Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[catzmeow]

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB. You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation. At what base level do you think? Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

You realize this entire post is logically fallacious, right, since you're all over the "argument from emotion" fallacy?

Maybe, Oh Logical One, you could stick to arguments that have some basis in rationality.

 

[Gunny]

And this faux-outrage is getting old. What do you expect from a Nation of people that kicks the basis of our moral standard -- Judeo-Christianity -- to the curb?

You haven't notice yet that the same people on this board who are about shoving Judeo-Christian value system down our throats are typically the same people advocating torture?

Seriously you haven't noticed who is supporting torture and who is not, yet?

I'm not shoving anything. I expected this non sequitur, just not from you. I don't see anyone advocating torture. I see a LOT of people spouting their party lines, and some people arguing over what they define as "torture."

 

[tigerbob]

Aaah ... but would they give any valid or useful info for it?

Hmmmm. Outraged or not, I do understand that in times of war, shit happens.

But would the US marine break and give damaging information under the pressure of torture?

You'd have to ask Gunny or RGS about that. I have no idea how much operational information is generally made available to troops in the field. I guess to a degree it depends on rank as well.

 

[Gunny]

Andrew Sullivan lays it out in such a way that (hopefully), even the diehard partisans can get it:

Manzi asks the question. I approach this from the just war tradition in which war, however vile, is sometimes defensible against a greater evil. Torture, however, is never moral or defensible under any circumstances. Why? It has to do, I believe, with autonomy. An enemy soldier that you are battling in combat remains autonomous (and potentially dangerous) until the moment of capture or surrender. At that point, his autonomy ends, as he is in captivity, unable to cause you further harm. And the infliction of severe pain or violence on someone who is thereby defenseless carries a much deeper moral weight than a fair or even unfair fight.

We all know this intuitively. It is the difference between two boys duking it out on a playground and a gang of boys restraining one while another beats the crap out of him. Torture is a form of cowardice and a form of cruelty, which is inherently different than the sometimes necessary evil of just warfare. My best attempt at expaining the relationship between torture and freedom, and why torture can only endure in unfree societies, is from 2005:

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Why is this so difficult to understand that we have a couple of dozen threads attempting to justify this practice?

For the record: I'm not a liberal. I voted for W - TWICE. I'm not a pacifist. I work in a law enforcement field. So, spare me the prejudgements.

We don't. We have a couple dozen threads of people like you defining torture however you see fit and accusing everyone else who doesn't buy your worldview as advocating torture.

 

[catzmeow]

I'm not shoving anything. I expected this non sequitur, just not from you. I don't see anyone advocating torture. I see a LOT of people spouting their party lines, and some people arguing over what they define as "torture."

Apparently, only people with the superior morality of the Judeo Christian ethics are able to discern the moral dubiousness of torture tactics.

 

[WillowTree]

what are the other means?

 

[Gunny]

That's interesting, Xeno. You claim to speak as the appointed spokesperson for all of the victims of 9/11? Pretty arrogant claim.

You are presuming to set the standard for and speak for a NATION. I'd say you're roping WAY more.

 

[sealybobo]

More fauz outrage. Got anything more to your argument than an appeal to emotion?

I've posted solid evidence in this thread of every claim I've made, along with links to credible mainstream publications. Guess you didn't bother to read them.

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB. You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation. At what base level do you think? Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

Then why do you believe that Russia poisoned Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko but you find it so hard to believe Cheney is the criminal behind the Antrax?

You're a brainwashed American who is projecting on catzmeow.

Now if you'll only wake up to the fact that Bush/Cheney let/allowed/wanted 9-11 to happen so they could launch their war for profit.

Or are we the "boyscouts of nations" and that's rediculous?

 

[NOBama]

And you've won, we will not waterboard anymore.

Bullshit. When push comes to shove, this country will torture again, IMO. Even if it means cutting dark deals with third parties that will do it for us and distroy all evidence of it.

All we're doing is ensuring that those we torture are erased and that there's no evidence left behind. I think we're only making something ugly even more ugly. I don't buy into this bullshit argument that anybody WANTS to torture either. Self preservation is the strongest instinct of mankind and mankind will preserve it, at any cost, until the end of time.

That sucks, but that's what I think the reality of the situation is.

 

[catzmeow]

We don't. We have a couple dozen threads of people like you defining torture however you see fit and accusing everyone else who doesn't buy your worldview as advocating torture.

So, was John McCain inaccurate on waterboarding as torture, then? Should we have prosecuted the Japanese and others for "war crimes," which included waterboarding?

I don't see that those who are speaking out against waterboarding being on shaky logical ground here. Historically, it HAS been considered a prosecutable war crime.

Thus, why the new need to suddenly proclaim that it is both effective and acceptable, when we condemned and prosecuted its use in the past?

I don't think that message has changed. I think waterboarding was torture in 1941. It remained torture in the 1960s under the Pol Pot regime. And, it's still torture in 2009.

That seems pretty basic to me.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/75259-torture-works.html

What happened to that thread? That was an important one.

No it wasn't and FTR, it wasn't me. However, I can assume I'm not the only staff member here tired of seeing thread after thread after thread on the same topic.

 

[Gunny]

I've provided evidence that waterboarding did not provide evidence that prevented attacks on Los Angeles, and further, that the information provided through torture was available through other means. furthermore, I've given evidence that there are MANY service personnel and personel of agencies other than the CIA, who disapproved of these interrogation tactics, believed them illegal, and were able to do the job without torture.

I think that's sufficient to counter Willow's baseless hysteria.

And, for the record, I'm not a lefty.

what are the other means?

Ever notice, they never tell you ... the people who like torture for some reason never show you exactly how they really got the info, they just tell you and hope you don't pry. It's because there are "black-ops", as the common phrase goes. Thing is, they really can't tell you or they risk losing their vantage point, but really wouldn't you rather be told that instead of fed a lie? It's not torture that got the info most likely, they just used it as a cover in hopes people wouldn't ask too many other questions. The security of such actions is important, but to outright lie about it to us isn't.

I'm still waiting to see some actual torture.

 

[KittenKoder]

what are the other means?

Subterfuge ... we have several spies out there already. But that's illegal according to people so they can't admit it without risking persecution.

 

[Gunny]

Torture "works" in that the person you are torturing will tell you anything at all to get you to stop. It doesn't work in that the information you are receiving is as likely to be inaccurate as accurate. The more under duress a suspect is, the less likely his information is to be accurate.

Furthermore, LEGAL interview and interrogation "works" as well or better than terror. So why violate our own laws and ethics?

I don't care if my outrage is old to you. I defended the people at Abu Ghraib, and said that they were being villified by the left for no reason. Then, I came to believe that they were operating outside of the scope of normal orders.

Now, we learn that they were probably following orders at all times, and that those tactics were supported at the highest levels of our country, in violation of law and our ethics.

I sure as hell am outraged. Why aren't you?

I did not comment on the accuracy of the information. I said it works. I disagree you are as likely to get bad info as wrong. Torture works on the basic human animal and I'd say most are neither intelligent enough, nor strong enough psychologically to withstand REAL torture. And I'm not talking about makign someone think they are drowning.

Guess you got Abu Ghraib wrong then. I said they were wrong from the beginning. That was a no-brainer. However, I didin't consider college-prank-level hazing torture then, nor do I now.

You mean you assume they were following orders? You otherwise haven't learned shit.

Why should I be outraged? I haven't been fooled by the moral superiority complex in 30 years.

If you're just now coming to grips with the fact we can be as self-serving, greedy, and ruthless as anyone else, took you long enough. We built this nation you have such blind faith in on stealing land from others by whatever means necessary. Yet you expect better?

I agree. That's why I'm going to become a criminal. It is the way the rich got rich. Stealing from others.

But I am going to do it better than Bush, because I WON'T GET CAUGHT.

You're already an idiot.

 

[WillowTree]

What are the other methods? Why won't you list them?????? come on,, you know so much that isn't so I want some one to tell us what the other methods are.. how can one make a rational decision without all the pertinent information???

 

[catzmeow]

You are presuming to set the standard for and speak for a NATION. I'd say you're roping WAY more.

Actually, I prefer to let Ronald Reagan do my talking on the subject of torture. He did so, clearly and definitively, in 1984:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiations of the Convention [Against Torture]. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today," - president Ronald Reagan, 1988.

I don't feel I need to speak for the entire country when we've already legislated our stance on torture and mistreatment of prisoners.

Hope that helps you understand my views.

 

[Gunny]

If you're just now coming to grips with the fact we can be as self-serving, greedy, and ruthless as anyone else, took you long enough. We built this nation you have such blind faith in on stealing land from others by whatever means necessary. Yet you expect better?

Yeah, Gunny, I do expect better. I expect us, at this point in our nation's history, to start following our own damn laws. I don't consider myself naive. But, it's my job to help enforce the rule of law. That's what keeps the white white and the black black. The rule of law is not a gray area when we are talking about the role of democratically elected leaders.

I acknowledge it might get a little murky in the trenches, but when were the politicos in DC ever in the trenches, aside from McCain and Murtha?

Well, you are wrong. That is a naive point of view. The topic is not black and white because you can't even define "torture," and its as subjective as it gets.

 

[WillowTree]

So we can assume that there "are no other methods" that's just another big fat lefty lie,, they are trying to spin..gotcha!

 

[catzmeow]

What are the other methods? Why won't you list them?????? come on,, you know so much that isn't so I want some one to tell us what the other methods are.. how can one make a rational decision without all the pertinent information???

I don't think it is adequate to simply list them here. Suffice it to say that I consider the FBI's tactics in this regard to be better, more ethical, more professional, and more effective than those of the CIA. Here is some of what the FBI has accomplished in the past 10 years -- WITHOUT ENHANCED INTERROGATION.

Ali Soufan

 

[Gunny]

And suddenly the media is YOUR friend? GMAFB. You're the one acting as if this is some kind of revelation. At what base level do you think? Perhaps you should believe with such blind faith in US government propaganda that teaches you we're the friggin' Boy Scouts of Nations.

You realize this entire post is logically fallacious, right, since you're all over the "argument from emotion" fallacy?

Maybe, Oh Logical One, you could stick to arguments that have some basis in rationality.

Nothing fallacious about my argument at all. Don't try and act like you just joined this board today and nobody's ever read any of your posts before.

My argument is quite logical while yours appeals only to YOUR definition and YOUR emotions as evidence by all your "moral outrage."

Stop your fucking whining. If you're going to argue like a leftwingnut, you're going to get hammered like one.