The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Tue Nov 26, 2024 9:45 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Even with your (misguided) views on Cheney's actions and/or authority on these matters, I would expect that you would not be throwing around comments or jokes at his expense regarding his poor health or death. Nobody would suggest that liberals should organize a vigil or group prayer for Cheney, but the reaction I am seeing is just childish, spiteful, and disgusting.


Fair enough. I don't read DailyKos for that exact reason, so I don't want to inadvertently align myself with the childish vitriol.

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Anyway, I hold Congress far more culpable than Cheney for the torture. He defended his views as legal. Where was the challenge to this? The impotence of the Congress in stopping what they claimed at least that they did not support is inexcusable. I find it hard to fault Cheney for his views if nobody even mounted a serious challenge.


I take the opposite approach in that I fault Cheney and Congress. I'd like to see Pelosi in the dock right next to Cheney when the war crimes charges are brought. That said, I hold Cheney in particular contempt because he was the driving force behind it all, whereas Pelosi et al were passive accessories.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:13 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Cheney is not "betraying American values." We did far worse **** than waterboarding to people in the 60s and 70s, some even to US citizens.


Can you provide examples, Xeq? My understanding is that this is the first time we've had a widespread system of abuses, secret prisons, and legal maneuvering to try and normalize it all.


What's your point? As far as the administration claimed, it was all perfectly legal, and a review of the laws in question, especially the one defining torture, reveals it to be so vague as to be of questionable Constitutionality; a topic we covered in detail during your absence on the previous edition.

"Legal maneuvering" is just a predjudicial term for someone making legal arguments you don't like. As for "abuse", that's similarly using predjudicial language to beg the question of whether something was improper. The distasteful nature of something to some people doesn't make it inherently illegal, improper, or even ill-advised.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
I don't think Obizzle has changed much of those things in the year or so he's been HDIC.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
RangerDave wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Cheney is not "betraying American values." We did far worse **** than waterboarding to people in the 60s and 70s, some even to US citizens.


Can you provide examples, Xeq? My understanding is that this is the first time we've had a widespread system of abuses, secret prisons, and legal maneuvering to try and normalize it all.


http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
DE,

I've learned from experience that this is one issue I find too infuriating to argue piecemeal. There's a ton of misinformation out there, and people are (understandably) invested in refusing to see how terrible the things our government did really are. As a result, it takes an enormous amount of time to counter each individual point as it comes up, and the conversation inevitably bogs down in side-arguments.

One of these days, when I have the time, I plan to put together a longish post that summarizes the abuses that were committed, the improper means by which they were authorized, and the speciousness of the legal arguments attempting to justify them. For now, though, let's just agree to disagree.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:40 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
RangerDave:

And there is just as much misinformation from your point of view as the other. The fact is the government did what the government did, and Obama is continuing pretty much whatever it was the government did.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
RangerDave wrote:
IOne of these days, when I have the time, I plan to put together a longish post that summarizes the abuses that were committed, the improper means by which they were authorized, and the speciousness of the legal arguments attempting to justify them. For now, though, let's just agree to disagree.

With all due respect, do you think you have some source of information comprehensive and authoritative enough to change beliefs folks now hold after the volume and years of exposure to information that have formed whatever position one may now hold on this subject?

I'd not want you to think I'm saying this to discourage you from doing so, but I would not want you to go to any great effort to try to persuade me to your position, mainly because the deeds are done and the past is behind us...and I don't think you'll be able to present the evidence necessary to influence me.

Unless you have a personal reason for doing so, then I say "go for it"!
Khross wrote:
The fact is the government did what the government did, and Obama is continuing pretty much whatever it was the government did.
And my opinion is, the government did what it did because it felt it necessary to do to fulfill what it believes are it's obligations to the people.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Last edited by Taskiss on Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Khross wrote:
RangerDave:

And there is just as much misinformation from your point of view as the other. The fact is the government did what the government did, and Obama is continuing pretty much whatever it was the government did.


Very true, though it appears Obama has discontinued the use of torture techniques (i.e. EITs) for the time being. Of course, he and his Justice Department are doing everything they can to retain the authority to commit similar actions in the future, so he gets virtually no points from me on that score. Indeed, Obama is currently in violation of our treaty obligations for refusing to investigate and prosecute the credible allegations of torture that exist. In my opinion, it's an abysmal failure of morality and leadership on his part, and I hope history will judge him very harshly for it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Ave Bossa Nova! Similis Duci Seneca!

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Taskiss wrote:
With all due respect, do you think you have some source of information comprehensive and authoritative enough to change beliefs folks now hold after the volume and years of exposure to information that have formed whatever position one may now hold on this subject? ... Unless you have a personal reason for doing so, then I say "go for it"!



Probably not, Taskiss, but I generally find comprehensive reviews helpful in identifying the biases and errors that tend to accumulate in my own thinking over the years. Who knows, maybe in putting together the review, I'll find out my own perspective on the subject is excessive.

As for personal reasons, I feel very strongly about this issue and it comes up fairly often in conversation, but I don't really have the details committed to memory, so I'd like to have a concise but comprehensive summary of things for my own reference.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
DE,

I've learned from experience that this is one issue I find too infuriating to argue piecemeal. There's a ton of misinformation out there, and people are (understandably) invested in refusing to see how terrible the things our government did really are. As a result, it takes an enormous amount of time to counter each individual point as it comes up, and the conversation inevitably bogs down in side-arguments.


As opposed to those who are invested in seeing things as somehow terrible and awful?

One of these days, when I have the time, I plan to put together a longish post that summarizes the abuses that were committed, the improper means by which they were authorized, and the speciousness of the legal arguments attempting to justify them. For now, though, let's just agree to disagree.[/quote]

No, let's not agree to disagree. We've been hearing this horseshit for ages. The entire thing comes down to a pesumption that things are abuses and then simply dismissing any argument that they're legal as "specious" or whatever. It always comes down to simply being outraged that there's any legal argument at all.

The fact of the matter is that things don't magically become illegal in this country because some people find them abusive, wrong, distatseful, or whatever. Nor do legal defenses of them suddenly become "specious" or anything else. This is exactly the same line of crap that we see in rape cases, where we've got activists loudly screaming that the defendant is guilty because they just can't grasp that the victim might be lying, and on occasion we've been treated to the spectacle of these people claiming that the burden of proof ought to be on the defendant in sex cases, and even in child support cases.

The way the legal system in this country works is that you have to have probable cause to charge someone with a crime, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. You also can't get either of those things by simply dismissing any defense as "specious" or whatever, nor does anyone's belief about what should be legal matter.

Quote:
Very true, though it appears Obama has discontinued the use of torture techniques (i.e. EITs) for the time being. Of course, he and his Justice Department are doing everything they can to retain the authority to commit similar actions in the future, so he gets virtually no points from me on that score. Indeed, Obama is currently in violation of our treaty obligations for refusing to investigate and prosecute the credible allegations of torture that exist. In my opinion, it's an abysmal failure of morality and leadership on his part, and I hope history will judge him very harshly for it.


This is precisely what I'm talking about. It's simply bare assertion that the techniques in question are torture, and presuming the illegality of what was done based on moral outrage. Indeed, we cannot be in violation of any treaty on torture until it has been established that any was committed, and any treaty or legal definition of "torture" I've seen, in an attempt to avoid a laundry list of "don't do's" has a definition of torture that is A) absurdly broad and vague and B) seems to be nothing more than the fantasy of euro-wankers at the U.N. who think anyone in captivity for any reason is entitled to be trated as a country club patron.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
I meant "agree to disagree" for now, since I don't have time to engage you on the subject right now, but I promise I will do so as soon as I can. In the meantime, though, I can't pretend I don't believe our government systematically committed torture and used specious legal arguments to provide themselves with just enough political cover to get away with it. Saying "Enhanced Interrogation" feels like an Orwellian lie to me, and I can't bring myself to do it.

If you do have time to engage the subject a bit, though, I'd appreciate it if you'd specify what points you'd like me to address. For instance, based on what you just wrote, it obviously appears that you think the the vagueness of the legal standard is problematic. Anything else in particular? Do you question the facts (i.e. what we did), the characterization of those facts (i.e. was it abuse/torture in a moral or historical sense), the legal ramifications (i.e. whether it was against the law), etc.?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Hopwin wrote:
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm


Yeah, those are both pretty appalling, but my (admittedly only semi-informed) impression of them is that they lacked the veneer of legitimacy and official sanction that the current detainee/interrogation policies have been given. They were classic spy-thriller abuses that everyone knew could never survive public scrutiny, whereas the Bush Administration (and now the Obama Administration in some cases) tried, very successfully unfortunately, to shift the official boundaries of how this country treats its prisoners.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:19 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
I meant "agree to disagree" for now, since I don't have time to engage you on the subject right now, but I promise I will do so as soon as I can. In the meantime, though, I can't pretend I don't believe our government systematically committed torture and used specious legal arguments to provide themselves with just enough political cover to get away with it. Saying "Enhanced Interrogation" feels like an Orwellian lie to me, and I can't bring myself to do it.


Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but this crap about "Orwellianlies" is just that - crap. You can't just call it torture and then claim any argument or classification to the contrary is "Orwellian" or "specious legal arguments" or "political cover" - all you're doing then is begging the question which is poor logic at best and an attempt to circumvent legal burden to railroad a conviction at worst.

Quote:
If you do have time to engage the subject a bit, though, I'd appreciate it if you'd specify what points you'd like me to address. For instance, based on what you just wrote, it obviously appears that you think the the vagueness of the legal standard is problematic. Anything else in particular? Do you question the facts (i.e. what we did), the characterization of those facts (i.e. was it abuse/torture in a moral or historical sense), the legal ramifications (i.e. whether it was against the law), etc.?


As far as I'm concerned there are 3 insurmountable problems with alledging "torture":

1) Every legal standard of torture, in an obvious attempt to avoid a laundry list of tortures (which would, of course, have its own problems) tries to create some catch-all. For example the UN definition:

Quote:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.


could be read so as to prohibit imprisoning people, because it can cause "severe mental suffering". It attempts to get around this by claiming that things inherent in "lawful sanctions" are excepted, but then we're reduced to an absurd situation where all you have to do is legalize something and it meets the exception, or conversely where nothing is ever excepted because its cause of "severe pain or suffering" (itself highly subjective) prevents it being legalized.

I have seen no definition that has significant advantages over the UN definition in terms of usefulness or clarity.

2) I know of no technique that has been used that is not also used on trainees at variosu SERE-type courses - including waterboarding. In fact, we've seen people subject themselves to waterboarding for various public stunts; there is even pornograpghy that includes roughly similar acts. I consider this an insurmountable problem for the "torture" argument; torture refers in part to the severity of an act. Any act that is safe enough to be used on trainees really cannot be defined as torture without using definitions that suffer from the same open-ended uselessness as in 1) above.

3) Insofar as legal justification is concerned, the fact of the matter is that there have been legal arguments made that indicate whatever was done, was, in fact, legal, and so far the only arguments against them have been simply outraged spluttering that "ZOMG Bush Administration lawyers are justifying torture!!" Ok, well either they're saying yes, its torture legally, but there's such-and-such exception, or they're saying it isn't torture in the first place. Any argument that's it's A) torture or B) illegal can't be based on simple outrage that something "obviously" torture or "obviously" illegal is so.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Maybe we should just throw it all out and *really* torture people. Like real marquis de sade stuff ya know?

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:43 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
RangerDave wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm


Yeah, those are both pretty appalling, but my (admittedly only semi-informed) impression of them is that they lacked the veneer of legitimacy and official sanction that the current detainee/interrogation policies have been given. They were classic spy-thriller abuses that everyone knew could never survive public scrutiny, whereas the Bush Administration (and now the Obama Administration in some cases) tried, very successfully unfortunately, to shift the official boundaries of how this country treats its prisoners.


There was no need to apply any veneer of legitimacy because they were kept secret until people didn't care anymore.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group