Strategy Memo: How the Right Plans to Sink the Anti-Torture Amendment Behind Closed Doors
Strategy Memo: How the Right Plans to Sink the Anti-Torture Amendment Behind Closed Doors
The McCain anti-torture amendment has twice been passed by the U.S. Senate. The Senate voted 90-9 to include it in the “must pass†Defense Department Appropriations bill for FY 2006; for good measure, senators later attached the amendment to the Defense Department Authorization bill as well.
Despite this overwhelming support, the amendment’s final passage is not assured. The White House and congressional conservatives have developed a two-pronged strategy to prevent the amendment from becoming law.
1) Vice President Cheney has been seeking changes that would effectively gut the amendment, by exempting CIA interrogations from compliance with the requirements.
Even before the latest revelations about detainees being held at secret CIA “black sites,†supporters of the McCain amendment had made clear that such an exemption would render the amendment worse than current law.
The latest reports suggest that the White House is finally getting the message, and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has been negotiating with Senator McCain in hopes of securing modest but potentially problematic changes intended to minimize the exposure of U.S. intelligence officers to prosecution for alleged abuses. Those negotiations could be concluded within the next few days.
2) The Administration has also threatened a veto of each of the two Defense bills if the McCain amendment remains attached to them. At this point it remains unclear which of the two bills containing the McCain amendment will move first.
The House could move to appoint conferees on the appropriations bill before the end of the week. Meanwhile, the Armed Services Committees are laboring to resolve this and dozens of other issues regarding the authorization bill in hopes of passing it at any time.
One likely scenario is for conservatives to allow the authorization bill to pass with the McCain amendment attached and intact, at which point appropriators would seek to strip it from the “must pass” appropriations bill before it also passes. This would enable the President to sign the appropriations bill but make good his threat to veto the authorization, thus killing the amendment.
To forestall that risk, appropriations conferees who support the McCain amendment will seek to block any effort to drop the amendment from the appropriations bill unless the White House promises that the President to sign the authorization bill as well.
Whichever bill reaches the finish line first, it looks increasingly likely that the McCain amendment will become law. Our nation and the world will be the better for it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This:
To forestall that risk, appropriations conferees who support the McCain amendment will seek to block any effort to drop the amendment from the appropriations bill unless the White House promises that the President to sign the authorization bill as well.
Worries me. You CANNOT trust the WH to keep their word…EVER.
The ammendment MUST stand in both bills.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:43 amWhat is the problem with it being in two bills?
Are we worried about redundancy all of a sudden?
In our government?
McCain has refused to change his simple wording, so far.
Let dumbya veto the bills. That’d look good in history. The only veto he’s used is to allow US to torture.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:45 amInteresting that the only bill Bush is considering vetoing (a first for him), is a anti-torture bill.
I’ll say it again: we may not survive the Bush presidency.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:45 amWhy does Bush care if the torture bill passes? It’s not like he ever obeys the law anyway.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:50 amTypical Republican logic:
“We don’t torture at all. Ever.
BUT, don’t you DARE try to pass legislation that forces us to never torture! That would would tie our hands from doing something that we never do!”
December 9th, 2005 at 11:53 amAs a repub, I don’t get this admins fascination with this torture bill and, specifically, deafeating it. I mean, if they are all as Nazi like and unethical as the sentiments expressed here claim … a little “bill” won’t stop them, will it?
December 9th, 2005 at 11:55 am[Comment deleted by Admin]
December 9th, 2005 at 11:57 amGary
What’s “High Energy Theoretical Physics” (I checked your site) … are you a “rocket scientist”? If so, that must be such the fun gag at formal introduction times.
Go Hokies … (I can’t be with you on the Gators though).
December 9th, 2005 at 11:57 amsarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION …
The thorazine must be pushed down … then you can turn counter clock-wise.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:58 amJews were Free and Chose Barabus over Jesus, Chose to have Jesus Crucified, TORTURED Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus.Chose to have Jesus Killed!.
Chose to Kill Jesus.
And one of the most Significant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!
Jesus on the other hand, Loved Lazarus the Begger.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:59 am#8,
You don’t really think:
“High Energy Theoretical Physicsâ€
has anyhthing to do with:
“rocket scientistâ€
do you?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:00 pm#6,
They don’t want to have to go through the
December 9th, 2005 at 12:05 pmbother of creating more bogus legal opinions
saying they can do what they want anyway,
especially now that “torture boy” has moved
on. I don’t think Harriet is up to the task.
Everyone in the Bush administration share one common denominator: LIES. They all lie. The whole Bush administration including himself has damaged the intergity of a trustworthy government. In fact, it has been functioning more like a corporate entity at the expense of taxpayers. This is perhaps the greatest scam the Americans people yet to see.
Ah, by the way, what does it mean by “compassionate conservative” when the administration is passionate about torturing people?
H Y P O C R I T E S!!!!
December 9th, 2005 at 12:06 pmSince Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) either, they freely make various types of nuclear weapons such as neutron bombs, nuclear landmines and nuclear armed missiles for their submarines and F-16s. They are experts in making micro nuclear devices (micro nuclear devices only emit alpha radiation that is invisible to standard geiger counters) which can simulate a terrorist bomb (Mossad loves them). It has also been reported Israel possesses hydrogen bombs, the most devastating weapon on the planet.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:06 pmThis is perhaps the one of the most important blog posts here.
Nothing is more important than demonstrating to the world that we are not an evil empire as is now becoming more and more widely believed.
If we torture then we ARE wicked, corrupt and the world will likely turn on us.
If we allow this subversive element to undermine our countries very soul, then I suspect there will be “hell” to pay.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:06 pmBush will not veto anything and US forces or hired thugs will continue to tortue. Bushco would rather blame liberals than ask permission to do anything.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:07 pmThe key to this whole negotiation is this.
McCain is now offering to allow CIA officers immunity from torture prosecution if they provide a defense that a reasonable person would have believed they were following a lawful order. The White House on the other hand is seeking a blanket immunity for those CIA officers. The difference?
Under McCain’s provision, in their defense they would have to supply information as to who issued the order they thought was lawful. And once that ball starts rolling, a direct chain to who signed off on the unlawful orders to torture would be established. (And yes, I do see this argument over immunity as a tacit admission of torture.)
So, now we know why Cheney might be fighting McCain so hard on the torture issue.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:09 pmEarly on in the Bush Presidency John Yoo and then Al Gonzales helped to redefine the word “torture” to mean only acts that result in death or organ failure. So, with the new definition of torture in hand, George W. Bush can proudly and loudly say “We do not support torture”. This is what the right wing would have called a “Clintonian Parsing of Words” had it been used by Bill Clinton.
So, by most peoples standards the US does torture people, but by the new and improved Bush rewording and rewriting of the definition of torture, there is no torture.
The decline of the empire is quickening.
-GSD
December 9th, 2005 at 12:09 pmI would offer a compromise. Pass the McCain bill with a rider that will allow the CIA to torture Bush and Cheney.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:10 pmAny American who feels their life needs to be saved by torture, does not deserve to be saved.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:10 pmSorry #14,
but you have been mis-informed:
Most people have heard of a “Geiger Counter” for measuring radioactivity. This is actually a Geiger-Müller tube with some form of counter attached, which usually tells us the number of particles detected per minute (”counts per minute”).
GM tubes work using the ionising effect of radioactivity. This means that they are best at detecting alpha particles, because a-particles ionise strongly.
Different models of GM tubes are available for detecting a, b and g radiation.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:11 pmMcCain to Georgie: Come on, give us a big hug.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:13 pmI’m sorry, but what does post number 14 and 21 have to do with whether we should be torturing?
This is one blog we cannot afford to have get off topic.
The Prophet WORFEUS predicts that our entire future rests on America’s decision on whether or not to torture people.
Remember, “we reap what we sow”
December 9th, 2005 at 12:15 pmsarcasm impared is a one trick pony I see.
Listen asshole, you are bordering & crossing over to the anti-semetic line trying to push your crap in this thread. You posted the same stuff on the other threads too. I tried to talk to you, but obviously your head is somewhere else.
I’m not wasting any more bandwidth with the likes of your sorry butt.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:16 pmAfterthought
I know what HEP is … I was being (well, appearantly not) funny.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:22 pmGuys, if y’all want to discuss my personal background, email me. Address is on my site. Physics is more than a little off-topic for TP.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:23 pmI don’t think we should tie the govt’s hands in a time of war. Torture is something we know exists – it happened in both world wars and in Vietnam – but we shouldn’t be discussing it publicly.
I understand that liberals don’t trust Bush – I have my doubts about him too. But, we have to trust him on this. If torture can prevent another 9/11, I say do it. I don’t think we should outsource it though.
As for Sen. McCain – he never passes an opportunity to get behind a camera. I have a real problem with him because I think his campaign finance bill is anti-free speech.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:24 pm#19 Clyde – great idea! Perhaps you should write Mc Cain with that one exemption to his bill!!!
December 9th, 2005 at 12:27 pmAndy
I think you’ll get flamed … but I do see where you’re going with your point. The problem is … can we get reliable info. from torture … some say so, some say not. Over a long period, I’m sure torture would wear someone down … most of the “situations” mentioned for its use assume that there is an “imminent threat” though.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:29 pm“sarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION” chooses to IGNORE the subject.
The subject loves “sarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION” but he CHOOSES to IGNORE the subject.
Therefore, “sarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION” must HATE the subject!
Wow, and here I thought I would never get that type of twisted logic.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:30 pmKindness, Hows this? Better?
Jews were Free and Chose to have Jesus Crucified, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Killed!.
Chose to Kill Jesus.
And one of the most Signifacant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!
Jesus on the other hand, Loved Lazarus the Begger.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:32 pmWhy do we even try to pretend the US doesn’t support torture?
We might as well vote on a proclamation that the USA:
1. Supports torture whenever necessary
2. Repudiates human rights, when convenient
3. Denies national sovereignty, as needed
4. Pisses on international law at our convenience
5. Farts in the general direction of the World Court
6. Jacks-off on UN Resolutions
Then, George Bush can fly all overthe world in Air Force One, pull down his pants and chase other world leaders around, backwards, shouting:
“Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father: prepare to die. Now, offer me money.”
December 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pmI don’t think we should tie the govt’s hands in a time of war.
There’s been no declaration of war. And do you really think it’s a good idea to allow an administration to escape all accountability for its actions just by starting a war?
Torture is something we know exists – it happened in both world wars and in Vietnam – but we shouldn’t be discussing it publicly.
Yes we should. Diebold notwithstanding, the US is still supposedly a democracy, so anything the government does is the public’s business.
I understand that liberals don’t trust Bush – I have my doubts about him too.
I have no doubts about him whatsoever. I know he’s not trustworthy.
But, we have to trust him on this.
No, we don’t, and we would be stupid to.
If torture can prevent another 9/11, I say do it.
A very, very big “if”.
You know, some people think that Dick Cheney and his cabal were the real conspirators behind the 9/11 attacks. I don’t know if that’s true, but just to be safe, we ought to imprison and torture them just to see whether they confess to anything.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:37 pmAndy,
I can understand your logic about trusting someone who’s “in the know” about whether torture would really be needed, but let us look at other times that we’ve trusted the President:
1 – Iraq has WMD’s! (None found)
2 – Saddam supports terrorism! (No substantial ties found)
3 – It’s not about the oil! (Oil was protected, the border was ignored)
4 – Whoever leaked the name of the CIA operative would no longer work in this administration! (Nobody held accountable)
5 – Mission accomplished! (Not really)
6 – With FEMA under Homeland Security, we’re ready to respond to any disaster! (New Orleans???)
6 – We don’t torture! (Just don’t MAKE us not torture)
Sorry, but the trust he was extended was broken over and over and over again. At some point, you’ve got to draw a line in the sand. That point & line was passed a long time ago.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:37 pmDemocrat Soldier
SIA’s obviously a multiple personality sufferer … that is appearantly “exceptional” in it’s ability to engage in sarcasm …
December 9th, 2005 at 12:38 pmRemember this guy? It looks like the family may get some justice for his death.
BBC
December 8, 2005
Tube shooting charges ‘possible’
December 9th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
[Comment deleted by Admin]
December 9th, 2005 at 12:41 pmBut, more on topic:
BBC
December 8, 2005
Torture ruling’s international impact
Remember, the British are our only major coalition partner.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:42 pmYeah Spudge … while I can understand the British law enforcement being a little trigger happy that close to their bombings (they usually don’t even carry guns) … there should be some accountability for how that whole thing went down.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:42 pm“I think you’ll get flamed … but I do see where you’re going with your point. The problem is … can we get reliable info. from torture … some say so, some say not. Over a long period, I’m sure torture would wear someone down … most of the “situations†mentioned for its use assume that there is an “imminent threat†though.”GeoMetro
They tortured Mccain for 5 years without him revealing information, what makes you believe that you can torture someone for an ‘imminent threat’ and get them to say anything reliable?
You’re an idiot.
FYI, no one who is an expert on torture says that it returns reliable information, in fact all of the the ‘experts’ say it doesn’t, and that other means are in fact more reliable.
You are so ill informed.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:43 pmA ’straw-man’ argument that I really find funny:
IF there were someone who knew where a bomb was, and the only way to get the information to save innocent people was to torture him/her, it would be criminal to not torture them and let innocent people die!
Has there ever been any situation where this happened?
How about this:
IF there was the possibility that the vote was rigged, and the only way to find out if the wrong person was elected was to torture someone, it would be criminal to not torture them and let the wrong person be elected!
Yeah, that logic works! Where did Katherine Harris go????? I’m sure that if we torture her enough, she will tell us how she rigged the election in 2000!!!!!
December 9th, 2005 at 12:44 pm“sarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION”, why do you hate the subject of this comment section so much?
Are you simply incapable of addressing the subject, or are you a anti-semitic lemming that is incapable of changing your tune?
Maybe if you hit yourself upside the head a few times, your record will become un-stuck and you’ll be able to think about something else for one minute.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:47 pmGiacomo,
The British police do carry weapons now. Your average traffic cop may not, but the real police do.
This was over blown completely. One under cover cop held this man, while another shot him point blank seven times in the head. An eighth shot was fired but hit him in the shoulder.
Excessive use of force. I would say yeah.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:48 pmThe claim of al-qaeda ties to iraq apparently came from torture:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3513439.html
Now where is that evidence that torture works again GeoMetro? Every time I look I find lots of evidence that it hasn’t, yet I haven’t seen a single specific instance of proof that it does.
You know this is reminiscent of all things republicans, just because you ‘believe’ and ‘have faith’ that something is true in the face of evidence to the contrary does not make it true – it makes it ‘wishcraft’.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:50 pmIf Cheney and W believe that torture is a valid interogation tool, why not let Fitz add it to his bag of tricks? That’s one grand jury that I would like to be on.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:56 pmRyan,
The interesting thing is that the information was tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi after we had already attacked Iraq.
Now, why would the Bush Administartion need further evidence of an Iraq/Al Qaida connection after we already attacked?
Is it because the shipment of VX Nerve Gas that was supposed to be “found” in Iraq was intercepted by Brewster Jennings, VValerie Plame’s CIA front company?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:57 pmFYI, no one who is an expert on torture says that it returns reliable information, in fact all of the the ‘experts’ say it doesn’t, and that other means are in fact more reliable. Now where is that evidence that torture works again GeoMetro?
Ryan … for future reference
1) If I say, I think torture is great … feel free to flame me.
2) Please learn the difference between something I’m reporting (that the argument is torture is used when a threat is “imminent”) and something that I think (Ryan likes to attack people before he completely reads what they wrote).
A simple re-read of my statement would show you that I admit that there are those experts who say torture is inneffective … for some reason you can’t admit that there are also members of the “torturers guild”, or whatever, that say it does work.
Torture does wear people down over time (just because it didn’t to McCain means it didn’t to McCain, nothing else). Stop using one example to prove entire points … if you really must know, I don’t think torture is the way we should go.
Your problem is you assume that as a Republican, I must adhere to everything YOU think Republicans think. This is an ignorant understanding of people in general as there are no pure “liberals” or “conservatives”, but people along the continuum with certain leanings.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:58 pmAndy in Delaware said ### I don’t think we should tie the govt’s hands in a time of war. Torture is something we know exists – it happened in both world wars and in Vietnam – but we shouldn’t be discussing it publicly ###
Well, I can understand Andy your affinity for toture. After all you live in Delaware.
Torture is evil. If you torture, then you are an EVILDOER.
Get it? It’s not hard. If you do bad things, then you are bad.
And if you are such a coward, such a lilly livered chickenshit that you need people tortured so you and your fat security-mom wife can sleep safe at night then my yellow-bellied friend, I’ve got news for you.
WE DON”T NEED YOUR KIND.
You may as well lay down and die now, cause for every evil, cowardly act you either commit, or support, in the name of keeping your lazy cowardly ass safe, you will find that life has a way of rewarding kind for kind.
If you condone torture, you are as evil as Osama ain’t bin laden a while ever was. In fact, you will likely share a cell with him, in hell.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:58 pmEveryone who believes we can torture people and STILL be the United States of America, repeat after me:
“Gooble-gabble, gooble-gabble. One of us. One of us.”
Beacon of Hope, my ass. We’re the Soviet-Union-redux.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pm“A simple re-read of my statement would show you that I admit that there are those experts who say torture is inneffective … for some reason you can’t admit that there are also members of the “torturers guildâ€, or whatever, that say it does work.”GeoMetro
I’m flaming you because NO experts are saying this, only retarded republican politicians and their co-conspirators are saying this as far as I can see.
Who’s a member of the torture’s guild who says it’s effective? Name them you liar!
December 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pmWorfeus … he was just expressing a point … I haven’t observed you so worked up before … must be a foundational issue to you (by foundational, I mean wicked important).
December 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pmRealizing torture is ineffective is as simple as somebody just said on one of the talk shows.
“If somebody asks me if I planted a bomb and I, not having anything to do with it, say “No” and then the other person stabs me in my leg, I am going to tell them I did it. Because getting stabbed in the leg fvcking hurts.”
Now, is that credible evidence?
Torture does not work ever.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:01 pmI remember the good old days of torture, when there weren’t all these people speaking up about it for fear of being tortured.
Spanish Inquisition anybody?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pmSpudge
What if you did plant the bomb … are you more likely to lie or tell the truth and for how long. I think if the person is totally innocent of wrongdoing your point is perfect, but if they have the “right” guy … then what.
Disclaimer: I don’t think we should torture.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pm“Torture does wear people down over time (just because it didn’t to McCain means it didn’t to McCain, nothing else). Stop using one example to prove entire points … if you really must know, I don’t think torture is the way we should go.” GeoMetro
I have examples, you don’t. That’s the point.
The fake evidence of Iraq-AlQaeda dies also came from torture.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3513439.html
I can keep going, and yet you cannot provide me an example of where torture saved the day. Not one!
So once again, you believe a delusional fantasy, and I produced facts that disprove this. The fact you would even defend something without ANY evidence is just another example of your republican whacko hysteria.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pmBTW, for anyone thinking the question is whether or not the information obtained from torture is reliable, it’s not.
I don’t care how reliable or unreliable it is.
Patrick Henry said, “give me liberty, or give me death”.
He was not afraid to die for his allegance to liberty.
If you are so afraid to die, that you would condone the most EVIL and ABOMINABLE act known to man, then you deserve to die, plain and simple.
You DESERVE TO DIE.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:04 pmCOWARDS TORTURE
December 9th, 2005 at 1:06 pmYour problem is you assume that as a Republican, I must adhere to everything YOU think Republicans think.
If you don’t approve of torture, why are you a member of a party that tortures?
It’s much like saying that “just because I’m a member of organized crime doesn’t mean I agree with all those drive-by shootings”, or “just because I’m a Klansman doesn’t mean I like the idea of burning crosses on people’s lawns.”
December 9th, 2005 at 1:07 pmSo, you are saying that good old fashion detective work can’t do the trick? So, all those CSI shows that are so popular these days are a lie?
What about doing a litte foot work like Sgt. Stadanko?
Class, class, class Shhhuuuuuuuutttttt uppp! Thank you.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:08 pmSpanish Inquisition anybody?
I didn’t expect the….
December 9th, 2005 at 1:09 pmGeoMetro,
Most people who are willing to plant a bomb, or do a suicide bombing, would probably die before giving up the ‘truth’. But they’d also tell you lots of time wasting lies to make sure you stopped the torture and didn’t find anything.
They’ve tried the torture on Iraq to stop suicide bombing, and in Israel for the same reasons, and how did that work? It didn’t!
Israel outlawed torture because they found it ineffective, and there was a period where I believe the statistic was they tortured 80% of detainees! So if they couldn’t use torture reliably, why in holy heck would anyone else believe it is possible?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pmHere, Ryan
This article gives both points …
Disclaimer: I don’t think we should torture.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Sorry
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/torture_12-02.html
December 9th, 2005 at 1:11 pmGeoMetro,
It gives both points, because republicans keep making unsubstantiated and ridulous claims about torture. And yet as the article points out, the torture information was false!
If torture was so effective, are you telling me they couldn’t produce at least one case where it had saved the day? With all of the mass suicide bombings in iraq, not a single case?
Wonder why?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:12 pmGeoMetro,
If you don’t believe in torture, stop carrying water for them. It makes you look stupid.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pmIt’s much like saying that “just because I’m a member of organized crime doesn’t mean I agree with all those drive-by shootingsâ€, or “just because I’m a Klansman doesn’t mean I like the idea of burning crosses on people’s lawns.â€
This statement is as slanted as any you’ve posted (and it’s just plain dumb)… What’s the vote been 90-9 … not all Repubs support torture. You referrenced McCain yourself … Republican, to me, is about a leaning conservative … not about a checklist of ideology … under you logical, all liberals must agree on every point.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:15 pmRyan – I thought I had read that McCain himself said he told his captors in Hanoi whatever they wanted to hear after a while. In fact, I’m sure I remember him saying that. I forget which show it was.
None-the-less, those who support torture have forgotten why we broke away from England back in 1776. That they would join the likes of Hitler, Mao, Stalin in siding with policy and then try and act like it is the moral high ground is beyond paradox. it is sheer fantasy. Maybe all the righties have gone down the rabbit hole and had a few to many bites of the mushrooms served. Funny, when I ate the mushrooms, the last thing I might have thought about was hurting others. I’ll blame their mothers for a poor job of parenting and raising their kids.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:15 pmThe reason people torture is that insurgents make them feel ‘helpless’ psychologically. So by torturing they work out a sadistic and power driven struggle with the ‘mythic’ insurgency. It’s a way to strike back with pain, and to alleviated the feeling of insecurity that the torturer feels. It’s very similar to why police beat detainees who’ve threatened them, even after they no longer pose an immediate threat.
All of this is about the psychology and insecurity of the torturer, and it is not about obtaining information from the person being tortured.
End of discussion!
December 9th, 2005 at 1:16 pmkindness,
That’s correct ‘whatever they wanted to hear’, not the truth. That’s typical of tortured people, they just answer favorably, or with an answer that stops the torture. They don’t tend to reveal anything new, useful or truthful.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:18 pmWhy … I can’t stand when people diminish a point as stupid because they happen to disagree with it … allow me to play devils advocate … that’s how you (and I) learn why the opposite thinks the way they do.
Most people who are willing to plant a bomb, or do a suicide bombing, would probably die before giving up the ‘truth’. But they’d also tell you lots of time wasting lies to make sure you stopped the torture and didn’t find anything.
I agree they’re willing to die … but are they willing to be tortured … I don’t know. I agree they’d waste a lot of time … the Germans tortured US soldiers, with a modicum of success, but it took time.
Disclaimer: I don’t support torture.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:19 pmGeometro,
Liberals rarely agree on a point, go over and post your tripe on the free republic and see how much disent is accepted within republican ranks.
The fact that 9 republicans still believe in torture should be an embarrassment to republicans, and yet here you are claiming to be against torture while carrying water for them. Typical.
You’re an idiot and a fool.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:19 pmJewish men AND women AND children were Free and Chose to have Jesus Crucified, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Killed!.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:20 pmP.S> Jews love Torture!
And one of the most Significant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!
By the way,Jesus loved Lazarus(The Beggar).
Kindness
The reason people torture is that insurgents make them feel ‘helpless’ psychologically. is a fine point … a lack of control does make people willing to do anything to regain it.
I don’t support torture because it’s immoral … I can admit that it may be effective in certain instances, but that doesn’t change the morality.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:21 pmWhat’s the vote been 90-9 … not all Repubs support torture.
A vote on a law that we all know the Bushies will ignore anyway. Big deal. Talk is cheap. If these people, and you, really oppose torture, then let’s see them call for Bush’s impeachment.
Republican, to me, is about a leaning conservative … not about a checklist of ideology … under you logical, all liberals must agree on every point.
No, not every point. But when you turn a blind eye to blatantly illegal and immoral acts committed by a group that you’re a member of, that makes you complicit to some degree.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pmLiberals rarely agree on a point
That’s my point … you were encapsulating all conservatives into one neat, easy to dismiss group. Please don’t.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:22 pmGeoMetro,
Unfortunately you fit into it all too often. To find a conservative who stands ’separate’ on any point is rare, and we both know it. You guys tend to make perfect little brownshirts, just like you have on virtually every point you’ve argued from your idiocy and overwhelming ignorance.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:27 pmI for one Giacomo , welcome your stand against torture. And I agree that it is significant that only 9 republicans support vetoing the bill.
But it’s that 10th one that’s the bitch of the bunch.
The little tyrant in the Oval Office with his veto pen, is the only one I’m worried about now.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:27 pmKindness, Jews themselves loved torturing,
even the priests have tortured witches.
Jewish men AND women AND children were Free and Chose to have Jesus Crucified, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Killed!.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:27 pmP.S> Jews love Torture!
And one of the most Significant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!
By the way,Jesus loved Lazarus(The Beggar).
A vote on a law that we all know the Bushies will ignore anyway.
You may be right Gary … but why are they so invested in defeating it if they would ignore it anyway …… Any ideas?
When you turn a blind eye to blatantly illegal and immoral acts committed by a group that you’re a member of, that makes you complicit to some degree.
I think is a disingenuous idea … to say that I should change political parties because some of them support torture (restricted torture at that) is unfair … I’ve said it before, I’ve voted democrat before when the candidate was better … I’m no idealogue. To somehow assume that at one should toss back and forth between the parties depending upon the behaviors of said party is ridiculous … who I am as a whole (fiscally, socially) is more closely aligned, at this point, with the conservatives. 30 to 50 years ago, I may have been a democrat, who knows.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:29 pmTo find a conservative who stands ’separate’ on any point is rare, and we both know it.
Unfortunately, I think the same could be said of liberals … that’s truly my concern for this country. Tons of uninformed people, all believing in something that the majority of them have neither tested nor thought about. People put more time into planning a vacation than who they’ll vote for.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:32 pmYou may be right Gary … but why are they so invested in defeating it if they would ignore it anyway …… Any ideas?
Well, for one thing, there’s a certain amount of arrogance there. When you’re the biggest, baddest criminal gang around, you don’t stand for somebody trying to tell you what you should and shouldn’t be doing, even if you could just ignore them.
to say that I should change political parties because some of them support torture (restricted torture at that) is unfair …
Exactly what makes you think it’s restricted?
And you miss the point here. It isn’t that some of them support torture. It’s that their leadership is CARRYING OUT TORTURE, and that none of the others have any intention of seriously opposing that leadership or trying to hold that leadership accountable for its criminal actions.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:40 pmGeoMetro,
Funny you complain about uninformed americans, when you exhibit one of the finest examples of this among those who ‘claim’ to be a republican intellectual. I know working stiff democrats who know more about politics and the economy than you do. Your ‘complaint’ should be used to better inform yourself, instead of criticizing others. My experience of you is that you are arrogant, but woefully uninformed on EVERY topic you post on.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:40 pm“Unfortunately, I think the same could be said of liberals …” GeoMetro
You obviously know no liberals.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:42 pm“A vote on a law that we all know the Bushies will ignore anyway.
You may be right Gary … but why are they so invested in defeating it if they would ignore it anyway …… Any ideas?” GeoMetro
Impeachment. Republicans clearly don’t respect the constitution, international law, or human decency. Impeachment sounds like a great solution.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:44 pmGiacomo – You and I disagree on some topics. I think you’ve handled your position very well here.
It isn’t ALL republicans who think torture is OK. It isn’t ALL democrats who think we shouldn’t torture. I know, I know. It’s so easy to lump ‘em all in one box, but let’s look at the vote in the Senate. It was 90 – 9 against the use of torture. Yea the 9 were all republicans, and I’d suspect that ALL those making pro-torture statements here are PROBABLY republican. But the fact is that in an elective body that is 55/45 republican/democrat, at least 45 republicans joined all 45 democrats in telling this administration that they don’t represent American values.
The ranters here don’t represent most republicans (I hope), just the republicans running the Executive Branch.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:45 pmA lot of good points in this thread.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:52 pmOne thing to keep in mind is that many
previous large-scale users of torture
were just looking for confession, false
or otherwise.
#28
Unbelievable,
Thanks for the suggestion. It has been done.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:52 pmThanks … to the aptly named, kindness.
I know working stiff democrats who know more about politics and the economy than you do. Your ‘complaint’ should be used to better inform yourself, instead of criticizing others. My experience of you is that you are arrogant, but woefully uninformed on EVERY topic you post on.
I think I’ve hung around here long enough for you to drop the BS, Ryan. First you said you were attacking me because you “knew” I’d eventually do the same. Now, you accuse of me of arrogance and ignorance … I feel safe to say I’m neither … those that read what I write that have an ounce of fairness would agree.
Americans, in general, don’t think about their positions … it’s almost like their born into them. I think this applies to both parties … I have some great Christian liberal friends whom I love dearly … we disagree on fiscal issues mainly (not as much on social ones).
December 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pmGary, you said
What makes you think it’s restricted? And you miss the point here. It isn’t that some of them support torture. It’s that their leadership is CARRYING OUT TORTURE, and that none of the others have any intention of seriously opposing that leadership or trying to hold that leadership accountable for its criminal actions.
My opinion on this is that the US has used torture of the cold, hungry, beat down, embarass variety and not of the bullet in the head of your compatriot, chop off limbs, rape your kids, and burn you alive variety. In that sense, it’s limited.
I think the administration is misguided in their willingness to use torture, but earnest in that its use will serve the greater good. The motivation for it’s use, as they see it, is to save lives. There’s no reason for them to wish to torture otherwise.
I happen to disagree with them, but since I can’t peer into the secret prisons, I really don’t know what’s happening (and to be truthful, none of us do … most assume).
December 9th, 2005 at 2:02 pmbut since I can’t peer into the secret prisons, I really don’t know what’s happening (and to be truthful, none of us do … most assume).
Comment by Giacomo — December 9, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
Horseshit. Out of sight, out of mind. Sounds like Babs Bush and her comment about not wanting to trouble her beautiful mind with thoughts of body bags and Ryan is right. You are ill informed. We know what goes on. Anyone can read the accounts. The ACLU has literally millions of pages of testimony on the subject. At least from the ones who made it out alive.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:10 pm1) The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:13 pm2) Torture is about power and this administration
is all about power. It would not surprise me to find
out they only wanted to torture because it represents
a slap in the face to people who they consider “weak”
in respecting human rights. Explains the overkill patriot
act too.
Why would they otherwise fight the issue now while
playing word parsing games in Europe?
Uh puleeze … KillCon … you get tiring. At least Ryan has the flame, lucid post, flame, lucid post strategy going …
The secret prisons … we just found out about. The ACLU has no clue what happened in Poland, although they may soon. I was referring to said prisons. Secondly, the accounts we do have (from other locations) support what I’ve said about restricted … there are those that purport that we torture in the same vein as Saddam did.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:15 pmI think the administration is misguided in their willingness to use torture, but earnest in that its use will serve the greater good. The motivation for it’s [SIC] use, as they see it, is to save lives.
If you really believe this, then you are incredibly naive.
It’s quite clear that the Bushies don’t care anything about saving lives. They were warned about the attack on the World Trade Center and ignored it. Everybody knew that Katrina was coming and Bush still couldn’t be bothered to get off his bike. And let’s not forget the unnecessary and illegal war which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and created lack of God knows how many new anti-American terrorists.
There’s no reason for them to wish to torture otherwise.
No, you’ve got it backwards. If their intentions were benign, there would be no reason for them to torture, since everybody agrees that torture doesn’t produce reliable information. No, they don’t want to save lives. They want to quell the local resistance, to keep the population of Iraq subjugated so that oil will keep flowing into the hands of Bush’s buddies in the oil industry and so that they can use Iraq as a base from which to invade other countries in the area.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:18 pmSooo, This is what freedoms all about.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:19 pmArgueing,fussing,fighting,namecalling,
what else is there to freedom?
Well if:
1) All is well in our prisons
2) We don’t ever condone torture
3) Only isolated incidents happen
What do we hide:
December 9th, 2005 at 2:19 pm1) People (ghosts)?
2) Prisons from the Red Cross?
If Jews can Torture Jesus, Why cant We?
December 9th, 2005 at 2:25 pmIf Jews can Torture Jesus, Why cant We?
Because He’s dead?
Please go away. Grown-ups are talking here.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pmOh Gary .. you sic’d me … I’ll be more careful.
It’s quite clear that the Bushies don’t care anything about saving lives. They were warned about the attack on the World Trade Center and ignored it.
It may be clear to you and others, but I don’t think the majority of people would agree with you if they were polled as to “whether Bush was trying to help” … people don’t agree with the method, but they don’t automatically ascribe to it madness. To say Bush was warned is to also admit the previous administration was warned as well. The man’s made mistakes … I agree … I’m not to the level of conspiracy theories you are yet.
No, you’ve got it backwards. If their intentions were benign, there would be no reason for them to torture, since everybody agrees that torture doesn’t produce reliable information.
This again depends on ones base impressions of Bush … I’m not ready to ascribe to him the “evil dictator” moniker as others seem to be.
They want to quell the local resistance, to keep the population of Iraq subjugated so that oil will keep flowing into the hands of Bush’s buddies in the oil industry and so that they can use Iraq as a base from which to invade other countries in the area.
I’m with you on the latter charge … not so much on the first. Bush does have ties to oil in his past, I agree. I still don’t see what they have to gain by torture if they, as you say, are only interested in oil. There ARE those that think torture is effective … it makes no sense for them to drive so hard to have this bill fail otherwise.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:35 pm“… it makes no sense for them to drive so hard to have this bill fail otherwise.”
I don’t buy this at all.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:44 pmAt this point I think it is an ego thing
with these guys. It seems to be one thing you
can count on with Bush is that he is bull-headed.
That CAN be good or bad, but I don’t think pushing
this says anything about the effectiveness of torture.
That people would suggest torture for any reason is morally
teasonable.
And these people pretend to be Christian?
December 9th, 2005 at 2:46 pmSupport of torture?
WWJD?
NO ONE EXPECTS…
December 9th, 2005 at 2:46 pmIt could be ego … but if I have no problem with breaking the law, I’d just laugh and say, “pass your crummy law, see if I care”.
He’s getting some bad PR on this one for one who would consider it irrelevant … or for it just being an ego trip … seems to me, President of the US is a big enough ego booster.
I agree, he’s crazy bull headed (and that this can go either way).
December 9th, 2005 at 2:48 pmThat just it though, he wants to be
December 9th, 2005 at 2:51 pmable to shove it down Congress’s throat
whether they like it or not.
It is about power. They are crazy power
hungry like Gollum and the “one ring”
My precious …
I can’t disagree with you because I don’t know … I can say I think that it’s more than just ego.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:59 pmHERE ARE FOUR LETTERS FOR DICK CHENEY AND ONLY FOR DICK
Storm Warning
October 25, 2005
Foot-dragging usually dirty one’s own pants cuffs but in the international scene such as the final autopsy of the detainees who died under United States interrogations gathers not dirt but a storm. In “Autopsies verify detainee abuse†by John Hendren the unacceptable comes to light. The final autopsy assessment of the dead 44 prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan revealed crimes against humanity that the Bush administration desperately trying to side-step its consequences. The ACLU makes clear that U. S. operatives had indeed tortured detainees to death during interrogations and the cover ups that follow. But according to Human Rights First the count comes to 141 prisoners who died in U. S. custody, including those who died of natural causes. Here where the storm picks up: How can anyone reconcile the fact that any detainee who is abducted out of nowhere without due process, get tortured and dies, is then referred as “death by natural causes?†I don’t believe one can or will distinguish between death by natural causes and being beaten to death while in custody. Regardless of the numbers or disposition of cause of death, when a family member is kidnapped, disappeared, or later found dead don’t expect civilized discourse or cooperation, expect a deluge of car bombings.
King of the Beast
November 5, 2005
In “Senate votes again to ban U.S. prisoner abuse†by Eric Schmitt faintly points to a showdown between the Republican Congress and the White House. Senator McCain’s tenacious stand against detainee abuse is breaking ground. The McCain amendment, inserted in the present military spending bill had stir quite a hornet nest between Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration. Now the real scoop: Dick Cheney now finds himself as the odd man out when he and CIA chief Porter Goss made attempt to dissuade McCain; it was disingenuous of Goss to joined Cheney to modify the McCain amendment since he publicly supported banning torture. In the advent of Libby’s indictments, Cheney no longer has the power to bend the will of others who oppose his authority; he couldn’t get McCain to back down. But there’s more: Bush’s excuse for the abusive treatment isn’t to protect America but his unilateral determination that the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war shouldn’t apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Translation: that means anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan who oppose democracy, who oppose Bush’s conquest of the Middle East is toast.
Tall Tales after School
November 8, 2005
G. Robert Hillman’s “Bush to reporters: ‘We do not torture’ †isn’t going to be rocket science: President Bush officially stated “We do not torture.†Further: “There’s an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants hurt America again.†I’ll stop right there. Mr. Hillman had skirt around one important item: Vice-President Dick Cheney desperately wants to exempt the CIA from the fallout of the McCain Amendment to ban torture in all the military and security branches. And Bush is okay with that. So the question that truly begs to be answer is: what country is the CIA part of? Either President Bush should go back to grade school to find that out or his position on torture gives the words “Two Faced†a bad name. Last note: the president should use a better verb than “hurt†when the enemies attempt to attacks America. The word “hurt†is more appropriate when you stub your toe while stumbling down, choking on a pretzel.
Quick and Dirty
November 16, 2005
Today’s news teetered between the Senate backing for a quicker transition in Iraq to the 173 detainees discovered in the basement of an Interior Ministry building had provide me with the inspiration in how to resolve the U.S.-Iraq conflict. Quick and dirty: first, the Bush administration must bring back the international community involvement; that means for the UN to establish a multinational interim security force in Iraq. Secondly, the U.S. must use diplomatic means as oppose to the present role as military occupier. In other words, give Iraq back to the Iraqis, working with them, assisting them in rebuilding their economy and infrastructure, and create real jobs; therefore, acing out Halliburton and the other parasites that the Bush administration and the Pentagon had infested Iraq with. And also involve the U.N. in overseeing the economic needs while renouncing the U.S. control of Iraqi oil and the maintaining of those “permanent†military bases. Thirdly, establish an international peace commission to help peace building and conflict resolution. Finally, the withdrawal of the U.S. military. This will end the war, no longer fueling the insurgency with our presence in Iraq as our generals on the field have ascertained.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:02 pmThe amazing thing, to me, is how much run in the Euro press the “black sites” and the associated flights are getting. Moreso, obviously, than here. Wow, amazing what journalists without obvious ties to US power are allowed to ask and report. Almost as amazing as the robotic repsonse of anyone in the current admin.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:13 pmThats because David, the EU is investigating the matter themselves.
A little known fact that the Bush administration does not want to publicize.
Besides, were the big, bad tough Americans.
So what if were commiting war crimes and torturing?
What are they gonna do about it anyway?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:23 pm#31
THOU SHALL NOT KILL
Oh really? Then you’d better not buy a holiday tree or a holiday ham. And you know that not killing includes war, the Death Penalty and the rainforest, right? You religious freaks are so egocentric. You only apply your ideals to others and never live by them yourselves. Wanna change the world? Do it by example. Live by the morals you try to force on others instead of exempting yourselves.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:26 pmunbelievable said ### You religious freaks are so egocentric. You only apply your ideals to others and never live by them yourselves ###
Actually #31 was correct via the King James translation, however in the original Hebrew, the word translated as “kill” actually meant “murder”.
And most liberals I would wager neither murder nor support those who do.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pmBTW the word is Ratsach if you want to look it up.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:36 pmOften mistaken for the common slang term for Rush Limbaugh, RATSACK
December 9th, 2005 at 3:38 pmActually #31 was correct via the King James translation, however in the original Hebrew, the word translated as “kill†actually meant “murderâ€.
Did they give people a way to distinguish between the two?
Or does this rule effectively boil down to “Thou shalt not kill, except when thou shalt”?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:39 pmOff topic, and apologies for that, but if you have not read this, it is beautifully written.
An Essay on President Bush and Death – An essay by E.L. Doctorow
Edgar Lawrence Doctorow occupies a central position in the history of American literature. He is generally considered to be among the most
talented, ambitious, and admired novelists of the second half of the twentieth century. Doctorow has received the National Book Award, two
National Book Critics Circle Awards, the PEN/Faulkner Award, the Edith Wharton Citation for Fiction, the William Dean Howell Medal of the
American Academy of Arts and Letters, and the residentially conferred National Humanities Medal.
Doctorow was born in New York City on January 6, 1931. After graduating with honors from Kenyon College in 1952, he did graduate work at
Columbia University and served in the U.S. Army. Doctorow was senior editor for New American Library from 1959 to 1964 and then served as editor in
chief at Dial Press until 1969. Since then, he has devoted his time to writing and teaching. He holds the Glucksman Chair in American Letters at
York University and over the years has taught at several institutions,including Yale University Drama School, Princeton University, Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of California,
Irvine.
=====================================================I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be
what they could be.
On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the
lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.
But this president does not know what death is. He hasn’t the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can’t seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn’t
understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave
young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.
They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn
fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life…. They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their
coffins from Iraq.
How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war’s aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.
So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not
the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.
This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and
his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing — to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything.
You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite,
he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children.
He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford
health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work
overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills — it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.
But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners’ jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime
because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.
And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.
But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused over soul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.
But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind.
It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the
Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.
The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of
lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.
Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective war-making, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.
E.L. Doctorow
December 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pmGary Klepe said
### Did they give people a way to distinguish between the two? ###
Thanks Gary, for so clearly pointing out your parties inherint diminished capacity for telling right from wrong.
It is clear by your actions, and now by your words.
If you don’t know the difference is between MURDER and Killing, then you probably should not be walking around in public.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:09 pmVery nice E.L. Doctorow, very nice.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:10 pmThanks Gary, for so clearly pointing out your parties inherint diminished capacity for telling right from wrong.
Do you even know which party I’m associated with?
It is clear by your actions, and now by your words.
Exactly what actions would those be?
If you don’t know the difference is between MURDER and Killing, then you probably should not be walking around in public.
Okay, then why don’t you articulate that difference for us. Make sure that your criteria are objective enough to be adjudicated, and not vague stipulations like “murder is when it isn’t justified.”
December 9th, 2005 at 4:28 pmNo Gary, in all fairness I don’t know what party you are affliated with.
Personally, I am not registered with either party, although I am a registered voter, so perhaps you are like myself, and choose the best man based on the issues, and not on party lines.
My response however was directed to your attempt to dismiss someones reference to the 10 commandments as written in the Torah, so I could only assume you were a right winger, otherwise why would you be trying to dismiss such a valid point as “thou shalt not kill RATSACH”.
Either way the issue is moot.
If you have not learned the difference between killing and murder in the 20 or 30 years you have been alive, then no one is going to be able to teach you the difference in a 5 minutes on a blog.
I will give you this benchmark however to build your moral character on, killing is what you do when you have no other choice. Murder would be the other one. :|
December 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pmPersonally, I am not registered with either party, although I am a registered voter, so perhaps you are like myself, and choose the best man based on the issues, and not on party lines.
I don’t vote party line, no. Well, there are some parties I won’t vote for, but there isn’t one I’ll always vote for. But I am Precinct Committeeman for a certain party, and it isn’t the Republicans.
My response however was directed to your attempt to dismiss someones reference to the 10 commandments as written in the Torah, so I could only assume you were a right winger,
I hope for your sake that you didn’t wager any money on that assumption. (Hint: You could get a fair idea of my politics by reading my other comments on this site, or from my web site which is linked on my name below.)
If you have not learned the difference between killing and murder in the 20 or 30 years you have been alive,
Try forty-three.
then no one is going to be able to teach you the difference in a 5 minutes on a blog.
Well, I have an idea of what I think the difference is between justified and unjustified killing. But I recognize that you or the next guy isn’t necessarily going to agree with me. A rule, to be of any use, needs objective criteria.
killing is what you do when you have no other choice. Murder would be the other one.
Sorry, you lose. Unless you (and by “you” I mean any arbitrary person under consideration, not you in particular) happen to be a psychotic compulsive, there’s always another choice. You can always not kill. It might cost you your own survival, but you can still do it.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:58 pmNo I don’t “lose”, however I will concede the wisdom of that logic may be lost on you.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:16 pm#92.
Giacomo,
I agree with kindness that you have comported yourself very well on this thread. I, however, would take issue with some of the things you have said in defense of something which you purport to not support. You said the following in one post(#89):
“My opinion on this is that the US has used torture
of the cold, hungry, beat down, embarass variety
and not of the bullet in the head of your
compatriot, chop off limbs, rape your kids, and
burn you alive variety. In that sense, it’s
limited.”
Then you followed with this:
“I really don’t know what’s happening (and to be
truthful, none of us do … most assume).”
These 2 statements would appear to me to be mutually exclusive. If you, in fact, don’t really know what’s happening, how do you know WHAT varieties of torture our interests are engaging in? The fact of the matter is that we do know what kinds of torture our interests are engaged in. There is photographic evidence although our government wont allow it to be released (doesn’t say much for their whole argument does it?) as well as first-hand accounts from MANY former detainees. That brings up another issue entirely that also makes a good point: why are our agents feeling it necessary to torture people who we are later releasing? To get back to my initial point, our agents (both military & Intel) have been accused of rape (including the rape and sodomy of children) and, in several cases, murder and there is photographic evidence of a great deal of it. You say we don’t engage in “boiling people alive” type torture. I would submit to you that we may not engage directly in this variety of torture but, how does our “rendering” detainees to places like Uzbekistan which DO engage in those varieties of torture differ in any way from us doing it directly? The realities are these:
1. Torture has NEVER been shown to produce credible, actionable intelligence regardless of the circumstances. (To quote Nice-Guy Eddie from Reservoir Dogs: “If you beat him long enough, he’ll tell you he started the Chicago fire.”)
2. Torture by agents of our government produces enmity on a massive scale and actually aids the enemy by assisting with recruiting (Note the swelling of al Qaeda’s ranks in the last 2 1/2 years).
3. Torture puts EVERY one of our troops in greater jeopardy of being tortured upon capture. (Being a veteran, I find this aspect of the issue particularly distastefull.)
4. We’re the United States of America! We’re supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Not to mention the fact that we’re supposed to have the best intelligence gathering network in the world. We should be able to know what we need to know without needing to torture detainees (many of whom have been later released without charge). If our mission is in fact to instill democracy in Iraq (it’s so hard to keep up with what the reason for the war is this week), how do you think it looks to the rest of the world when we’re very vocally saying one thing, and doing the exact opposite?
For me, this is not an issue of right or left. It’s an issue of right and wrong. Torture is not effective and produces nothing but BAD results and we MUST come clean with the rest of the world and make the applicable changes. The mea culpas we’re going to be forced to finally beg of the rest of the world as a result of this criminal administration will detrimentally affect our standing on the world stage for decades to come. This administration have made us exponentially less safe and they have, therefore, abrogated their duties to both the Constitution and the American people.
Green
December 9th, 2005 at 5:22 pmNo I don’t “loseâ€, however I will concede the wisdom of that logic may be lost on you.
Unless you can respond to what I said, you have indeed lost the argument. But feel free to do a George Aiken anyway.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:23 pmGary
December 9th, 2005 at 5:28 pmI can respond, however I choose not to let you draw me into a debate over the definition of murder.
This blog in case you can’t read, is about torture. And I intend to “try” and stay on subject.
Anyway, like I said, if you’re to thick in your 43 years on the planet to know the difference, thenno one is going to be able to teach you in an few minutes online.
But since you could not wrap your brain around my last little benchmark, I suggest you go pick out someone who has threatened you in the past.
Go kill him, and then when the police arrive, you can tell them, “hey,I just launched a pre-emptive strike” :D
I am sure they will be happy to explain the difference to you.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:32 pmLook, obviously the point I was making went right over your head.
As I said, I have my own standards for when killing is and isn’t acceptable. Rest assured that blowing away someone who “threatened me in the past” is quite definitely in the category of not acceptable.
The police also have their own standards. These are broadly defined by relevant laws, and honed more finely by court rulings. If I for whatever reason want to know what kind of killing will get me into trouble with the police, I can go look at those laws and court decisions.
If the law simply said that murder is illegal, it wouldn’t be of much use. The law defines what kinds of killings are and not illegal, and court decisions fill in the gray areas.
In order for “Thou shalt not murder” to make sense as a law, it has to be similarly defined. If this is God’s word, then we need to know God’s definition of the term, because we mere mortals might not be using the right one.
If the state allows capital punishment, is that murder? Legally, it isn’t. Many of us feel that morally, it is.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:51 pm“I think I’ve hung around here long enough for you to drop the BS, Ryan. First you said you were attacking me because you “knew†I’d eventually do the same. Now, you accuse of me of arrogance and ignorance … I feel safe to say I’m neither … those that read what I write that have an ounce of fairness would agree.
Americans, in general, don’t think about their positions … it’s almost like their born into them. I think this applies to both parties … I have some great Christian liberal friends whom I love dearly … we disagree on fiscal issues mainly (not as much on social ones). ”
You’re an idiot. Just because YOU were born into your opinion, don’t drop that onto everyone else. I know lots of folks who are polar opposite politically to their parents – so this is just more moronic and anecdotal claims based on your own personal prejudices, and not backed by facts. That is typical of republicans – you subsitute your own preconceptions for facts and details – and it’s why you’re always so ineffective at everything you touch.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:01 pmObviously
December 9th, 2005 at 6:29 pmJews were Free to Choose to have Jesus Crucified or not, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Murdered!.
And one of the most Signifacant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT Murder.!!!
Jesus on the other hand, Loved Lazarus the Begger.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:17 pmJews were Free to Choose to have Jesus Crucified or not, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Murdered!. In A Torturous way!
(Ever try hanging from a cross?)
Intentional torurous murder.
And one of the most Significant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT Murder.!!!
Jesus on the other hand, Loved Lazarus the Begger.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:25 pmJews were Free to Choose to have Jesus Crucified or not, TORTURED Jesus,Threw Stones At Jesus, Spitted On Jesus, Whipped Jesus! Chose to HATE Jesus. Chose to have Jesus Murdered!. In A Torturous way!
(Ever try hanging from a cross?)
Intentional torurous murder.
And one of the most Significant commandments was
THOU SHALT NOT Murder.!!!
Jesus on the other hand, Loved Lazarus the Begger.
Comment by sarcasm-impaired ASSOCIATION
What’s your point anyway? Jews didn’t kill Christ. God ordered Him sacrificed. God killed God in order to save men. That pretty much evens the score for all those fundy-atheist losers that complain that God is mean and tyrannical and unfair and unloving….or not there. Don’t blame it on the Jews or the Romans. God takes full responsibility for the death of Christ Jesus. I’d show you where the proof texts are but I’m hungry and don’t feel like looking it up. Peace/Love/Dove losers.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:30 pm### God killed God in order to save men ###
Uh, barkeep? I’ll have what he’s having. :D
December 9th, 2005 at 9:37 pmMen killed Jesus. Not God. He forsaw it, and he did not stop it, but men killed him.
See people, this is how the religous fundamentalists and zealots, lunatics who think their God is somehow responsible for our actions.
Men do what they choose to do, of their own free will and volition, but lunatics like I-WOULDPARTICIPATEINTHEINQUISITIONIFITHOUGHTGODWANTEDMETO-I
believe that God decrees wars and therefore they fight for the SAME reasons as the terrorists.
These kind of people are dangerous, very, very dangerous.
They both believe God told them to kill each other, and whoever gets in the way.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:44 pmSecret Truths, Open Lies
November 9, 2005
Again, torture and secret dungeons rear their ugly heads. In “Report of secret CIA prisons may spur probe†by the Associated Press revealed how the Washington Post received the leak and then publish the secret prisons the U.S. are facilitating in the remote parts of the world. Apparently, not remote enough for the Post to make it public and not secret enough for the CIA to keep it out of sight. Trip wires are brought to bear as the Valerie Plame’s case is toss into the mix, forcing the Justice Dept. to make sense or relevancy of the leaks justification. But what’s not mention and is undeniable is what Sharon Critoph, a researcher at Amnesty International, once said about secret prisons: “Just one small part of a much broader picture of the U.S.†That’s more forthcoming than what Condi Rice said: “America is in a different kind of war,†not a yes or no whether the Bush administration has hidden gulags; both Amnesty and human rights lawyers have claim that the United States has held “secret detainees” in its war on terror.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:50 am#87 Clyde,
Great! You know, I’ll do the same and send it to my own Representatives as well (though, come to think of it Saxby Chambliss should probably be another one of McCain’s exemptions… so maybe I’ll just leave him out of our loop :)
December 10th, 2005 at 9:42 amIRI and your religious brethern, could you take the superstitious quibbles to some bible thumping thread that actually gives a damn about that irrational fairytale, Dungeons and Dragons nonsense over which religion has the most mythical toys of destruction and leave space in this thread for some rational debate over how to better the dismal political climate we are currently in? Thanks boys.
December 10th, 2005 at 9:46 am#109 The problem for me is that religion does murder in it’s name. I must’ve posted 25 examples on a previous thread about Hitler alone. There are millions of other examples of wars waged on behalf of every religion out there (except Buddhism if you see it as a religion rather than a philosophy as it was intended). The problem here isn’t how to define a specific version of the Bible that is authority to a small percentage of the population, but how to act like respectful and responsible human beings – period. What I was trying to point out is the hypocrasy that people cloak themselves in, and then spin some obscure book quote to justify it. Let’s stop with the debate over unessential sematics and focus on the real issue of this thread – Bush’s occupation of Iraq and his use of Torture to perpetrate it.
December 10th, 2005 at 9:54 am#112 Gary, does thanks cover it well enough?
Am always happy to encounter others of intellectual sanity. Am actually optimistic of humanity when those people actually speak it out loud! Any political aspirations???
Nice to mee you!
December 10th, 2005 at 10:05 am#129 Okay then, don’t murder the holiday tree or the holiday ham… how’s that? There are alternatives, as previously suggested. You don’t need to murder living anything for your own entertainment value. If other living things on this planet get that notion (most of the time), then why do you guys have such a hard time knowing the difference?
December 10th, 2005 at 10:08 am### 129 Okay then, don’t murder the holiday tree or the holiday ham ###
Actually the Hebrew word RATSACH, applies only to the killing of MAN. It cannot be interpreted as murdering a Pig or other animal, or a tree.
You can RATSACH a man, but not a ham.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:20 pm#138
Who says? (Please don’t offer me anything religious in way of an explanation, because I don’t buy any of it. I’m not even willing to entertain “spiriual, but not religious” descriptions. Which is the problem we pagans have with religion. It refuses to accept that religious mumbo-jumbo is not our authority. Stop quoting any of the Bibles to us, we don’t buy into it. If I showed up with a book and said that it was the word of the Creator of God, who is pissed off at the lousy job God is doing and wanted to write a new book, would you believe me? Of course not – so why would I believe some dead people from a few hundred years ago? I don’t without proof. And there isn’t any).
All life is valuable. If that were not so, it wouldn’t be alive in the first place. We just don’t respect that. If you’re going to take a life, do it with respect. Decorating the corpse of a living thing and serving it for entertainment is not respectful, otherwise lions and tigers and bears would be doing it too. Only humans allow our superstitions to over ride decency and decorum.
December 10th, 2005 at 1:22 pmNormally a bill requires a justification for enactment. This just accuses military personnel of torturing captives. No proof yet offered that this is a common enough occurance to handle it with any than current laws against it. The UCMJ is fine, thank you.
Must also note: Tying the techniques of interrogation, as this amendment would to the Field Manual regarding interrogation is slightly absurd. Now unelected writers of that manual can become the law makers.
December 10th, 2005 at 2:06 pmUnbelievable
My comments were on the actual meaning of the Hebrew word used in the Torah, to define murder. All of my comments were centered around that.
As for religion, I never preached anything to you. I don’t preach.
And I’m sorry you don’t believe the Hebrew people existed, but they did. And their language and history is well documented.
December 10th, 2005 at 10:56 pm#141
Now don’t be silly… of course the Hebrew people existed.
But you know that the context of your definition arose out of an argument about killing and murder – and is then used to value only human life. Theory is all fine and dandy, except when it is applied. And then the debate becomes how to apply it respectfully. I do not believe that most people who throw around THOU SHALL NOT KILL do so when they take another life for their own fancy. What the Hebrews called it really doesn’t change the end result.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:18 amDecember 12th, 2005 at 1:08 am
Kafka would be so proud!
Surreal strategies from our leaders
December 12th, 2005 at 8:17 amXBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 18th, 2005 at 12:02 amCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 18th, 2005 at 12:03 amVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 4:25 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 4:27 pmhair loss
hair loss
December 19th, 2005 at 3:59 pmFree Horoscope
Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 6:40 pmXBOX 360
XBOX Games
December 19th, 2005 at 9:44 pmWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 21st, 2005 at 12:18 amDragonball
Dragonball
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:28 pmfree nextel ringtones
free nextel ringtones
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:28 pmJessica Simpson
jessica simpson
December 25th, 2005 at 2:33 amfree song lyrics
free song lyrics
December 25th, 2005 at 2:35 amcheap webhosting
cheap webhosting
December 25th, 2005 at 2:57 amjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 9:05 amringtone
free ringtone
December 30th, 2005 at 4:27 pmsports tickets
sports tickets
December 30th, 2005 at 5:23 pmjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 9:36 amsamsung ringtones
free samsung ringtones
January 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pmjewellery
jewellery
January 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pmFree Texas Hold Um…
Explosive misspelling: Free Texas Hold Um…
January 7th, 2006 at 6:55 pmCheap Flights First Class Alien Flight Cheap Air Flights Airport Code
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pmJosh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 pmDarya Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 pmDaria Werbowy Josh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 pmDaria Polish Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 pmDaria Werbowy Pic
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 pmWeight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pmMy Cracks and Serials
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 29th, 2008 at 6:19 aminterior decorating course
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:15 pmDanny T.
I think God approves of you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmBad Credit Personal Loans
Nationwide provider on fast secured personal loan programs.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 amJack
Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:56 amAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pmups supply chain media
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok. do you know what is the first? i`ve the new album at my blog http://sumpit.info
April 13th, 2008 at 1:44 amFashion Jewellery Uk
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees! ~ Emiliano Zapata
April 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm