2
   

Condi Rice Goes to Europe!

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Dec, 2005 06:31 am
Quote:
The Torture Administration
by ANTHONY LEWIS

[from the December 26, 2005 issue]

When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933 and proceeded to carry out their savagery, many in the outside world asked how this could have happened in the land of Goethe and Beethoven. Would the people of other societies as readily accept tyranny? Sinclair Lewis, in 1935, imagined Americans turning to dictatorship under the pressures of economic distress in the Depression. He called his novel, ironically, It Can't Happen Here.

Hannah Arendt and many others have stripped us, since then, of confidence that people will resist evil in times of fear. When Serbs and Rwandan Hutus were told that they were threatened, they slaughtered their neighbors. Lately Philip Roth was plausible enough when he imagined anti-Semitism surging after an isolationist America elected Charles Lindbergh as President in 1940.

But it still comes as a shock to discover that American leaders will open the way for the torture of prisoners, that lawyers will invent justifications for it, that the President of the United States will strenuously resist legislation prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners--and that much of the American public will be indifferent to what is being done in its name.
full article
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Dec, 2005 08:37 am
Quote:
The Pentagon's chief adviser on detainee issues is leaving to take a high-level policy job at the State Department, administration officials said on Saturday...

Since filling a position created nearly two years ago to help correct the damage caused by the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, Mr. Waxman has repeatedly clashed with top aides to Vice President Dick Cheney and senior Pentagon officials. These have included Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, and William J. Haynes II, the department's general counsel, who have pushed to limit the rights of terror suspects and other detainees.

Several weeks ago, David S. Addington, who was then Mr. Cheney's counsel, assailed Mr. Waxman during a briefing, objecting to his insistence that a new set of Pentagon standards for handling terror suspects adopt language from the Geneva Conventions barring cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/politics/11detainee.html
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 10:50 am
blatham wrote:
Cosistency is often held up as an intellectual virtue and you surely are consistently shallow. Your celebratory self-pride is noted.


My support of a policy that you abhor doesn't make me shallow.

While I am certainly not ashamed of myself, I am not sure what "self-pride" you are talking about.



blatham wrote:
Shall we just leave it there or do you wish to draw law and international codes (or national codes, for all that) under your consistent personally-gratified umbrella?


I'll discuss the law if you wish.

I already know that the torture I support is illegal, however.



blatham wrote:
Address or ignore, as might be your want, the trust you demonstrate in the CIA (or, of course, the private contractor working for the CIA) to establish who among the questionably-complexioned folk they roust up are clearly deserving the fun torture even without the benefit of any legal proceding.


I think that they have a pretty good chance of correctly identifying the handful of senior members of al-Qa'ida who I wish to suffer.

The mistaken identity cases have all been suspected of being lower-ranked figures. (I think. Maybe I'm wrong on that.)

I could care less about complexion. I'd still want to yank Osama's guts out with a meat hook if his skin was purple with pink polka dots.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 02:43 pm
oralloy wrote:
More than once I've drifted to sleep in a warm bed while enjoying the pleasant thought that at that very moment Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was somewhere undergoing sleep deprivation in a very cold room.

I am reluctant to criticize whatever works for you, but have you ever considered counting (and then torturing) sheep instead?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Dec, 2005 10:51 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
More than once I've drifted to sleep in a warm bed while enjoying the pleasant thought that at that very moment Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was somewhere undergoing sleep deprivation in a very cold room.

I am reluctant to criticize whatever works for you, but have you ever considered counting (and then torturing) sheep instead?


I've nothing against sheep, and have no wish to see them suffer.

In fact, aside from al-Qa'ida, I don't think there is anyone I wish to see suffer or die.

It isn't really a sleep aid. I just took pleasure in the fact that I was so comfortable while he was suffering so greatly.

Osama and his friends have managed to greatly irritate me, and I haven't forgotten.


BTW, interesting thread on original intent. If I ever get enough time to do it justice, I may take a crack at posting something there.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 04:29 am
oralloy wrote:

Osama and his friends have managed to greatly irritate me, and I haven't forgotten.

Have you ever considered how USUK policy in the middle east over the last 50 years at least has "greatly irritated" the likes of Usama bin Ladin and his friends?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 07:43 am
oralloy said
Quote:
My support of a policy that you abhor doesn't make me shallow.

While I am certainly not ashamed of myself, I am not sure what "self-pride" you are talking about.


I do abhor a policy of torture anytime anywhere. It's a moral abhorence. Quite aside from that, it is stupid. There is good reason to conclude that al qaida and organizations similar to it would never have arisen if thousands of Muslims had not been tortured by the middle east regimes propped up by us for the sake of oil supply. Abu Ghraib didn't help the cause of fewer americans murdered. Nor would your torture.

You take pride in the sincerity of your targeted hatred or anger. If you lost someone in 9/11, I understand. If the argument is emotional, I understand that too. But if it moves towards support or justification for government policy of torture, it is stupid for it will likely merely beget more of all the same.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:38 am
blatham wrote:
If you lost someone in 9/11, I understand. If the argument is emotional, I understand that too. But if it moves towards support or justification for government policy of torture, it is stupid for it will likely merely beget more of all the same.


I didn't know anyone who was harmed in the attack.

But it is purely emotional.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:42 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Have you ever considered how USUK policy in the middle east over the last 50 years at least has "greatly irritated" the likes of Usama bin Ladin and his friends?


Yes. But it doesn't change what I wish to see done to Osama and his friends.

The reason Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq was to help undo our cold war policy by setting up a democracy there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 09:08:06