Politics As Usual

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But wait...if they're terrorists then we can dog-collar them, right? If they're soldiers then we can't, but if they're soldiers then this isn't terrorism, right?

You are stunningly incomprehensible as usual. I suppose in three hours you will "declare victory" in this exchange.

You sure you aren't Fluffy?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are stunningly incomprehensible as usual. I suppose in three hours you will "declare victory" in this exchange.

You sure you aren't Fluffy?

When you get another unfavorable opinion from the Judge, do you just say he's stupid and throw it on the pile after the first read, or do you think about what he said and read it again, asking "is it possible I'm wrong?"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Would you feel that way if our soldiers were treated similarly? I find that hard to believe.

It's worth noting that according to a report I heard about on the radio yesterday, 70%-90% of the people detained were innocent.

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I would feel differently. They are Americans. But that is not to say that the risk of our soldiers being similarly humiliated because we engage in these tactics outweighs the potential benefit we could derive from those tactics.

I find those statistics suspect. What people are we talking about? Gitmo? Abu Garib? Iraq in general?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What about when the dogs bite?


(Who let the dogs out?!?!)

To my knowledge, dog biting was not an approved method.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(Who let the dogs out?!?!)

I think we can all agree that forcing them to listen to the Baha Men is torture.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are stunningly incomprehensible as usual. I suppose in three hours you will "declare victory" in this exchange.

You sure you aren't Fluffy?

Hank did have a previous identity, but not fluffy.

As a matter of fact, Hank had a whole website devoted to him, and was a bit of a celebrity. But there was a reorganization of his former employer and he ended up here, shilling for a new master.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
When you get another unfavorable opinion from the Judge, do you just say he's stupid and throw it on the pile after the first read, or do you think about what he said and read it again, asking "is it possible I'm wrong?"

Once again, the figs are ripening on the tree while the Master seeks a return to his domain! If Bush hadn't given Rumsfeld the order, we would all be looking at a whole different ballgame!


(In other words, I think it's time that I just adopt your style.)

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's worth noting that according to a report I heard about on the radio yesterday, 70%-90% of the people detained were innocent.

This is unpossible. First of all, the police don't arrest people who aren't guilty. Secondly, clearly each and every one of them was at least guilty of Walking While Iraqi, or perhaps Standing While Iraqi, or maybe Sitting in a Wheelchair While Iraqi. Not to mention the crimes each committed while incarcerated: indecent exposure, assaulting the guard dogs' teath with their legs and arms, etc.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What about when the dogs bite?


(Who let the dogs out?!?!)

Sometimes even that is okay. The dogs are there for a reason.

For the moment, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. In context, intimidating unruly prisoners, biting unruly prisoners, beating unruly prisoners, stripping unruly prisoners naked, etc... are justified in some circumstances. Thus, its not these mere physical act that makes something wrong, let alone torture.

In the context of naked pyramids, I think that's just not right in any circumstance. Nor bunny ears or other forms of pure unadulterated mass humiliation. Not right, but no, not torture either.

Now, if you routinely used a snarling dog's presence in a routine question and answer interrogation session, I think its almost certainly wrong. One minute some dude is sleeping in his cell, next minute the guy's being dragged in front of bright lights and coming face to face with a snarling guard dog. Simply not right.

Torture? It could be a close call, and even verifiable, in some circumstances. Even if the dog doesn't bite, if you put a foaming dog in my face without a muzzle, I may, may wet my pants. Ditto snakes, and heights where I feel exposed to falling a significant distance straight down. Fuck it. Putting anyone up against a snake is torture.

But anyway, I'm just saying, context counts. So for Rumsfeld to say its okay to use dogs, well that's just stating the obvious. Except that people with dogs already knew they could use the dogs. So why was Rummy saying they could use the dogs?

I think, in context, he was saying they could use the dogs in ways they weren't supposed to be used. Otherwise, its like getting a letter from the mayor saying "you can drive 55" when only 10% of the roads have a 55 MPH speed limit. How else could the memo be taken?

Bottom line for me? Torture? Maybe not. But RUmmy saying its okay to do things you've been trained not to do? Probably. And that's not good. I fucking hate that guy.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


I find those statistics suspect. What people are we talking about? Gitmo? Abu Garib? Iraq in general?

An innocent of what? Are you saying 70-90% of the folks we have picked up were just peasant farmers who happened to be in the vicinity of armed fighters?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
I think we can all agree that forcing them to listen to the Baha Men is torture.

2

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is a ridiculous question. Of course I would feel differently. They are Americans. But that is not to say that the risk of our soldiers being similarly humiliated because we engage in these tactics outweighs the potential benefit we could derive from those tactics.

The GC has never protected our soldiers in a war. I doubt that it will ever protect our soldiers. The only purpose the GC has is to make us feel good about ourselves because we signed it and to tie our hands in war.

[Not Me]

. . . . that these two have sex with each other?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is a ridiculous question. Of course I would feel differently. They are Americans. But that is not to say that the risk of our soldiers being similarly humiliated because we engage in these tactics outweighs the potential benefit we could derive from those tactics.

I am applying the Golden Rule, and you are applying the sort of utilitarian analysis associated with John Stuart Mill. I find this an odd conversation to be having with an avowed libertarian. Here in America, we have property rights that protect the rich from taxation, but there in Iraq it's OK to abuse prisoners if it might potentially benefit us. Hmm.

I find those statistics suspect. What people are we talking about? Gitmo? Abu Garib? Iraq in general?

Abu Ghraib, I thought. I don't know how someone could determine innocence, so you have a point. OTOH, a lot of people were picked up in sweeps late last year, when the insurgency got going. I don't think the radio program I heard posts transcripts, but I will see if I can Google it a little later.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In typical fashion, you quote the BBC*. Why don't you follow the lead of your buddy Tyrone and read all the blogs and report the full story - that Rumsfeld refuted such techniques as early as December 2002

I posted the link, which makes the point that Rumsfeld authorized the stripping naked and menacing with dogs, and then changed his mind in December 2002. We're only now hearing how effective this change of mind was --- guess it didn't percolate down as quickly as the authorization did.

If the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the prisoners we take in the War on Terror, and we're somehow proud of this innovation, maybe we should have been more upfront about it. You know, to let AQ operatives know they'd be cupping their nuts in front of a German Shepherd if we got ahold of them. Something tells me Rumsfeld didn't want this to get out for a reason.

Not that you deem me a "bright" one around here, but my dimm [sic] bulb can see a clear difference between the initial rules laid down for stateless-combatants at Gitmo, then evaluated and renounced thereafter, and refuted before becoming the MO at Abu.

What a crock of shit. Rumsfeld's "refutation" of that dichotomy was apparently intellectually ineffective --- people on this board are still relying on the "stateless combatants" theory to justify whatever happened at both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Once again, Slave, you've shown you have poor taste in friends. Um, I mean, allies. Let me help you out here --- if you find yourself arguing on the side of one-joke socks like Not Me and Club, it's time to pause and reflect. Bathe in the healing light of liberalism, and let your sins be washed clean.