Mukasey on Torture

[Michael Tee]

You know it's both comical and pathetic how the right tries to manipulate the discussion on torture.  First of all, sirs, with his demand that we demonstrate American-run torture chambers.  As if delivering a guy up to be tortured by foreigners would constitute any defence to a charge of torture, any better than hiring a hit on your spouse would insulate anyone from a charge of murder.  Then (when the absurdity of sirs' "the Egyptians did it" defence fails, BT, the other half of the tag team from Looneyville, pipes up with the all-purpose "Clinton did it first!" defence, which corresponds in the demented world of right-wing insanity to the "I'm not the first guy to have robbed a bank" defence of the bank robber.  If a movie is ever made of the defence of torture by the Bush administration, I suggest that the arguments be delivered by Three Stooges impersonators with background music from the original films.

Listening to these two guys defend torture (it's just head-slapping and similar hi-jinks, ignoring the fact that over fifty prisoners have DIED  under U.S. interrogation - - and that's just the number they admit to in U.S. custody, not even pretending to cover the deaths following rendition to third countries) is sorta the prelude to sirs' final "defence" - - that al Qaeda is even worse.  (Would that it were so!)

Honestly, one doesn't know whether to laugh or vomit.

[sirs]

You know it's both comical and pathetic how the right tries to manipulate the discussion on torture.  First of all, sirs, with his demand that we demonstrate American-run torture chambers. 

Actually, that was TEE's accusation, not a "we" accusation, so only TEE was being asked to provide evidence of what he was accusing the U.S. of.  The fact we still haven't see such demonstrates just how bogus the accusation was in the 1st place.

[BT]

Mikey,

Where have i defended torture. I simply stated a historic fact.

It was started by Clinton. It was overseen by Michael Scheurer of Imperial Hubris fame.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . that was TEE's accusation, not a "we" accusation, so only TEE was being asked to provide evidence of what he was accusing the U.S. of.  The fact we still haven't see such demonstrates just how bogus the accusation was in the 1st place.>>

What's bogus is your demand that anyone demonstrate the torture chambers be American-run.  The whole point of outsourcing the torture to third countries is precisely to avoid accusations that Americans run torture chambers.  Why it's important to avoid the accusation, when it's already known that they did run torture chambers in Abu Ghraib and other places, only an expert in the delusional psychopathology of the right-wing war criminal would be able to know.  But even playing the game, what's bogus is to claim that by not running the torture chambers themselves, the Americans who deliver their prisoners to them for torture can avoid being guilty of torture, merely because they hired someone else to do the dirty work for them.  That's more than bogus, it's crazy.

[sirs]

<< . . . that was TEE's accusation, not a "we" accusation, so only TEE was being asked to provide evidence of what he was accusing the U.S. of.  The fact we still haven't see such demonstrates just how bogus the accusation was in the 1st place.>>

What's bogus is your demand that anyone demonstrate the torture chambers be American-run.

LOL.....BECAUSE YOU WERE THE ONE CLAIMING IT

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey,

<<Where have i defended torture. I simply stated a historic fact.

<<It was started by Clinton. It was overseen by Michael Scheurer of Imperial Hubris fame.>>

So Clinton's a war criminal too.  Big deal.  What is the point?  If not Clinton, somebody else was a torturer before him.  Louis XIV for example.  Why not bring up Louis XIV?  Why not the Roman Emperors Caligula or Nero?

Bush is responsible for people being tortured as we speak.  Clinton has already had his day.  While it's important to punish all torturers (including Clinton) it's more important to stop the ones who are still having people tortured.  That's where the complaints need to go.

[BT]

So Clinton's a war criminal too.  Big deal.  What is the point?

The point is YOU accused me of defending torture as the other half of some fevered looneytunes duo , and i didn't.

And i expect you to set the record straight.

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL.....BECAUSE YOU WERE THE ONE CLAIMING IT [that the third country torture chambers were American-run]>>

We don't know much about the torture chambers to which the Americans are delivering their prisoners for torture, although we do have some first-hand stories of the process from such victims as Maher Arar.  Most sane and normal people would be more concerned about Americans being responsible for torture by the process of rendition, turning prisoners over to be tortured for them, rather than by who actually was running the torture chamber where all this was happening.

I guess your endless ability to be sidetracked by non-issues is just one more indication of your unfitness for rational thought.  If you were the judge in a contract killing case, undoubtedly you would not consider both the hit-man and the guy who hired him to be equally guilty, which is another demonstration of your unsound judgment.

While most normal folks would be disturbed at the idea of a prisoner being delivered over to be tortured, you seem to be focused on the fact that the people who deliver the prisoner are not the people who are administering the torture - - as if this makes one less guilty than the others.  Thank you for an excellent demonstration of your bizarre and disturbing powers of judgment, your "moral imbecility" which renders your judgments so laughably absurd and irrelevant.

[Michael Tee]

<<The point is YOU accused me of defending torture as the other half of some fevered looneytunes duo , and i didn't.>>

Well, what was your point in merely "stating a historic point?"  There are a lot of random historic points one could mentioned after the posts that Lanya and I had put up.  What was your reason for selecting that particular historic point?  The only reason that I can see is that it takes some of the blame off of Bush.  "Clinton did it too."

Was there any other reason that you picked that particular "historic point" of all possible historic points to mention at that juncture in the thread?

<<And i expect you to set the record straight. >>

Well, that depends, I'd like to know why you brought that up, if not in defence of Bush. 

Also, would you have any objection to both of them being charged with crimes against humanity if Clinton initiated the policy, as you claim, and Bush continued it?

[sirs]

So in a nut shell (pun intended) Tee's accusatory freefall went from Americans and their secret torture chambers --> Americans and their foreign run torture chambers --> Americans supporting foreign run torture chambers --> Americans should know better --> "we don't know much"

And your endless ability at being unable to substantiate with facts, this littany of Evil Gestapo Amerikka activity, is sincerely appreciated

[BT]

Well, that depends, I'd like to know why you brought that up, if not in defence of Bush.

Context

[Lanya]

[So, if we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our US soldiers during WW2, do you think maybe we thought waterboarding was torture?  I kinda think so.]

Dems Give Mukasey a Waterboarding Primer
By Spencer Ackerman - October 23, 2007, 3:19PM

In response to Michael Mukasey's professed ignorance as to what waterboarding is, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Mukasey a detailed primer on the centuries-old torture technique. It includes some surprising historical details: did you know, for instance, that during the occupation of Japan, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?

You can read the letter here. But we thought we should do our part to educate Mukasey as well. So here's a waterboarding reenactment, courtesy of Keith Olbermann:

The Senators write, "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?" During the hearing, Mukasey would only reply: "If it amounts to torture, then it is not Constitutional."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/michael_mukasey/

[Lanya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-NkVJ9D4I

[BT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-NkVJ9D4I

Has anyone one denied that extraordinary rendition exists?

[Michael Tee]

<<So in a nut shell (pun intended) Tee's accusatory freefall went from Americans and their secret torture chambers>>

Waiting on the results of the Diego Garcia all-party British Parliamentary inquiry

<< --> Americans and their foreign run torture chambers >>

Same thing as the American secret torture chambers; really you should put SOME effort into reading for comprehension

<<--> Americans supporting foreign run torture chambers>>

Uh, no, you skipped, "Americans DELIVERING prisoners FOR TORTURE to foreign torture chambers; the crux of the whole accusation

<< --> Americans should know better --> "we don't know much">>

Nope.  In this particular thread, there's no need to even reach for "should know" and "don't know" - - it's damning enough that they do what they do.  It's a crime against humanity and a violation of the Convention Against Torture.

We're still at the one crucial accusation you completely left out of your imaginary "free-fall" - - but nice try.  If there were a Nobel Prize for mendacity and mis-stating other people's arguments, you'd be a serious contender, sirs. 

I do want to thank you, though, for a textbook illustration of how a valid argument can be re-stated with one crucial omission and then "debated" by you.  In effect, you create from my argument, an argument of your own, missing all the key points, and then proceed to debate the altered argument.  You must find it very amusing.  I would think everyone else in the group can see through the trick, but just in case not, let me remind you what the accusation really is:

That the U.S. delivers prisoners to be tortured in third country torture chambers.  Seems simple enough.  Want to debate it?  Or do you prefer to debate your own carefully hand-crafted "leftist" arguments?