Conservatives Start Speaking Out Against Torture

[PubliusInfinitum]

http://www.navlog.org/iraqinight.wmv

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Haven't watched the video yet, so can't comment yet.

Well when you do... be sure to get back to us... as ignoring argument is not a valid means of advancing a contest to that argument.

 

[Immanuel]

Well sportsfan, that's fine, but since you're not in a position to judge every situation for yourself, through your own investigation, then this debate is moot... we're debating the principles... and the viability of the policies... not one detainee is going to be spared interrogation or be subject to stress inducement by what's said here...

Funny, I'm not sure you debate anything.

You claim absolute knowledge and authority and deny every reasonable argument against your stance. That is not debating.

Wrong... You're applying the standards of criminal trial... the detainees are not being held for trial; the interrogations are not designed to gather information which will be used against them at trial... and they most definitely do not enjoy the presumption of innocence...

Wrong, I am applying a standard of human decency. A standard that says that torturing possibly innocent human beings is wrong if not completely sick.

Sweet strawman... No one here has advanced the notion that everymuslim should be tortured... no one has even advanced the notion that the detainees should be tortured... stress induced coercive interrogation is not torture... it is stress being induced to encourage compliance...'

Induce coercive interrogation is just another euphemism for torture. Call it what you want, but causing severe destress and/or pain to force someone to comply with your wishes is torture. You can call it playing patty cake with them if you like, but you are still causing severe destress and pain in order to possibly get information that you do not even know for certain they have.

The issue here is context... A middle school student who father owns guns is not a threat to the very fabric of civilization... they are not a member of an association whose only tactic is the mass murder of innocent human beings...

Then saving lives is not your goal here?

The Detainees are exactly that... and those who are subject to stress induced coercive interrogation are believed to possess information which will spare the lives of innocent people...

Haha, "believe to", what do you do when the man who has been tortured is found not to have any pertinent information? Hand him a lollipop and say, "No harm, no foul"? If I remember correctly we are even allowing them into the U.S. because they can't go home because their own people will kill them.

It's a morally justifiable action and this is without regard to your feelings on the issue.

You have a strange sense of moral justification.

If you can show where it's NOT morally justified, fine, I'll consider such an argument... but I will not accept any argument which is framed within the context of those detainees being held for criminal trial, or which provides for them, the necessarily high standards common to such.

I have not once claimed they were being held for criminal trial. I have stated repeatedly that they are entitled to human rights. Fortunately, we offer the accused human rights in this country. We do not simply assume once accused forever guilty. We offer the accused the very same rights you would expect if you were a prisoner. I believe I have been informed you are either currently in the military or have been in the past. That being said, you would expect humane treatment were you captured... unfortunately, with these enemies that would not be guaranteed. However, that does not justify the torture of potentially innocent human beings in our custody.

Immie

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Conservatives START speaking out against torture. Little late, wouldn't you say? Sort of like McCain's flip flop that the fundamentals of our economy were not strong. He finally figured that out, late October 2008.

But I guess better late than never. Now lets put Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld in jail where they belong.

 

[Immanuel]

http://www.navlog.org/iraqinight.wmv

Now that is video of a AC130 Gunship smoking terrorists without a criminal conviction by a US court...


Gray shadows standing next to their vehicle, chatting it up... dropping items suspected of being weapons on the ground; GUILTY... Blown to bits...

Well when you do... be sure to get back to us... as ignoring argument is not a valid means of advancing a contest to that argument.

I certainly hope those were weapons and that they were intended to be used against us and that those were not U.S. Personnel. There definitely did not seem to be a damned bit of proof that any of those conditions were met.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Now lets put Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld in jail where they belong.

Now, with that I have a problem. The President and his Administration were doing what they believe to be correct in order to protect the citizens of the U.S. Now, I disagree that torture is a justifiable resource, but, the mere thought that a President... any President can be prosecuted for doing what they legitimately believe to be the right thing will only endanger American citizens in the future.

I think torture even waterboarding is the wrong avenue to go down, but Presidents have made mistakes before and will make them again. If we were to start prosecuting them either during or after their terms simply because we disagree with them, then they would sit back and take the coward's way out of every situation and in the long run our people would suffer.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well sportsfan, that's fine, but since you're not in a position to judge every situation for yourself, through your own investigation, then this debate is moot... we're debating the principles... and the viability of the policies... not one detainee is going to be spared interrogation or be subject to stress inducement by what's said here...

Funny, I'm not sure you debate anything.

You claim absolute knowledge and authority and deny every reasonable argument against your stance. That is not debating.

Sweet straw man... FAIL

Wrong... You're applying the standards of criminal trial... the detainees are not being held for trial; the interrogations are not designed to gather information which will be used against them at trial... and they most definitely do not enjoy the presumption of innocence...

Wrong, I am applying a standard of human decency.

False... FAIL!

Induce coercive interrogation is just another euphemism for torture.

Strips the concept of context: Straw man: FAIL!

Haha, "believe to", what do you do when the man who has been tortured is found not to have any pertinent information? Hand him a lollipop and say, "No harm, no foul"? If I remember correctly we are even allowing them into the U.S. because they can't go home because their own people will kill them.

Such is the nature of war... which is not to be confused with the nature of criminal prosecution: FAIL!

It's a morally justifiable action and this is without regard to your feelings on the issue.

You have a strange sense of moral justification.

Intentionally strips the argument of context: FAIL!

If you can show where it's NOT morally justified, fine, I'll consider such an argument... but I will not accept any argument which is framed within the context of those detainees being held for criminal trial, or which provides for them, the necessarily high standards common to such.

I have not once claimed they were being held for criminal trial.

You're either an imbecile or a liar; the following position rests on NO OTHER POTENTIAL CLASIFFICATION THAN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTUTION:

Fortunately, we offer the accused human rights in this country. We do not simply assume once accused forever guilty. We offer the accused the very same rights you would expect if you were a prisoner.

Dissembling of the lowest order: FAIL!

You're dismissed...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well when you do... be sure to get back to us... as ignoring argument is not a valid means of advancing a contest to that argument.

I certainly hope those were weapons and that they were intended to be used against us and that those were not U.S. Personnel. There definitely did not seem to be a damned bit of proof that any of those conditions were met.

Immie

This position is a perfect illustration of why these people are not well suited for liberty...

They're ignorant of basic, bed-rock principles and confuse war with criminal prosecution....

In war those determined BY THOSE ON THE SCENE, to be the enemy are presumed guilty... the detainees at Gitmo are presumed guilty... they, like their shattered comrades in that video, are not being arrested and detained for trial... they are not being charged with a crime... the verdict of guilt came down with the declaration which authorized the use of military force; and where the slightest resistance is projected, devastating force will be applied to reduce that resistance to shattered flesh and bone.

This member is guilty of ignorance and the overt attempt to spread that ignorance... and this is why is it ALWAYS a mistake to try and 'wage war the easy way...' without a formal declaration, NOT on a government, but on the people as a whole; where the line is clearly drawn and where those who oppose that effort, are recognized as part and parcel of that enemy... at home and abroad.

Such promotion of the interests of the MASS MURDERING TERRORISTS WHICH WE ARE TREATING WITH KID GLOVES, BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO TEND TO THEIR HUMANITY... with every conceivable consideration being granted to these animals...

Yet that is not enough for this member... ANY means to impart stress on those who have taken action to MURDER INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS IN MASSIVE QUANTITIES... absent a scintilla of justifiable provocation... is too much.

And this fellow board members is how we ended up with a Muslim Marxist, as Commander in Chief of US forces, when the US is at war with Muslim Marxists...

God help us...

 

[Iriemon]

[

FAIL!
FAIL!
FAIL!
FAIL!
FAIL!
FAIL!

You're dismissed...

Six big red fails.

Impressive.

I'll have to give Immie pos rep just on principle for generating that response.

 

[Iriemon]

I certainly hope those were weapons and that they were intended to be used against us and that those were not U.S. Personnel. There definitely did not seem to be a damned bit of proof that any of those conditions were met.

Immie

This position is a perfect illustration of why these people are not well suited for liberty...

They're ignorant of basic, bed-rock principles and confuse war with criminal prosecution....

In war those determined BY THOSE ON THE SCENE, to be the enemy are presumed guilty... the detainees at Gitmo are presumed guilty... they, like their shattered comrades in that video, are not being arrested and detained for trial... they are not being charged with a crime... the verdict of guilt came down with the declaration which authorized the use of military force; and where the slightest resistance is projected, devastating force will be applied to reduce that resistance to shattered flesh and bone.

This member is guilty of ignorance and the overt attempt to spread that ignorance... and this is why is it ALWAYS a mistake to try and 'wage war the easy way...' without a formal declaration, NOT on a government, but on the people as a whole; where the line is clearly drawn and where those who oppose that effort, are recognized as part and parcel of that enemy... at home and abroad.

Such promotion of the interests of the MASS MURDERING TERRORISTS WHICH WE ARE TREATING WITH KID GLOVES, BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO TEND TO THEIR HUMANITY... with every conceivable consideration being granted to these animals...

Yet that is not enough for this member... ANY means to impart stress on those who have taken action to MURDER INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS IN MASSIVE QUANTITIES... absent a scintilla of justifiable provocation... is too much.

And this fellow board members is how we ended up with a Muslim Marxist, as Commander in Chief of US forces, when the US is at war with Muslim Marxists...

God help us...

Does any remember the "General Mandible" played by the voice of Gene Hackman in the animation "Antz"? : )

 

[Immanuel]

I am completely unconcerned that P.I. thinks I have failed in my argument. He has produced nothing at all that proves his contention that our government has the moral authority to torture innocent human beings for any reason whatsoever. Honestly it is sick that he has even tried.

He can continue to brag about his moral authority (which more closely resembles the authority that would come out of hell than heaven) until the cows come home. But the fact remains, that by all standards of human decency his argument is a total flop. There is absolutely no moral authority to torture human beings, innocent or otherwise.

Oh wait, I take that back... Dick Cheney gave us the moral authority to do so... now there is a man of moral character for you.

Immie

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... {PI}has produced nothing at all that proves his contention that our government has the moral authority to torture innocent human beings for any reason whatsoever.

ROFLMNAO

Sweet Mother... a NAKED STRAW-Horse... which is long expired and the beating of which is well beyond the point of potential effectiveness...

"PI", and no American to the best of my knowledge has advocated for the torture of anyone... let alone advanced a contention, that the innocent should be tortured; and the very assertion that the context of the cinrcumstances have been contended to be irrelavant is absurd on its face and recognzied here as little more than an intentional distortion of the facts...

To the contrary... I have no less than 15000 words wherein I have stated that the necessarily high thresholds of criminal prosecution do not apply to war; that the presumption of innocense is at the core of criminal prosecution and that detainees are illegal combatants and that illegal combatants are presumed guilty... that detainment is NOT a function of criminal prosecution, that their interrogation is NOT designed to gather evidence against them and stress induced upon them to coerce thier coming forth with critical time sensitive information which is necessary to spare innocents from the wholesale slaughter purpetrated by the associations which the detainees are reasonably known to be members and have willingly participated in the planning and execution of that slaughter... and finally that the humanely prescribed stress, is NOT PUNISHMENT... and is again, NOT A FUNCTION OF THE US GOVERNMENT TRYING THEM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE US CRIMINAL CODE...

Again, the member comes to advance unbridled deceit as argument; thus her argument: FAILS!

 

[Immanuel]

... {PI}has produced nothing at all that proves his contention that our government has the moral authority to torture innocent human beings for any reason whatsoever.

ROFLMNAO

Sweet Mother... a NAKED STRAW-Horse... which is long expired and the beating of which is well beyond the point of potential effectiveness...

"PI", and no American to the best of my knowledge has advocated for the torture of anyone... let alone advanced a contention, that the innocent should be tortured; and the very assertion that the context of the cinrcumstances have been contended to be irrelavant is absurd on its face and recognzied here as little more than an intentional distortion of the facts...

To the contrary... I have no less than 15000 words wherein I have stated that the necessarily high thresholds of criminal prosecution do not apply to war; that the presumption of innocense is at the core of criminal prosecution and that detainees are illegal combatants and that illegal combatants are presumed guilty... that detainment is NOT a function of criminal prosecution, that their interrogation is NOT designed to gather evidence against them and stress induced upon them to coerce thier coming forth with critical time sensitive information which is necessary to spare innocents from the wholesale slaughter purpetrated by the associations which the detainees are reasonably known to be members and have willingly participated in the planning and execution of that slaughter... and finally that the humanely prescribed stress, is NOT PUNISHMENT... and is again, NOT A FUNCTION OF THE US GOVERNMENT TRYING THEM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE US CRIMINAL CODE...

Again, the member comes to advance unbridled deceit as argument; thus her argument: FAILS!

Oh my God, I can't believe you are still on this strawman bullshit.

Everything you have posted in the thread in the last two days has been a strawman attack of me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

 

[Iriemon]

... {PI}has produced nothing at all that proves his contention that our government has the moral authority to torture innocent human beings for any reason whatsoever.

ROFLMNAO

Sweet Mother... a NAKED STRAW-Horse... which is long expired and the beating of which is well beyond the point of potential effectiveness...

"PI", and no American to the best of my knowledge has advocated for the torture of anyone... let alone advanced a contention, that the innocent should be tortured; and the very assertion that the context of the cinrcumstances have been contended to be irrelavant is absurd on its face and recognzied here as little more than an intentional distortion of the facts...

To the contrary... I have no less than 15000 words wherein I have stated that the necessarily high thresholds of criminal prosecution do not apply to war; that the presumption of innocense is at the core of criminal prosecution and that detainees are illegal combatants and that illegal combatants are presumed guilty... that detainment is NOT a function of criminal prosecution, that their interrogation is NOT designed to gather evidence against them and stress induced upon them to coerce thier coming forth with critical time sensitive information which is necessary to spare innocents from the wholesale slaughter purpetrated by the associations which the detainees are reasonably known to be members and have willingly participated in the planning and execution of that slaughter... and finally that the humanely prescribed stress, is NOT PUNISHMENT... and is again, NOT A FUNCTION OF THE US GOVERNMENT TRYING THEM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE US CRIMINAL CODE...

Again, the member comes to advance unbridled deceit as argument; thus her argument: FAILS!

Oh my God, I can't believe you are still on this strawman bullshit.

Everything you have posted in the thread in the last two days has been a strawman attack of me. Get your head out of your ass.

Immie

You and everyone else who doesn't agree with his view.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Infinite Puberty.........I believe your service to the Marines was done dishonestly.......

Which is to say, you claim it after reading Tom Clancy novels.

You're a putz..............