University of Guantanamo Bay Torture

[PoliticalChic]

Damn, I am saddened to find out that the French Revolution was a bad thing.

Forgive me, Marie, I had you pegged wrong.

Well, as you've taken to learning as a duck takes to water, I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't help you to continue...

1. For the origins of fascism, we should search through the Romantic nationalism of the 18th century, and the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who might even be called the ‘Father of Modern Fascism.’

a. The French Revolution was the first totalitarian revolution: a nationalist, populist uprising, led and manipulated by an intellectual vanguard determined to replace Christianity with a political religion.

b. It glorified ‘the people,’ and anointed the revolutionary vanguard as their priests.

c. It abridged the rights of the individual: “The people is always worth more than the individual.” Robespierre.

d. Robespierre’s view was based on Rousseau’s theory of the general will: individuals who live in accordance with the general will are ‘free’ and ‘virtuous’ while those who defy it are criminals, fools, or heretics.
Rousseau: Political Economy

2. The Western urge to rebel, coming out of the French Revolution, mutated quickly into several cults of death and mayhem. No matter the particular movement, there were two key conditions in all: 1. it was based on a submission to a central authority, the total state, and 2. it was based on the idea of one, instead of many."
Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” chapter two.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, yeah and Hitler was a vegetarian.

You are an idiot, PC, no offense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bogus.

I use Arabic numerals, but I'm not Muslim.


You sissy-boys on the Left, make nice and pat the killers on the head....maybe they'll kill you last. It is well known that the Left has never been able to recognize evil, and therefore, has not known how to deal with it.


None of those listed in the OP are torture, and I consider it immoral not to use any and all menthods if they are designed to save the lives of innocents.
Not you?

Is it just strangers, and my family you're willing to sacrifice, or would you throw you and yours under the bus as well?
Speak up!


Here's torture:
From ‘Over the Edge of the World,’ by Laurence Bergreen

In 1519, Magellan took five ships as set sail from Spain to find a water route to the Spice Islands (Indonesia). Among the depredations he faced was mutiny. He dealt with it as follows.

“First, Magellan instructed one of his men to read an indictment of Mendoza as a traitor. The Captain General then ordered his men to draw and quarter Mendoza’s body. This complicated and grotesque procedure usually began with hanging the victim, then cutting his down while he was only partly strangled. The executioner or an assistant would make an incision in the victim’s abdomen, remove the intestines, and, incredibly, burn them in front of the half-dead victim. When he finally expired, his head and limbs were severed from his body, parboiled with herbs to preserve them and repel birds, and finally displayed to the public.

In a variation, the victim’s arms and legs were attached to four horses, who were made to walk in opposite directions, slowly tearing the victim’s limbs from his body.
Magellan combined elements of both methods. Mendoza was secured to the flagship’s deck, with ropes running from his wrists and ankles to the capstans, which consisted of a cable wound about a cylinder to hoist or move heavy objects. On cue, sailors pressed on levers to rotate the capstans’ drum, which contained sockets to check its backward movement. Bit by bit, the pressure applied to the capstans ripped Mendoza’s lifeless body to pieces.

Magellan directed that the quartered remains be spitted and displayed as a warning of exactly how traitors would be treated…This practice, so barbarous by present standards, was in keeping with the customs of the time for those who would defy authority.
Magellan’s display of barbarism did not end there; he was only beginning to exact revenge for the mutineers’ insult to his authority and to the honor of King Charles. More than execution, torture was his ultimate weapon at sea. He appointed his cousin, Alvero de Mesquita as judge. He ordered Andres de San Martin to the ghastly strappado. The strappado was administered in five stages of increasing agony. In the first degree, the victim was stripped, his wrists were bound behind his back, and he was threatened until he confessed. If he refused, he was subjected to the second degree. In it, the victim’s arms were raised behind his back by a rope attached to a pulley secured overhead, and he was lifted off his feet for a brief period of time, and given another chance to confess. If he still refused, he faced the third degree of strappado, in which he was suspended for a longer period of time, which dislocated his shoulders and broke his arms. Once again, he was given another chance to confess. If no satisfactory confession, the fourth degree: The victim was suspended and violently jerked, which inflicted excruciating pain. Few victims of methodically administered strappado lasted beyond this point without confessing. In certain cases there was a fifth degree. In this final phase of strappado, weights were attached to the victim’s feet, and they were often heavy enough to tear the limbs from his tormented body.

San Martin suffered the full five stages. “The prisoner hath his hands bound behind his back, and weights tied to his feet, and then he is drawn up on high, till his head reached the vey pulley. He is kept hanging in this manner for some time, that by the greatness of the weight hanging at his feet, all his joints and limbs may be dreadfully stretched, and of a sudden he is let down with a jerk, by slacking the rope, but kept from coming quite to the ground.”

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”

George Washington: No Torture on My Watch

Laws must change with the times. They must adapt to new challenges. That has been the genius of the common law. Ironically, it is generally the left that seeks change in the laws, while the right is satisfied with Henry IV. Today it is many on the left who resist any changes in the law of war or human rights. They deny the reality that the war against terrorism is any way different from conventional wars of the past, or that the old laws must be adapted to the new threats. The result is often an unreasonable debate of extremes: the hard left insists that the old laws should not be tampered with in the least; the hard right insists that the old laws are entirely inapplicable to the new threats, and that democratic governments should be entirely free to do whatever it takes to combat terrorism, without regard to anachronistic laws. Both extremes are dangerous. What is needed is a new set of laws, based on the principles of the old laws of war and human rights - the protection of civilians - but adapted to the new threats against civilian victims of terrorism.

The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact".Alan M Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard University, and the author of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Norton, £15.99)

Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? - Americas, World - The Independent

SO...liberals are sissy-boys and fascists all at the same time...WOW PC.

Take your fear filled paranoid screeches to the Geneva Convention. Our torture of Muslims in Iraq and Gitmo created THOUSANDS more terrorists and caused the deaths of THOUSANDS more American soldiers in Iraq.

The world didn't change on 9/11...America did, and paranoid right wing fanatics like you must be stopped.

In our very first conversation you touted how George Clemenceau put Woodrow Wilson in his place and Wilson was the sissy-boy. But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

 

[Father Time]

9. Sleep Deprivation (more than 48 hours)
(Bradbury Memo, May 10, 2005)

I get the heebie-jeebies just thinking of those No-Doz days, and nights.

“…In lieu of standing sleep deprivation, a detainee may instead by seated on and shackled to a small stoo. The stool supports the detainee’s weight, but is too small to permit the subject to balance himself sufficiently to go to sleep…”

I’ve been in college lectures in similar situations.

You've had college lectures that lasted more than 48 hours?

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Washington then issued an order to his troops regarding prisoners of war:

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”

George Washington: No Torture on My Watch

Laws must change with the times. They must adapt to new challenges. That has been the genius of the common law. Ironically, it is generally the left that seeks change in the laws, while the right is satisfied with Henry IV. Today it is many on the left who resist any changes in the law of war or human rights. They deny the reality that the war against terrorism is any way different from conventional wars of the past, or that the old laws must be adapted to the new threats. The result is often an unreasonable debate of extremes: the hard left insists that the old laws should not be tampered with in the least; the hard right insists that the old laws are entirely inapplicable to the new threats, and that democratic governments should be entirely free to do whatever it takes to combat terrorism, without regard to anachronistic laws. Both extremes are dangerous. What is needed is a new set of laws, based on the principles of the old laws of war and human rights - the protection of civilians - but adapted to the new threats against civilian victims of terrorism.

The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact".Alan M Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard University, and the author of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Norton, £15.99)

Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? - Americas, World - The Independent

SO...liberals are sissy-boys and fascists all at the same time...WOW PC.

Take your fear filled paranoid screeches to the Geneva Convention. Our torture of Muslims in Iraq and Gitmo created THOUSANDS more terrorists and caused the deaths of THOUSANDS more American soldiers in Iraq.

The world didn't change on 9/11...America did, and paranoid right wing fanatics like you must be stopped.

In our very first conversation you touted how George Clemenceau put Woodrow Wilson in his place and Wilson was the sissy-boy. But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you.

2. " But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler."
I've noted this variety of thinking frequently fron those across the aisle...poor thinking.

It's because you are unable to recognize evil, and therefore, lay the blame at the feet of the victim.
So much easier for the Left to find an excuse for the behavior, an inability to deal with the immorality, than to honor the just.

3. This, of course, plays directly into one of the defining characteristics of liberals and conservatives,...

"Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

Clear?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Sleep Deprivation (more than 48 hours)
(Bradbury Memo, May 10, 2005)

I get the heebie-jeebies just thinking of those No-Doz days, and nights.

“…In lieu of standing sleep deprivation, a detainee may instead by seated on and shackled to a small stoo. The stool supports the detainee’s weight, but is too small to permit the subject to balance himself sufficiently to go to sleep…”

I’ve been in college lectures in similar situations.

You've had college lectures that lasted more than 48 hours?

I've attended exams, and lectures after having to study for extended periods...

...so good to see that you agree with the other nine.

 

[Bfgrn]

Laws must change with the times. They must adapt to new challenges. That has been the genius of the common law. Ironically, it is generally the left that seeks change in the laws, while the right is satisfied with Henry IV. Today it is many on the left who resist any changes in the law of war or human rights. They deny the reality that the war against terrorism is any way different from conventional wars of the past, or that the old laws must be adapted to the new threats. The result is often an unreasonable debate of extremes: the hard left insists that the old laws should not be tampered with in the least; the hard right insists that the old laws are entirely inapplicable to the new threats, and that democratic governments should be entirely free to do whatever it takes to combat terrorism, without regard to anachronistic laws. Both extremes are dangerous. What is needed is a new set of laws, based on the principles of the old laws of war and human rights - the protection of civilians - but adapted to the new threats against civilian victims of terrorism.

The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact".Alan M Dershowitz is Professor of Law at Harvard University, and the author of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Norton, £15.99)

Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? - Americas, World - The Independent

SO...liberals are sissy-boys and fascists all at the same time...WOW PC.

Take your fear filled paranoid screeches to the Geneva Convention. Our torture of Muslims in Iraq and Gitmo created THOUSANDS more terrorists and caused the deaths of THOUSANDS more American soldiers in Iraq.

The world didn't change on 9/11...America did, and paranoid right wing fanatics like you must be stopped.

In our very first conversation you touted how George Clemenceau put Woodrow Wilson in his place and Wilson was the sissy-boy. But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you.

2. " But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler."
I've noted this variety of thinking frequently fron those across the aisle...poor thinking.

It's because you are unable to recognize evil, and therefore, lay the blame at the feet of the victim.
So much easier for the Left to find an excuse for the behavior, an inability to deal with the immorality, than to honor the just.

3. This, of course, plays directly into one of the defining characteristics of liberals and conservatives,...

"Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

Clear?

You are going to lecture me on 'moral truths' that are permanent, recognizing 'evil' and that 'the result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster'?

Rationalizing TORTURE, or dismissing it as TORTURE is an absolutely perfect description of someone who would 'believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. Beliefs aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

YOU are a liberal PC...LOL

 

[rdean]

Republicans only believe what they want to believe. Bush/Cheney torture ended 7 years ago and yet right wingers insist that unverified stories achieved through torture is how Obama got Bin Laden. If Bush had the info, why didn't he use it then? That's the most simple and direct question possible.

The answer?

Because Bush and the Republicans had "given up". Bush even SHUT DOWN the CIA unit that was started for the sole reason of finding Bin Laden.

Republicans are desperate to find something that they can call a success after 8 years of leading the country. They led the country into a ditch, and that irks them. Instead of any type of reflection on where they failed, they cling to the idea that the policies were "right", but the circumstances were "wrong". They can't accept that if the policies didn't work, then they were wrong. Their policies. "WRONG". It's just that "simple".

Unfortunately, you can see it again and again. In their foreign policies, in the economic policies, in their domestic policies. Failure piled upon failure. Because they don't govern through data, facts or statistics. They govern on "ideology". In ideology that has been "invented" whole cloth. Not based on anything relevant, just "feelings".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ]YouTube - Feelings - Morris Albert[/ame]

 

[rdean]

9. Sleep Deprivation (more than 48 hours)
(Bradbury Memo, May 10, 2005)

I get the heebie-jeebies just thinking of those No-Doz days, and nights.

“…In lieu of standing sleep deprivation, a detainee may instead by seated on and shackled to a small stoo. The stool supports the detainee’s weight, but is too small to permit the subject to balance himself sufficiently to go to sleep…”

I’ve been in college lectures in similar situations.

You've had college lectures that lasted more than 48 hours?

I've attended exams, and lectures after having to study for extended periods...

...so good to see that you agree with the other nine.

Aren't lectures from Bible colleges simply repeating Bible passages out loud?

Funny, I've taken exams, never "attended" one. How do you do that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

SO...liberals are sissy-boys and fascists all at the same time...WOW PC.

Take your fear filled paranoid screeches to the Geneva Convention. Our torture of Muslims in Iraq and Gitmo created THOUSANDS more terrorists and caused the deaths of THOUSANDS more American soldiers in Iraq.

The world didn't change on 9/11...America did, and paranoid right wing fanatics like you must be stopped.

In our very first conversation you touted how George Clemenceau put Woodrow Wilson in his place and Wilson was the sissy-boy. But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you.

2. " But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler."
I've noted this variety of thinking frequently fron those across the aisle...poor thinking.

It's because you are unable to recognize evil, and therefore, lay the blame at the feet of the victim.
So much easier for the Left to find an excuse for the behavior, an inability to deal with the immorality, than to honor the just.

3. This, of course, plays directly into one of the defining characteristics of liberals and conservatives,...

"Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

Clear?

You are going to lecture me on 'moral truths' that are permanent, recognizing 'evil' and that 'the result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster'?

Rationalizing TORTURE, or dismissing it as TORTURE is an absolutely perfect description of someone who would 'believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. Beliefs aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

YOU are a liberal PC...LOL

1 "1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you."

will I be getting a card on that date?

2. "Rationalizing TORTURE,..."
There was no torture. None, as in 'not any.'
See, that is the point of OP....do I have to explain everything to you???

The enhanced interrogation methods were, in fact somewhat mundane and prosaic.

3. Now, if I had been in charge, boy, I'd pop the top on a mighty big can of ass-whuppin'.


4. "YOU are a liberal PC..."
True...as in 'classical liberal' which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly.

That is very different from the spawn of Grendel, that is the offspring of the Frankfurt School, your alma mater.

5. Gyorgy Lukacs promoted the idea that while Marx’s Dialectic Materialism may not have been predictive, it hinted at the real necessity: destroying the status quo would bring Marxism. This could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and discrediting and undermining the established institutions from within.

a. The new emphasis would be on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” of Judeo-Christian civilization. To bring this about, they designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for 2,000 years.” Political Correctness Exposed | Amos 3:7

6. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil, who funded the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and criticaltheory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. The Critical Theorists held a common commitment to Neo-Marxism and the belief that Western civilization has been an imperialistic and repressive force in human history – especially, Western Christianity. In their view, Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, classism and sexual repression.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've had college lectures that lasted more than 48 hours?

I've attended exams, and lectures after having to study for extended periods...

...so good to see that you agree with the other nine.

Aren't lectures from Bible colleges simply repeating Bible passages out loud?

Funny, I've taken exams, never "attended" one. How do you do that?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]YouTube - Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar![/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you.

2. " But if the Treaty of Versailles had followed Wilson's more conciliatory view toward German reparations, it may have prevented the rise of Hitler."
I've noted this variety of thinking frequently fron those across the aisle...poor thinking.

It's because you are unable to recognize evil, and therefore, lay the blame at the feet of the victim.
So much easier for the Left to find an excuse for the behavior, an inability to deal with the immorality, than to honor the just.

3. This, of course, plays directly into one of the defining characteristics of liberals and conservatives,...

"Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses."

Clear?

You are going to lecture me on 'moral truths' that are permanent, recognizing 'evil' and that 'the result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster'?

Rationalizing TORTURE, or dismissing it as TORTURE is an absolutely perfect description of someone who would 'believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. Beliefs aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

YOU are a liberal PC...LOL

1 "1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you."

will I be getting a card on that date?

2. "Rationalizing TORTURE,..."
There was no torture. None, as in 'not any.'
See, that is the point of OP....do I have to explain everything to you???

The enhanced interrogation methods were, in fact somewhat mundane and prosaic.

3. Now, if I had been in charge, boy, I'd pop the top on a mighty big can of ass-whuppin'.


4. "YOU are a liberal PC..."
True...as in 'classical liberal' which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly.

That is very different from the spawn of Grendel, that is the offspring of the Frankfurt School, your alma mater.

5. Gyorgy Lukacs promoted the idea that while Marx’s Dialectic Materialism may not have been predictive, it hinted at the real necessity: destroying the status quo would bring Marxism. This could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and discrediting and undermining the established institutions from within.

a. The new emphasis would be on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” of Judeo-Christian civilization. To bring this about, they designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for 2,000 years.” Political Correctness Exposed | Amos 3:7

6. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil, who funded the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and criticaltheory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. The Critical Theorists held a common commitment to Neo-Marxism and the belief that Western civilization has been an imperialistic and repressive force in human history – especially, Western Christianity. In their view, Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, classism and sexual repression.

You really are a piece of work PC. You can't even talk in the present. When will you start referring to yourself in the third person?

Moral truths our nation was founded on were permanent and deeply seeded in how we treat other human beings, that is why George Washington forbid torture. But you have found a way to circumvent those moral truths and turn evil into good.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

NOW, you are not a conservative, but a liberal. Gee, PC are you also a Wilsonian?

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are going to lecture me on 'moral truths' that are permanent, recognizing 'evil' and that 'the result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster'?

Rationalizing TORTURE, or dismissing it as TORTURE is an absolutely perfect description of someone who would 'believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. Beliefs aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

YOU are a liberal PC...LOL

1 "1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you."

will I be getting a card on that date?

2. "Rationalizing TORTURE,..."
There was no torture. None, as in 'not any.'
See, that is the point of OP....do I have to explain everything to you???

The enhanced interrogation methods were, in fact somewhat mundane and prosaic.

3. Now, if I had been in charge, boy, I'd pop the top on a mighty big can of ass-whuppin'.


4. "YOU are a liberal PC..."
True...as in 'classical liberal' which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly.

That is very different from the spawn of Grendel, that is the offspring of the Frankfurt School, your alma mater.

5. Gyorgy Lukacs promoted the idea that while Marx’s Dialectic Materialism may not have been predictive, it hinted at the real necessity: destroying the status quo would bring Marxism. This could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and discrediting and undermining the established institutions from within.

a. The new emphasis would be on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” of Judeo-Christian civilization. To bring this about, they designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for 2,000 years.” Political Correctness Exposed | Amos 3:7

6. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil, who funded the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and criticaltheory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. The Critical Theorists held a common commitment to Neo-Marxism and the belief that Western civilization has been an imperialistic and repressive force in human history – especially, Western Christianity. In their view, Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, classism and sexual repression.

You really are a piece of work PC. You can't even talk in the present. When will you start referring to yourself in the third person?

Moral truths our nation was founded on were permanent and deeply seeded in how we treat other human beings, that is why George Washington forbid torture. But you have found a way to circumvent those moral truths and turn evil into good.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

NOW, you are not a conservative, but a liberal. Gee, PC are you also a Wilsonian?

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

1. Progressivism was the American version of Hegelian dialectic with Marxism and a Rousseauian vision of humanity, and the ‘general will.’ Sort of Marxism sans class struggle. But- in America, the ideology faced an overwhelming problem that didn’t exist in Germany or Britain: they didn’t have a written Constitution that protects individual liberty.

a. ‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see The Mises Review: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

b. "Since the Constitution could not officially be "stripped off and thrown aside," Wilson endorsed the emerging, Darwinian-inspired theory of a "living Constitution." For Wilson, this did not mean creatively applying original principles to situations the Framers had not imagined: It meant negating those principles whenever they stood in the way of the march of History, as manifested in the latest promising idea."
From Hegel to Wilson to Breyer | The Weekly Standard

 

[Bfgrn]

1 "1. "In our very first conversation..."
How very sweet...you remembered....you actually memoialized it!
It must be a very, very special occasion to you."

will I be getting a card on that date?

2. "Rationalizing TORTURE,..."
There was no torture. None, as in 'not any.'
See, that is the point of OP....do I have to explain everything to you???

The enhanced interrogation methods were, in fact somewhat mundane and prosaic.

3. Now, if I had been in charge, boy, I'd pop the top on a mighty big can of ass-whuppin'.


4. "YOU are a liberal PC..."
True...as in 'classical liberal' which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly.

That is very different from the spawn of Grendel, that is the offspring of the Frankfurt School, your alma mater.

5. Gyorgy Lukacs promoted the idea that while Marx’s Dialectic Materialism may not have been predictive, it hinted at the real necessity: destroying the status quo would bring Marxism. This could be done through breaking down traditional Judeo-Christian morality and discrediting and undermining the established institutions from within.

a. The new emphasis would be on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” of Judeo-Christian civilization. To bring this about, they designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for 2,000 years.” Political Correctness Exposed | Amos 3:7

6. In 1923 Georg Lukacs helped establish a Marxist research center at the University of Frankfurt under the sponsorship of Felix Weil, who funded the Institute for Social Research, best known as the institutional home of the Frankfurt School and criticaltheory. http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-F...turalMarxismAndPoliticalCorrectness-part2.pdf

a. The Critical Theorists held a common commitment to Neo-Marxism and the belief that Western civilization has been an imperialistic and repressive force in human history – especially, Western Christianity. In their view, Western civilization was built on aggression, oppression, racism, slavery, classism and sexual repression.

You really are a piece of work PC. You can't even talk in the present. When will you start referring to yourself in the third person?

Moral truths our nation was founded on were permanent and deeply seeded in how we treat other human beings, that is why George Washington forbid torture. But you have found a way to circumvent those moral truths and turn evil into good.

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

NOW, you are not a conservative, but a liberal. Gee, PC are you also a Wilsonian?

"If I should claim any man as my master, that man would be Burke"
Woodrow Wilson

1. Progressivism was the American version of Hegelian dialectic with Marxism and a Rousseauian vision of humanity, and the ‘general will.’ Sort of Marxism sans class struggle. But- in America, the ideology faced an overwhelming problem that didn’t exist in Germany or Britain: they didn’t have a written Constitution that protects individual liberty.

a. ‘Well known is TR's outburst, when told the Constitution did not permit the confiscation of private property: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Less well known is that at one point TR summoned General John M. Schofield, instructing him: "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to a writ from a judge, or anything else except my commands."’ 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. By Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (p. 139) see The Mises Review: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

b. "Since the Constitution could not officially be "stripped off and thrown aside," Wilson endorsed the emerging, Darwinian-inspired theory of a "living Constitution." For Wilson, this did not mean creatively applying original principles to situations the Framers had not imagined: It meant negating those principles whenever they stood in the way of the march of History, as manifested in the latest promising idea."
From Hegel to Wilson to Breyer | The Weekly Standard

You can't even engage in conversation PC much less debate. You are a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I will leave you with the words of George Washington and the moral basis of his beliefs to ponder. I will (edit) them for you, because this whole subject seems to be way over your head:

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the (terrorists) British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his (terrorist) British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.”

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

 

[Vanquish]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

PC, Bfgrn busted your wall of text and brought it crumbling down.
The funny part is, all you could do to respond was reply "Ask Osama." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What humor it is to see you say that waterboarding was a success.

Great work shredding the constitution there. Cruel and unusual punishment was NOT what the Founding Fathers wanted. Not even for murderers. Ever.

It's amazing how fucking selective some conservatives can be about upholding the damn constitution.
If it doesnt fit into their Jack Bauer penis festival, they reject it and hit replay on the fantasy in their head.

 

[Shooter]

Thank you for this thread, PoliticalChic. Very nice.

There's no doubt in my mind we obtained intel that eventually led to OBL through enhanced interrogation tecniques. I'm sure the left will go to their graves denying it but it's reality. The reason most on the left will deny it is because it doesn't fit in their political agenda. They would have to actually admit that Bush was right and Obama continued with his policies despite coming out against it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Republicans only believe what they want to believe. Bush/Cheney torture ended 7 years ago and yet right wingers insist that unverified stories achieved through torture is how Obama got Bin Laden. If Bush had the info, why didn't he use it then? That's the most simple and direct question possible.

The answer?

Because Bush and the Republicans had "given up". Bush even SHUT DOWN the CIA unit that was started for the sole reason of finding Bin Laden.

Republicans are desperate to find something that they can call a success after 8 years of leading the country. They led the country into a ditch, and that irks them. Instead of any type of reflection on where they failed, they cling to the idea that the policies were "right", but the circumstances were "wrong". They can't accept that if the policies didn't work, then they were wrong. Their policies. "WRONG". It's just that "simple".

Unfortunately, you can see it again and again. In their foreign policies, in the economic policies, in their domestic policies. Failure piled upon failure. Because they don't govern through data, facts or statistics. They govern on "ideology". In ideology that has been "invented" whole cloth. Not based on anything relevant, just "feelings".

YouTube - Feelings - Morris Albert

Please stop drinking the koolaide, we are beginning to fear for your sanity.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for this thread, PoliticalChic. Very nice.

There's no doubt in my mind we obtained intel that eventually led to OBL through enhanced interrogation tecniques. I'm sure the left will go to their graves denying it but it's reality. The reason most on the left will deny it is because it doesn't fit in their political agenda. They would have to actually admit that Bush was right and Obama continued with his policies despite coming out against it.

There are many realities you folks on the right refuse to confront. That is because conservatism is based on fear, the strongest human emotion. It causes you folks to eject all moral values when faced with that monster in your little minds.

1) Torture is the methods of the very enemy we claim to have moral superiority over. If we use their methods, then what have we become?

2) Torture doesn't work. It will elicit information that is useless, because the interrogator has no idea if he gained trust or was merely told whatever will stop the pain.

3) Our torture and mistreatment of Muslims at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo recruited thousands of terrorists that led to the death and maiming of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq.

You have the right to defend torture, but with it must come the acceptance of who and what you really are. Fascism and all forms of authoritarianism are right wing, not left.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You do not understand the purpose of what you call torture. And probably never will.

 

[Bfgrn]

You do not understand the purpose of what you call torture. And probably never will.

It doesn't matter what 'I' understand. IT only matters what people who took up killing American soldiers perceived.

Here is the man who headed the team of interrogators who successfully hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the mastermind of the campaign of suicide bombings that had helped plunge Iraq into civil war.

Torture recruited terrorists

As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda's number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save.

Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

A) Torture doesn't work

"Torture is extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.