DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 10, 2008, 12:34:32 AM
-
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=67665
The Unholy Trinity - Death Squads, Disappearances and Torture
Kind of an overview. Good for anyone who still believes the U.S. is a "moral" beacon in a sea of immorality.
The only thing that kind of mildly surprised me was the allegation about Dershowitz - - that he has argued that judges be empowered to issue warrants authorizing torture by the insertion of sterile needles under people's fingernails, so as "to inflict excruciating pain without endangering life."
Am I the only one who is thinking that the U.S. has totally lost its moral compass here? When a professor of LAW can make these arguments?
You know I posted this article without even knowing what to say about it. Just wondering . . . does this disturb anybody? What exactly do my friends on the right think about an article like this? It sure disturbs the hell out of me.
-
It is what it is.
America was founded with blood and it's history is awash with it.
What is surprising is that you find these revelations surprising.
-
<<What is surprising is that you find these revelations surprising.>>
I think what I said about surprises was this: <<The only thing that kind of mildly surprised me was the allegation about Dershowitz . . . >>
<<America was founded with blood and it's history is awash with it. >>
THAT'S IT??? Remarkably tolerant, IMHO. If a gang of Hell's Angels burst into your house, raped all your female relatives, castrated every man and then left after setting the house on fire, you'd just shrug the whole thing off philosophically with a similar comment? "Well, the Hell's Angels MC was founded in violence, so what else can we expect from them?"
You are pulling my leg, of course. What do you REALLY think? Does anybody think there is something wrong with this picture? Steel needles are OK to insert under a guy's nails if they're STERILIZED? This is OK? And the reason it's OK is that America was founded in blood and violence? Either you guys are crazy or I'm crazy.
-
THAT'S IT??? Remarkably tolerant, IMHO. If a gang of Hell's Angels burst into your house, raped all your female relatives, castrated every man and then left after setting the house on fire, you'd just shrug the whole thing off philosophically with a similar comment? "Well, the Hell's Angels MC was founded in violence, so what else can we expect from them?"
Odds are i would return the violence or die trying. We all have our darkside.
What would you do?
-
THAT'S IT??? Remarkably tolerant, IMHO. If a gang of Hell's Angels burst into your house, raped all your female relatives, castrated every man and then left after setting the house on fire, you'd just shrug the whole thing off philosophically with a similar comment? "Well, the Hell's Angels MC was founded in violence, so what else can we expect from them?"
Odds are i would return the violence or die trying. We all have our darkside. What would you do?
He'd negotiate with no preconditions, I'd imagine.
-
<<Odds are i would return the violence or die trying. We all have our darkside.
<<What would you do?>>
Same as you, naturally. But what happened to, "Oh well they were born in violence and blood, what's the big surprise?" Where did all your philosophical laissez-faire go?
-
Where did all your philosophical laissez-faire go?
where do you get laissez-faire from what i posted.
You seem to think America is better than it is. I have no such delusions.
-
<<You seem to think America is better than it is. I have no such delusions.>>
That's not even the point. It sounds like you're perfectly satisfied with it the way that it is.
-
That's not even the point.
Sure it is.
I learned a long time ago to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I have no more control over inner city thugs than i do goon squads in Paraquay.
Come to think of it, neither do you.
-
Accepting things you can't change doesn't mean sitting on your ass and doing nothing about them. You can bust your ass trying; accepting things you can't change just means coming to grips with the fact that you tried and failed.
Besides which, until you try, you don't know what you can change and what you can't. There are millions of people in the anti-war movement right now, busting their ass and suffering defeat every day that the killing goes on. Only time will tell whether they could or could not change things.
According to your theory, George Washington was a schmuck for not accepting what he couldn't change. But he tried, he recruited men of like minds and of course it turned out they COULD change things.
-
I've thought for years that nothing will shock me or outrage me now but when I heard about those checkpoints in DC and the ensuing huzzahs from those on the right about them, I freaked.
That's an infringement on the "presumed innocent" part of our justice system that I thought right-wingers would absolutely shut down immediately but I guess since they probably didn't have to go through that neighborhood, they don't care about rights so much.
-
According to your theory, George Washington was a schmuck for not accepting what he couldn't change. But he tried, he recruited men of like minds and of course it turned out they COULD change things.
You are aware that George Washington was a professional soldier. His job was to fight wars. He had the courage to change the things he could.
My experience with the antiwar movement of the 60-70's was that it was more about sex, than peace love and harmony.
There certainly was more action on the green under the blankets than there was on stage .
-
I've thought for years that nothing will shock me or outrage me now but when I heard about those checkpoints in DC and the ensuing huzzahs from those on the right about them, I freaked.
Doesn't matter what we or the bleacher boys say. What matters is what the residents of the DC war zone neighborhoods say.
I suspect if you son were in danger of being killed by a stray drive by bullet you would welcome a strong police presence in your neighborhood.
-
You seem to think America is better than it is. I have no such delusions.
Then again, there are those of us who think America should be better than it is. That it is not and that some folks in places of authority seem uninterested in that notion is sometimes a bit dismaying.
-
America has been and can be again better than this.
We're torturing and killing people for nothing, for nothing.
Dershowitz has gone into the abyss and drank whatever foulness is in there, decided it was good. He's lost his soul.
-
"Before all else, you must be efficient," said U.S. police adviser Dan Mitrione, assassinated by Uruguay's revolutionary Tupamaros in 1970 for training security forces in the finer points of torture. "You must cause only the damage that is strictly necessary, not a bit more." Mitrione taught by demonstration, reportedly torturing to death a number of homeless people kidnapped off the streets of Montevideo. "We must control our tempers in any case," he said. "You have to act with the efficiency and cleanliness of a surgeon and with the perfection of an artist."
Florencio Caballero, having escaped from Honduras's notorious Battalion 316 into exile in Canada in 1986, testified that U.S. instructors urged him to inflict psychological, not "physical," pain "to study the fears and weakness of a prisoner." Force the victim to "stand up," the Americans taught Caballero, "don't let him sleep, keep him naked and in isolation, put rats and cockroaches in his cell, give him bad food, serve him dead animals, throw cold water on him, change the temperature."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitrione, despite being Frank Sinatra's buddy, was nabbed by the Tupamaros and seems to have gotten a good and fatal dose of his own medicine. Philip Agee's ratting out the CIA was due to what he witnessed in Uruguay.
As for Alan Dershowitz, he is shameless, and has no moral compass whatever. He is an exemplary bad example for all lawyers.
This is why I say that the CIA needs to be abolished.
-
I still remember the Chicago Seed's epitaph for Dan Mitrione - -
"R.I. P. Dan Mitrione - [cartoonish drawing of Dan Mitrione's head with a neat circular hole in his forehead clear through to daylight on the other side] - You will encounter nothing new in Hell."
Doesn't anyone want to draw this out beyond Dershowitz, who is all too obviously an appalling specimen and an embarrassment to Jews everywhere, but would a guy like Dershowitz, always keeping one eye out for his own career and its advancement, have been able to say the things he does in the America of FDR or even JFK? I mean I don't give a shit whether Dershowitz personally lives or dies, but what do his utterances say about America itself? The guy is a law professor, for Gawd's sake! John Yoo is a law professor. WTF is going on?
-
America has been and can be again better than this.
Let's not pretend that all this bad behavior is a new phenomena. T's article shows the lie to that.
-
Then again, there are those of us who think America should be better than it is. That it is not and that some folks in places of authority seem uninterested in that notion is sometimes a bit dismaying.
What we are and what we can be are two different things.
What are your suggestions for getting us from point A to point B.
-
Leadership in the broader sense. Opinion-makers including elected officials, TV talking heads, talk radio hosts, cartoonists . . .
I think JFK contributed his share. His promotion of "unconventional warfare," the romanticizing of the Green Berets - - there was an ethic that glorified success, "winning," at all costs, bending the rules. All facilely justified because "the enemy" (supposedly) was even more ruthless. "We" had to be ruthless because "the enemy" was ruthless. That was the key. The judgment of one's character suddenly slipped from a more absolutist view of right and wrong to the more relativistic one of, "It's OK, as long as you're not the worst one." This was fictionally supported at more or less the same time in the Ian Fleming novels featuring "James Bond," British Special Agent 007, with a "licence to kill." Before Bond, nobody - - or at least none of the good guys - - had a licence to kill.
We have this decayed moral sense because our leaders themselves reflect it. Change those leaders. If they are politicians, vote them out. Morality is a prime qualification. Our leaders reflect us - - if they permit torture, who can keep our own men from being tortured in return? If they are talk show hosts, denounce them, don't buy from their sponsors, DRIVE them off the air. If they teach, walk out when they preach torture and murder. Protest to the administration - - you pay to study law, not to learn criminality. Speak out and act out against this moral rot wherever you find it. Men sacrificed everything so that people like Dershowitz would not rule this planet. The least we can do is denounce the guy and try to make his life a living hell.
I think we (Canada too) need leadership with moral backbone - - REAL morality, not this "abortion is criminal" "gay life-style is wrong" kind of morality. We need someone to say from the top, "Shit like this is WRONG, and it won't be tolerated. I want laws passed that permit capital punishment on offenders. I want the ability to dismiss commanders who let shit like this happen on their watch. Bust 'em down to pfc and they don't get any pension either. This is gonna STOP NOW." THAT is the kind of leadership we need, not someone who denies, minimizes, excuses. Leadership that can make heads roll. Literally.
-
Interesting that you would be as ruthless as the people you condemn.
-
Interesting that you can equate the execution of a torturer with the insertion of steel nails under a person's fingertips. At the beginning of the Revolution, Castro had dozens of guys like that lined up against the stadium walls and shot. Nobody seemed to regard it as any great loss to humanity.
-
It all boils down to a respect for human life, doesn't it. No real difference between torture and a firing squad.
Ruthlessness in pursuit of ideology seems to be the common denominator in all this.
-
Doesn't matter what we or the bleacher boys say. What matters is what the residents of the DC war zone neighborhoods say.
I suspect if you son were in danger of being killed by a stray drive by bullet you would welcome a strong police presence in your neighborhood.
I would NOT, however welcome arbritrary check points for "papehz, pleez" regardless of danger.
-
Are they doing that or just making sure people have legitimate reasons to be in those neighborhoods.
-
Are they doing that or just making sure people have legitimate reasons to be in those neighborhoods.
It's none of their business. You can't just stop any old car for whatever reason the law wants.
-
You can't just stop any old car for whatever reason the law wants.
The courts disagree.
Having said that i understand your concerns.
I also understand the pain of a parent who loses a child to some stray bullet fired by gang bangers fighting over drug concessions in a tiny piece of turf.
Which right outweighs the other?
And please don't take the cop out of drugs should be legal. They aren't. And people are dying taking them or fighting over the profits from them.
-
<<No real difference between torture and a firing squad. >>
No sarcasm at all intended, but I really just find it very interesting that you can say that. I am sure that most people subjected to real torture of the kind that Dershowitz is advocating would prefer death. This is the reason that cyanide pills are handed to agents who need to go behind enemy lines. Although there are many people in Western society who have gone on public record as authorizing executions by firing squad or other means, I know of none who would want to go on record as authorizing Dershowitz-type torture for anyone.
I see a huge difference between ordering someone to be shot, which is relatively painless and often necessary, and ordering steel needles to be inserted under someone's fingernails - - basically, I would easily order the death of a torturer, no matter whose side he was working on, whereas I have no opinion about the morality of a firing squad until I first learn who was shot by whom and what for.
But I don't think this is something that we could ever settle by argument. This is just something that I see and feel in my bones and my gut, and something that you just don't see that way.
-
I'll just add one more thing to my last post - - the difference is one of empathy. I can feel the pain of the torture victim and understand how much worse it is than that of a firing-squad victim. The torture is prolonged and endless. The firing squad kills almost instantly. It's because you can't feel the pain of the torture victim that you can equate torture with the firing squad - - from you're POV, they are both "ruthless," so where's the difference?
IMHO, this is one of the main reasons why liberals are so much better human beings than conservatives. Liberals can really put themselves in the other guy's shoes, conservatives just don't give a shit.
-
IMHO, this is one of the main reasons why liberals are so much better human beings than conservatives. Liberals can really put themselves in the other guy's shoes
Just so long it's another liberal/socialist/communist in those shoes, of course
::)
-
What we are and what we can be are two different things.
Quite.
What are your suggestions for getting us from point A to point B.
Well, for starters we could stop trying to justify torturing people.
Are they doing that or just making sure people have legitimate reasons to be in those neighborhoods.
Legitimate according to whom?
-
IMHO, this is one of the main reasons why liberals are so much better human beings than conservatives. Liberals can really put themselves in the other guy's shoes, conservatives just don't give a shit.
Better human beings? Nonsense. Or, better said, adult male bovine excrement. The whole "only liberals really care" bit is intellectually dishonest in every way.
-
Well, for starters we could stop trying to justify torturing people.
Who is justifying torture?
-
Who is justifying torture?
Alan Dershowitz
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Juniorbush
among others.
-
<<Better human beings? Nonsense. Or, better said, adult male bovine excrement. The whole "only liberals really care" bit is intellectually dishonest in every way.>>
Look through these threads yourself. And I'll go beyond these threads too - - conservatives don't give a shit. Look at BT - - torture is NBD, we're violent people, deal with it. Torture's no worse than a firing squad. The people who are horrified by a Dershowitz or a John Yoo are liberals, never conservatives. "Intellectually dishonest," my ass. Intellectual dishonesty is denying the truth that stares you right in the face.
-
Who is justifying torture?
Apparently the current administration is.
-
Look through these threads yourself. And I'll go beyond these threads too - - conservatives don't give a shit. Look at BT - - torture is NBD, we're violent people, deal with it. Torture's no worse than a firing squad. The people who are horrified by a Dershowitz or a John Yoo are liberals, never conservatives. "Intellectually dishonest," my ass. Intellectual dishonesty is denying the truth that stares you right in the face.
While I'm sure some people find it easy to make conservatives out to be Saturday morning cartoon villains, I don't do that. And your "look through these threads" argument is not persuasive. Particularly coming from someone who justifies Stalin's more draconian tactics. There are conservatives who don't approve of torture even if you don't know them personally. This whole "liberals are better people" bit is just nonsense. It reminds me of the "Muslims are out to destroy the West" bit. Oh, where are Muslims condemning terrorist actions? Where are conservatives condemning torture? Oh, oh, look at us, aren't we better people? No, you're not. Put some ice on that ego before it explodes and makes a mess over everything.
-
,,While I'm sure some people find it easy to make conservatives out to be Saturday morning cartoon villains, I don't do that. ..
So what do you want, a gold star for moral blindness?
The victims of their failed policies, the millions of dead Vietnamese, the hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs, testify more to their works than anything you could ever say in their defence.
<<And your "look through these threads" argument is not persuasive. Particularly coming from someone who justifies Stalin's more draconian tactics. >>
Really? Perhaps you could show me once, just once, where I EVER justified torture. I'll save you the trouble - - you can't. You are just blowing smoke.
<<There are conservatives who don't approve of torture even if you don't know them personally. >>
Yeah. They must be the "silent majority" of conservatives. Apart from sirs, who once, when pressed to the wall, finally had to disavow some of the most extreme forms of torture, I don't recall a single conservative in this forum come out and denounce the practice. They'll minimize it, deny it exits, try to pin it on a tiny rogue minority or otherwise try to make the entire issue disappear.
<<This whole "liberals are better people" bit is just nonsense. >>
OF COURSE, they're better people. They're the only ones who really give a shit about their fellow man. Conservatives try to make a show of their "giving to charity" which is basically a few band-aids thrown at a problem, never any attempt to solve it systematically.
<<It reminds me of the "Muslims are out to destroy the West" bit. >>
Not my fault that you can't distinguish between statements that are generally true and hysterical fear-mongering nonsense.
<<Oh, where are Muslims condemning terrorist actions? Where are conservatives condemning torture? >>
Yeah, good question, where ARE they? Since their country is now one of the leading practitioners, since even some of their law school professors are in favour of it, WHERE ARE all those conservatives who are so adamantly opposed to torture/
<<Oh, oh, look at us, aren't we better people? No, you're not. >>
The temptation to reply "Are too" is almost irresistible, but I'll make some effort and try to keep this on a more or less intellectual plane. By forgetting that you made that "argument."
<<Put some ice on that ego before it explodes and makes a mess over everything.>>
And I'll forget that one, too.
-
Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?
What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.
-
So what do you want, a gold star for moral blindness?
It's not moral blindness to think beyond your silly categorizing. Just the opposite in fact.
The victims of their failed policies, the millions of dead Vietnamese, the hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs, testify more to their works than anything you could ever say in their defence.
Vietnamese? As I recall, President Johnson was not a conservative. And again, you're a guy who defends Stalin's regime killing people in the name of protecting "the Revolution", so your stance is weak at best.
Really? Perhaps you could show me once, just once, where I EVER justified torture. I'll save you the trouble - - you can't. You are just blowing smoke.
I didn't say you justified torture. But let's be clear, "if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep" is not really putting oneself in the other guy's shoes. It's callous to say the least. But you like it.
Yeah. They must be the "silent majority" of conservatives. Apart from sirs, who once, when pressed to the wall, finally had to disavow some of the most extreme forms of torture, I don't recall a single conservative in this forum come out and denounce the practice. They'll minimize it, deny it exits, try to pin it on a tiny rogue minority or otherwise try to make the entire issue disappear.
Well, obviously you missed the Republican Presidential debates.
OF COURSE, [liberal are] better people. They're the only ones who really give a shit about their fellow man. Conservatives try to make a show of their "giving to charity" which is basically a few band-aids thrown at a problem, never any attempt to solve it systematically.
More completely self-righteous nonsense.
Not my fault that you can't distinguish between statements that are generally true and hysterical fear-mongering nonsense.
That's just it though, I can. And I did.
Yeah, good question, where ARE they? Since their country is now one of the leading practitioners, since even some of their law school professors are in favour of it, WHERE ARE all those conservatives who are so adamantly opposed to torture/
One of them is running for President.
The temptation to reply "Are too" is almost irresistible, but I'll make some effort and try to keep this on a more or less intellectual plane. By forgetting that you made that "argument."
First, you left the intellectual plane when you started with the "liberal are better people" bit. Second, it wasn't an argument. It was a chastisement.
-
<<One of them [conservatives against torture] is running for President.>>
NEWSFLASH - McSame reversed his original opposition to allowing the President to determine what is or isn't torture and signed on to a bill that effectively puts the President above the law where torture is concerned, since the law will be whatever he says it it.
-
NEWSFLASH - McSame reversed his original opposition to allowing the President to determine what is or isn't torture and signed on to a bill that effectively puts the President above the law where torture is concerned, since the law will be whatever he says it it.
I didn't say he wasn't a politician. I'm not even a McCain supporter. He's still against torture.
-
Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?
What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.
Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate. I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_57/ai_n16520067/pg_1
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#torture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Victim_Protection_Act_(1992)
[]
'...................U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441). The act defines a war crime as any grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as torture or inhuman treatment) or any violation of
common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which not only includes torture, but also ?outrages upon personal dignity? and ?humiliating and degrading treatment?). Penalties include fines or imprisonment for life or any term of years, and the death penalty if death results to the victim.
Contractors, such as those serving as military interrogators, could also be prosecuted under the federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340), which prohibits torture by anyone who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim's death.
Contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA was enacted in 2000 primarily to protect U.S. soldiers and their dependents on U.S. bases abroad, who became victims of crimes committed by military contractors with effective immunity from prosecution.'
[]
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-Policy-Weapons-346/Military-policy-concerning-prosecution.htm
And that's just from a very quick google search.
-
Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?
What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.
Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate. I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
....................................
And that's just from a very quick google search.
Yes but, the CIA has always had this habit and has exercisd it before.
Which of these articles is about the actual thing that Bush did?
President Bush and staff were presented witha list of things that might be done , mostly things that had been done, and Bush and Cheny struck some of the things down shortining the list.
-
Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?
What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.
Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate. I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
....................................
And that's just from a very quick google search.
Yes but, the CIA has always had this habit and has exercisd it before.
Which of these articles is about the actual thing that Bush did?
President Bush and staff were presented witha list of things that might be done , mostly things that had been done, and Bush and Cheny struck some of the things down shortining the list.
Link please? Thanks.
-
Is there some evidence somewhere , that with Liberals in the Whitehouse or Congress or the CIA management , that torture is restricted more than The present administration restricts it?
What got George Bush into troubble was signing off on some new restrictions , not inventing waterboarding.
Plane, you mention this time after time, this "Bush signing off on some new restrictions" and it's not accurate. I believe I have cited chapter and verse before but here are a few cites:
....................................
And that's just from a very quick google search.
Yes but, the CIA has always had this habit and has exercisd it before.
Which of these articles is about the actual thing that Bush did?
President Bush and staff were presented witha list of things that might be done , mostly things that had been done, and Bush and Cheny struck some of the things down shortining the list.
Link please? Thanks.
Use your own links , though they are numerous , do any of them say that waterboarding or even beating was not used before President Bush?
-
Use your own links , though they are numerous , do any of them say that waterboarding or even beating was not used before President Bush?
====================
What the Hell is your point? That somehow torture is just because someone did it before Juniorbush, and that makes it humane and they should keep right on torturing?
Juniorbush was wrong to approve torture and so was everyone else.
===========================
I suppose your defense from a parking ticket would be to round up everyone who failed to put money in the meter before you.
-
Use your own links , though they are numerous , do any of them say that waterboarding or even beating was not used before President Bush?
====================
What the Hell is your point? That somehow torture is just because someone did it before Juniorbush, and that makes it humane and they should keep right on torturing?
Juniorbush was wrong to approve torture and so was everyone else.
===========================
I suppose your defense from a parking ticket would be to round up everyone who failed to put money in the meter before you.
In what respect was George Bush putting in place policys that increasde torture?
In what respect was he putting in place policys that reduced torture?
What amount of this has been pretty much unchanged , but id getting discussion for political reason?
-
What amount of this has been pretty much unchanged , but id getting discussion for political reason?
======================================
What does this mean?