting a reliable confession. But I am not an expert so you are right if you are saying I don't have answer for you on this.

The estimates I have seen as to the number of US detainees in Iraq all exceed 50,000 (maybe overstated, but a believable number). That (a) far exceeds (by well over a factor of 10) the numbers I have seen for membership in al qaeda and (b) I seriously doubt w have captured over half of all alqaeda members. While I admit to a leap on this, where the ratio of common criminals to potential spies is 20:1 or even 50:1, with imperfect information about who is a spy, it is highly improbable that there has not been frequent misidentification of "spies" to be tortured. Obviously, I don't KNOW this, because if I did, the CIA would want me on the payroll.

If a foreign national is in Iraq fighting undercover, I doesn't really bother me if he ends up being on the wrong end of a "blunt instrument". Whether or not he is with Al Queda he is working as a terroist, trying to kill civilians and destablize the government. In addition, if he disappears it is not going to effect the hearts and minds of the native population.

The kicker is trying to determine which Iraqi operatives are working for Al Queda. And even if they are working for Al Queda, do you treat them different, because they have relatives in Iraq whose opinion of the government may depend on how you treat their cousin?

These guys are plain clothes and killing civilians. So I am not all that concerned with how they are treated. But Sidds issue of Hearts and Minds is an important one, which does not arise with foreign nationals, but needs to be seriously considered when it comes to Iraqi detainees.

My point about the blunt instrument was that if you assume that (i) all foreigners are bad and (ii) virtually all Iraqis are good, you set up a system where you overidentify foreign "spies" and underidentify native "spies". The hearts & minds issue is central to all of this, and using this blunt instrument causes problems with public relations, even to the extent that we are talking about (say) philipino truck drivers or American contractors as they tend to get press coverage and make the US look like they arrest anyone who looks cross-eyed at an American soldier.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when torturing, do you recommend looking the victim in the eyes?

If it will help procure information that will help save innocent lives. Sure.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
The estimates I have seen as to the number of US detainees in Iraq all exceed 50,000 (maybe overstated, but a believable number). That (a) far exceeds (by well over a factor of 10) the numbers I have seen for membership in al qaeda and (b) I seriously doubt w have captured over half of all alqaeda members. While I admit to a leap on this, where the ratio of common criminals to potential spies is 20:1 or even 50:1, with imperfect information about who is a spy, it is highly improbable that there has not been frequent misidentification of "spies" to be tortured. Obviously, I don't KNOW this, because if I did, the CIA would want me on the payroll.

Al Queda is not the only enemy in Iraq. There are lots of insurgent groups and don't you think that many of these prisoners are from these groups.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
My point about the blunt instrument was that if you assume that (i) all foreigners are bad and

Why else would a foreinger be in Iraq in plain clothes and a weapon firing on civilians?

Originally posted by Cletus Miller (ii) virtually all Iraqis are good,

Not that they are good. In fact I think most of the Iraqis we capture are "bad". However, how we deal with them can effect the propganda war.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller you set up a system where you overidentify foreign "spies" and underidentify native "spies". The hearts & minds issue is central to all of this, and using this blunt instrument causes problems with public relations, even to the extent that we are talking about (say) philipino truck drivers or American contractors as they tend to get press coverage and make the US look like they arrest anyone who looks cross-eyed at an American soldier.

That is a valid point.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Al Queda is not the only enemy in Iraq. There are lots of insurgent groups and don't you think that many of these prisoners are from these groups.

Of course, thus the stated limitations and generalities about the numbers. But it's still useful for discussion purposes, and there is no way that all 50,000 plus are actually spies/al qaeda/anti-american insurgents. If they are merely anti-government, then they should be the Iraqis problem anyway.

Why else would a foreinger be in Iraq in plain clothes and a weapon firing on civilians?

But you have to admit that group is a subset of those detained.

Not that they are good. In fact I think most of the Iraqis we capture are "bad". However, how we deal with them can effect the propganda war.

Right, but however you draw the line between "good" Iraqis and "bad" Iraqis is going to cause a problem. Therefore, better treatment for Iraqis in US custody is probably a good policy as part of the larger task.

That is a valid point.

And ties in with the overall treatment of all detainees who do not fit into the "high value" category with the likes of KSM. For an (admittedly too easy) example, Jose Padilla was never a genuine "high value" prisoner, even though he has been treated as such--try him for treason and execute him if that's the deal, but who in their right mind really believed that idiot had strategic intel warranting his treatment?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller

But you have to admit that group is a subset of those detained.

Absolutely, but those can bee wisked of to some hell hole without a second thought.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Right, but however you draw the line between "good" Iraqis and "bad" Iraqis is going to cause a problem. Therefore, better treatment for Iraqis in US custody is probably a good policy as part of the larger task.

However, if it is an Iraqi that is clearly working with Al Queda (obviously a Sunni) then off to the camps.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
And ties in with the overall treatment of all detainees who do not fit into the "high value" category with the likes of KSM. For an (admittedly too easy) example, Jose Padilla was never a genuine "high value" prisoner, even though he has been treated as such--try him for treason and execute him if that's the deal, but who in their right mind really believed that idiot had strategic intel warranting his treatment?

I don't remember the details of his case. But mistakes have and will continue to be made. But that is no reason to trash a perfectly good intelligence gathering strategy because mistakes have been made.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
...mistakes have been made.

Mistakes have not been made. Bill Clinton made a mistake when he stuck his dick in Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Alberto Gonzales made a mistake when he approved and helped craft a memo that said it was okay to torture civilians. Donald Rumsfeld made a ton of mistakes thinkin that he could win in Iraq with a short-term, under-armed force that would have to rely too soon on an unwilling native military and police force.

The use of the passive voice in these circumstances is an abomination. Ther is nothing passive about a fuck-up in judgment. If an employee tried this mealy-mouthed shit with me I'd fire his ass.

Carry on.

[nononono]

Isn't this a pretty universally understood joke (no idea if Spanky said it that way, but either way)? "Mistakes were made" is a sort of joke among lawyers I know that has been running for years.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Mistakes have not been made. Bill Clinton made a mistake when he stuck his dick in Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Alberto Gonzales made a mistake when he approved and helped craft a memo that said it was okay to torture civilians. Donald Rumsfeld made a ton of mistakes thinkin that he could win in Iraq with a short-term, under-armed force that would have to rely too soon on an unwilling native military and police force.

The use of the passive voice in these circumstances is an abomination. Ther is nothing passive about a fuck-up in judgment. If an employee tried this mealy-mouthed shit with me I'd fire his ass.

Carry on.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Carry on.

Indeed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Mistakes have not been made. Bill Clinton made a mistake when he stuck his dick in Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Alberto Gonzales made a mistake when he approved and helped craft a memo that said it was okay to torture civilians. Donald Rumsfeld made a ton of mistakes thinkin that he could win in Iraq with a short-term, under-armed force that would have to rely too soon on an unwilling native military and police force.

The use of the passive voice in these circumstances is an abomination. Ther is nothing passive about a fuck-up in judgment. If an employee tried this mealy-mouthed shit with me I'd fire his ass.

Carry on.

Faced with the utter stupidity and irrationality of your arguments you decide to criticize my use of a verb form? Usually when a pathetic poster is faced with the reality of their lame argument they usually lash back by accusing the other poster (that has exposed the wanting logic of their position) of being overexcited, or commenting on a misspelling, grammar or mathematical mistake made by the said poster. But focusing on the use of a verb form; that has to be a new low, even for you. I think that qualifies you as the most pathetic poster on the board.

In any event, firing an employee because they used the passive voice is quite an unexpected irrational and absurd statement, even coming from you. I don't think I have ever heard of that before. The subordinates in your office must love having such erratic and bizarre rules of conduct to comply with. I would never fire someone for using a verb form I didn't like, however, if they demonstrated that they were as irrational, emotional and as unable to differentiate between issues (or to understand what issues and facts are relevant) as you, I would tell them they just have no place in a law office.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
Isn't this a pretty universally understood joke (no idea if Spanky said it that way, but either way)? "Mistakes were made" is a sort of joke among lawyers I know that has been running for years.

You're a fucking pawpaw.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
Usually when a pathetic poster is faced with the reality of their lame argument they usually lash back by accusing the other poster (that has exposed the wanting logic of their position) of being overexcited, or commenting on a misspelling, grammar or mathematical mistake made by the said poster.

Spanky is making an excellent argument that he is not obsessed with me. I'm glad he is so rational and even-keeled.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by nononono
Isn't this a pretty universally understood joke (no idea if Spanky said it that way, but either way)? "Mistakes were made" is a sort of joke among lawyers I know that has been running for years.

It used to be a joke. Unfortunately, now too many people use it seriously. Witness, Mel Gibson, Mark Foley, Donald Rumsfeld, ad nauseum. Maybe I'm being Scrooge here, but I tire of the era of "I fucked up, but you can't really blame me."

Note that this is at best tangentially related to Spanky, other than he used the phrase that set off my rant.

Carry on.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Spanky is making an excellent argument that he is not obsessed with me. I'm glad he is so rational and even-keeled.

maybe Spank and I could come to LA and do a "double stalk" with you and the Fringster?