Secret endorsement of torture

[sirs]

They laugh at you sirs. They love a wimpy Republican.  I mean, they call you a sadistic fascist, and you respond, "Thank you sir may I have another".

I don't know who they are, but trust me Sirs, if there is anyone providing comedic relief here between you and Rich, it isn't you.  Paranoia strikes deep Rich.

Paranoia?  Perhaps.  I just wish he'd stop taking lessons from the knute school of debate.  But thanks for the heads up

They laugh at you sirs. They love a wimpy Republican.

And you think I'm republican, how again?  If you can't even get that right, your added adjective is hardly valid

I mean, they call you a sadistic fascist, and you respond, "Thank you sir may I have another".

People exercising their 1st amendment right to be transparently ignorant & stupid, makes my job so much the easier, that no response is generally even necessary.  I just have to shine a big bright spotlight on it, minus all the shrill personal attacking hyperbole

[Richpo64]

>>I don't know who they are ...<<

You asshole, you are they. Are you going to deny it? Didn't you friend and fellow commie say it?

[Michael Tee]

Rich is performing the impossible - - making sirs look almost sane and normal.  Bravo, Rich.

[sirs]

And if anyone knows insane & abnormal to compare it to, that'd be Tee       

[Michael Tee]

<<And if anyone knows insane & abnormal to compare it to, that'd be Tee  >>

Well, I sure as hell know it now.

[Plane]

People exercising their 1st amendment right to be transparently ignorant & stupid, makes my job so much the easier, that no response is generally even necessary.  I just have to shine a big bright spotlight on it, minus all the shrill personal attacking hyperbole



Well said!

 

[sirs]

Thankee, Plane   

 

[Michael Tee]

<<I just have to shine a big bright spotlight on it . . . >>

Well, that explains it - - I guess your big bright spotlight didn't come with any batteries.

[Plane]

<<Is it [waterboarding] causing any physical damage?...any dismemberment or death?  That would be your answer>>

OK, simple hypothetical question then:  If Americans captured during covert ops in Iran are waterboarded by Iranian intelligence, this is legitimate interrogation technique, no cause for protest?  Or should the Americans protest the waterboarding of their captured Special Forces?

The question is for any member of the group, but given the last posts of sirs and BT, I'm really curious as to how they'd answer.

A cause for rejoicing , that the Al Queda or Iranian interrogation teams would adopt the harshest guidelines that the CIA has ever used .

 If the American captives were getting what American captors were giving there should be no complaining , rather celebrateion over the improvement!

It is meet that the US be held to a higher standard , but not with any pretense that virtue is preserved by the lessor standard. We are held to a higher standard because we are better if we are not actually better then hold us to no higher standard.

I have the feeling that as a subject of public discussion interrogation techniques are going to pick up tighter regulations in the future , but it depends a bit on the public mood , if Americans suffer some notorious abuse our tolerance of our own abuse is likely to loosen.

But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?

[Michael Tee]

<<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>>

Spoken like a man with absolutely no self-respect at all.  Who lets others set his own standards for him.  You're really no better than the boy who says, "Well, Johnny does it all the time."  You need to grow up.

I do not mean to be castigating you personally, plane.  These are the values of many of your countrymen and quite frankly they suck.  They're just not good enough.  You are a nation in steep decline and the moral rot is showing through everywhere.

[Plane]

<<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>>

Spoken like a man with absolutely no self-respect at all.  Who lets others set his own standards for him.  You're really no better than the boy who says, "Well, Johnny does it all the time."  You need to grow up.

I do not mean to be castigating you personally, plane.  These are the values of many of your countrymen and quite frankly they suck.  They're just not good enough.  You are a nation in steep decline and the moral rot is showing through everywhere.

I disagree , in the face of attack we are publicly discussing how well to treat our tormentors.

It is the American way.

[Michael Tee]

<<I disagree , in the face of attack we are publicly discussing how well to treat our tormentors.>>

A slight correction, you seem to be publicly discussing how well or how badly to treat those who are provoked into lashing out against their own tormentors.

However, be that as it may, my comments were directed specifically to your rhetorical question, <<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>> 

Certainly it is legitimate to discuss the treatment of prisoners in any circumstances.  It was not the general discussion that I was taking issue with, but the POV represented by that one question of yours, which I took as a complete abdication of moral responsibility.  You really haven't responded to that.

[Plane]

<<I disagree , in the face of attack we are publicly discussing how well to treat our tormentors.>>

A slight correction, you seem to be publicly discussing how well or how badly to treat those who are provoked into lashing out against their own tormentors.

However, be that as it may, my comments were directed specifically to your rhetorical question, <<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>> 

Certainly it is legitimate to discuss the treatment of prisoners in any circumstances.  It was not the general discussion that I was taking issue with, but the POV represented by that one question of yours, which I took as a complete abdication of moral responsibility.  You really haven't responded to that.

Were we really their tormentors?
When we are at war torment is expected, but the back bone of Al Queda is middle class Saudis who would not even rate third world lower class if not for the USA they were not tormented before they declared war.

If one were to reduce the wealth of the lower half of the worlds  people by half that would be the situation that the world would have if the US were totally isolationist.

If there were more Canadian involvement in rounding up terrorists there would be a Canadian Guantanamo , how would the rules there be diffrent?

I doubt that there could be a prison anywhere more strict on its guards than is Guantanamo.


But there does need to be a way to effectively gather the information that the military and law enforcement legitimately needs . President Bush and his staff set a limit on cruelty ,  as you have noted , earlier administrations did not.


"However, be that as it may, my comments were directed specifically to your rhetorical question, <<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>> 

Certainly it is legitimate to discuss the treatment of prisoners in any circumstances.  It was not the general discussion that I was taking issue with, but the POV represented by that one question of yours, which I took as a complete abdication of moral responsibility.  You really haven't responded to that.

Only if one ignores the rest of the post , I do say as I did say that we should be held to a higher standard because we are better.

For emphasis
I do say as I did say that we should be held to a higher standard because we are objectively better.

Al Queda demonstrates its courage by treating its captives in a beastly way that they are not worried about receiving themselves when they are captured. I certainly do not advocate a competition with them to see which of us can be the more inhuman.

What is your suggestion for a reasonable limit on pressuring or humiliating a prisoner?

[sirs]

<<I just have to shine a big bright spotlight on it . . . >>

Well, that explains it - - I guess your big bright spotlight didn't come with any batteries.

That's because it runs on AC

[Michael Tee]

plane's most recent post:  <<I certainly do not advocate a competition with them [al Qaeda] to see which of us can be the more inhuman.>>

and from his post before that:  <<But really ,what right has any member of Al Quieda to complain untill they are treated worse than they treat their own prisoners?>>


<<What is your suggestion for a reasonable limit on pressuring or humiliating a prisoner?>>

First of all, I would never concern myself about the humiliation of prisoners.  Doesn't do any real harm and I don't think it's going to motivate them in any way other than to fuck you up or piss you off.  Some prisoners deserve to be humiliated.  I recall that the prisoners taken at Stalingrad were marched through the streets of Moscow followed by street-sweeping vehicles which washed and cleansed the streets after the Nazis had defiled them with their presence.  Great theatre, and way less punishment than the bastards deserved.  (They got theirs later in the Siberian slave labour camps, from which only about 5% ever returned.)  Wearing women's panties, getting slapped around - - BFD.  My friend was a prisoner of the Egyptian Army taken during Israel's War of Independence, and his food often included parts of rats' bodies, tails, claws, etc. as well as spit and probably other bodily fluids from their captors.  Didn't seem to do him any real harm.  Soldiers ought to be able to take it.

Did you read BT's post on the "Iwanowski" trick, that the Americans would pretend to be at the point of turning the Nazi over to "the Russians" (actually a mean-looking American officer of Russian descent wearing a Red Army uniform?)   That was hilarious.  I'd say trickery was OK, threatening death was OK, good-cop/bad-cop is OK.  I'd think rewards would work really well - - hookers, dope, money, secure custody, early release.  I'd basically go along with the UN Convention on Torture etc.  If they ban it, I'd ban it.