Bush - The USA will remain a torturing regime

[E.J.Armstrong]

It's official - from the man that embodies US values around the world.

Bush declares that the USA will continue to use torture.

'...And I think the president must give his professionals within the law the necessary tools to protect us. ...'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7245670.stm.

Even more incredibly, in order to justify this use of torture he will prevent the waterboarding torture from being declared illegal in the USA.

Bizarrely, Bush seems to think that the US deciding to call a thorn a rose somehow makes it a rose when the rest of the world and international law thinks otherwise.

Only in America.

[Darth Rotor]

Bizarrely, Bush seems to think that the US deciding to call a thorn a rose somehow makes it a rose when the rest of the world and international law thinks otherwise.
He is following the UN, globalist lead in calling despotic catastrophes like Zimbabwe equals among the other members of the UN GA: a convenient fiction.

So no, not only in America. Evidence of such rhetoric is commonplace.

Why do you hate Tibet, EJ?

DR

[King of the Americas]

The U.S. actually prosecuted several Japanese Officers, after the war was over for 'thier' use of waterboarding...

Oh, how the times do change.

[E.J.Armstrong]

He is following the UN, globalist lead in calling despotic catastrophes like Zimbabwe equals among the other members of the UN GA: a convenient fiction.

So no, not only in America. Evidence of such rhetoric is commonplace.

Why do you hate Tibet, EJ?

DR

So no problem with the US being a torturing regime by decree of the USA representative in Chief then?

Only in America would you get an ex US military type implicitly supporting Bush's lunacy.

As torture is now an official policy of the USA, presumably you have no problem with any other countries implementing torture as an official policy? Because if you didn't that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? How can the USA talk about its 'values' with a straight face?

The truly bizarre thing is that after stating his continuing support for torture Bush goes on to claim in the same interview that 'We believe in human rights and human dignity.'

Only in America.

[KoihimeNakamura]

So no problem with the US being a torturing regime by decree of the USA representative in Chief then?

Only in America would you get an ex US military type implicitly supporting Bush's lunacy.

As torture is now an official policy of the USA, presumably you have no problem with any other countries implementing torture as an official policy? Because if you didn't that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? How can the USA talk about its 'values' with a straight face?

The truly bizarre thing is that after stating his continuing support for torture Bush goes on to claim in the same interview that 'We believe in human rights and human dignity.'

Only in America.


EJ. I think he's stating how he can say that, not supporting it. I could be wrong, though.

[epeos76]

Only in America would you get an ex US military type implicitly supporting Bush's lunacy.



I think you're in danger of being swallowed by your rhetoric here. What is it we aren't supposed to find outside America? Ex US Military Types implicitly supporting the president? Former Country X military types implicitly supporting some PM's lunancy? Not only irrelevant to DR's post, but pretty commonplace.


I'd love to see a nationwide rejection of the Bush tactic you describe, though. Maybe in November.

[littlehulkster]

Bush is done soon and both of the frontrunners for 08 don't support torture, so I don't think we'll have to worry about this much longer.

[Jonnyclueless]

So no problem with the US being a torturing regime by decree of the USA representative in Chief then?

Only in America would you get an ex US military type implicitly supporting Bush's lunacy.

As torture is now an official policy of the USA, presumably you have no problem with any other countries implementing torture as an official policy? Because if you didn't that would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? How can the USA talk about its 'values' with a straight face?

The truly bizarre thing is that after stating his continuing support for torture Bush goes on to claim in the same interview that 'We believe in human rights and human dignity.'

Only in America.

If you want to make a point it's one thing. But this isn't the place for propaganda. Trying to turn it into a black and white issue and use dishonest adjectives is just childish.

Sorry to disappoint you but yes this is just another step to prevent a perfect world where there is no torture, there are no bad guys, we're all vegetarians, there are no wars, there is no greed, there is no fighting, there is no environmental issues, etc etc.

And you just simplify it by trying to present a case where it's nothing but torture or none at all.

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?

In a word, yes, but this whole scenario is filled with unwarranted assumptions, namely that torture would actually be useful and effective in this situation and more useful and effective than other things you can do. This is besdes the whole idea this tickign time bomb scenario has no basis in reality. The slippery slope it would lead us down woudl be far more dangerous than whatever the results of stopping the plot were. Once you've established there are no moral rules so long as your intentions are good, there might as well be none at all because you can justify almost anything.

[Piggy]

I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?

The mark of the charlatan.

"Please don't point out that my scenario is so totally unrealistic as to be irrelevant to the actual situation we're discussing, and whatever you do don't introduce any nuance here, yes or no."

FWIW, as I (and others) have said on another thread where you're using this ploy, if torturing one guy -- who was guilty of perpetrating the deed -- would stop thousands of innocent people from dying in a nuclear blast, I'd peel his skin off with a cheese grater if I had to.

The problem is, as we've said on another thread, the real world is not an episode of "24".

[gumboot]

He is following the UN, globalist lead in calling despotic catastrophes like Zimbabwe equals among the other members of the UN GA: a convenient fiction.

So no, not only in America. Evidence of such rhetoric is commonplace.

Why do you hate Tibet, EJ?

DR



On the flip side of that rhetoric, I believe the UN recently declared Tasers to be torture. (No, I don't want to get into a taser debate!).

While in this case I think E.J. Armstrong's position is spot on, it would be dangerous to base your views entirely on "what everyone else thinks". As DR points out, if you did that you'd end up with some fairly interesting notions.

[gumboot]

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?


I'll answer for you.

I would let those people die to uphold our moral stance. Because the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are worth less than our moral stance.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?

Let's say I hypothetically cede that torturing people is okay in this circumstance. What connection does thsi scenario have to anything that the U.S. has actually been done?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I think you're in danger of being swallowed by your rhetoric here. What is it we aren't supposed to find outside America? Ex US Military Types implicitly supporting the president? Former Country X military types implicitly supporting some PM's lunancy? Not only irrelevant to DR's post, but pretty commonplace.


I'd love to see a nationwide rejection of the Bush tactic you describe, though. Maybe in November.
I guess my poorly made point was that despite the US military manual (which some ex military types claim is paramount) eschewing torture the US military continues to serve a torturer.

It seems to be a case of do what I say, not what I do.

[E.J.Armstrong]

If you want to make a point it's one thing. But this isn't the place for propaganda. Trying to turn it into a black and white issue and use dishonest adjectives is just childish. What propaganda? If torture is not black and white I guess international law is an ass.

Sorry to disappoint you but yes this is just another step to prevent a perfect world where there is no torture, there are no bad guys, we're all vegetarians, there are no wars, there is no greed, there is no fighting, there is no environmental issues, etc etc.

And you just simplify it by trying to present a case where it's nothing but torture or none at all. You cannot be a bit pregnant. Either you are or you are not.

Bush has proclaimed the US to be a torturing regime and the US Congress Senate, Military, CIA, Police, Airforce, Surgeon General and every other US authority is letting him get away with it so by definition they are all aiding and abetting torture.

And you wonder why your 'allies' no longer shares US 'values'?

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?


have you stopped beating your wife? Have you still got the branding iron you used on that kid's arm last week. Come on give me a yes or no answer. You stated that you wanted a yes or no answer so give me one. See? Not every question is rational.

Your question is also irrational.
Firstly - how do you know the torturee will not simply tell you anything - as they all eventually do or die in the process?
Secondly - what idiot is going to waste time torturing people who may not have the answer rather than tell the people to get out of the way?
Thirdly - How could you guarantee to get the right answer?
Fourthly - How do you know you are right?
Fifthly - The situation has never happened and no-one has had the balls to show where it has despite the question being repeatedly asked.

[Darth Rotor]

So no problem with the US being a torturing regime by decree of the USA representative in Chief then?
Strawman "so" construction noted.

Note on your title: sloppy writing often betrays sloppy thinking. The US of A is not a regime, it is a sovereign constitutional republic, and more precisely, a nation state. The "regime" of GW Bush will end in less than a year.

Bush - The USA will remain a torturing regime

Learn your own language, will you?
Only in America would you get an ex US military type implicitly supporting Bush's lunacy.
Unsupported assertion. More hyperbole. Standard EJ fare, not to meniton inaccurate.

How can the USA talk about its 'values' with a straight face?
The same way the apologists from the UN do when putting Syria and Iran on the Human Rights committe.

Here it is Tuesday, and we find more strawman attempts to craft for me a position.

Sancho, EJ's lance! Charge, for the Fair Dulcinea.

Gumboot: the damage done to the image of the US in the past seven years is hardly news.

DR

[Piggy]

"I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, 'When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.'

"A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency.

"But those days are over."

-Paul Reickhoff

[quixotecoyote]

Strawman "so" construction noted.

Note on your title: sloppy writing often betrays sloppy thinking. The US of A is not a regime, it is a sovereign constitutional republic, and more precisely, a nation state. The "regime" of GW Bush will end in less than a year.

Bush - The USA will remain a torturing regime

Learn your own language, will you?

Unsupported assertion. More hyperbole. Standard EJ fare, not to meniton inaccurate.

The same way the apologists from the UN do when putting Syria and Iran on the Human Rights committe.

Here it is Tuesday, and we find more strawman attempts to craft for me a position.

Sancho, EJ's lance! Charge, for the Fair Dulcinea.

Gumboot: the damage done to the image of the US in the past seven years is hardly news.

DR

I've been accused of going after windmills and blacksmiths, but I don't recall being accused of attacking strawmen.

[bigred]

um if that's true, eg if "countless insurgents surrendered," why didn't we see accompanying progress in winning the war? And if it really "deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency," how is it they appear as strong as ever? Heck, why didn't we just pile on the goodies and end it all right then?

I think maybe demonstrations of wealth and capitalism aren't what a great many terrorists are looking or fighting for.

[Piggy]

um if that's true, eg if "countless insurgents surrendered," why didn't we see accompanying progress in winning the war? And if it really "deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency," how is it they appear as strong as ever?

Apparently, you missed that last sentence. Block sweeps, mass detentions, Abu Gahraib, rendition, waterboarding, etc. changed the scene.

That excerpt is part of a larger article which you can find pretty easily on the Web if you're interested.

[Darth Rotor]

I've been accused of going after windmills and blacksmiths, but I don't recall being accused of attacking strawmen.
If I ever accuse you of attacking strawmen, please let me know, and I'll make sure not to do it. I don't think coyote's need that much fiber in their diets. :D

DR

[bigred]

Apparently, you missed that last sentence. Block sweeps, mass detentions, Abu Gahraib, rendition, waterboarding, etc. changed the scene.

That excerpt is part of a larger article which you can find pretty easily on the Web if you're interested. No, I think you missed my point. I don't recall any mass surrenderings going on - let alone those attributed to us offering hot meals and A/C - and if it was all that effective, I doubt we would have stopped it. Believe it or not, Bush wants to win this war as much or more than anyone, and given a proven effective method, I very seriously doubt he would abandon it.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Strawman "so" construction noted.

Note on your title: sloppy writing often betrays sloppy thinking. The US of A is not a regime, it is a sovereign constitutional republic, and more precisely, a nation state. The "regime" of GW Bush will end in less than a year.

Bush - The USA will remain a torturing regime

Learn your own language, will you? You seem to have missed the question mark. I certainly missed your problem with his claims. George Bush is a torturer who demands that the USA be allowed to continue torturing and the US military, Us Senate and US congress, the US airforce, the CIA and the FBI are doing nothing to stop him. It is clear that they are all aiding and abetting a torturer and his torturing regime.

Unsupported assertion. More hyperbole. Standard EJ fare, not to meniton inaccurate. I thought the US military manual specifically prohibited torture but we have here the US military (et al) aiding and abetting a torturing regime or am I missing something here? What is it about aiding and abetting by inaction do you not understand?

The same way the apologists from the UN do when putting Syria and Iran on the Human Rights committe.

Here it is Tuesday, and we find more strawman attempts to craft for me a position.

Sancho, EJ's lance! Charge, for the Fair Dulcinea.

Gumboot: the damage done to the image of the US in the past seven years is hardly news.

DR

If you don't support the torturer Bush and his torturing regime, what is your opinion of the US military aiding and abetting a torturing regime by letting the torturer's regime remain happily in place as long as it wants? Is that what decent nation states do - allow torturing regimes to run free in their country?

Your former 'allies' are awaiting a simple unfudged answer? When is the US military going to stop aiding and abetting a torturing regime? Or shouldn't I ask?

Do you think that the world will ever stop snorting in derision when a US politician or president takes other countries to task for their 'values'?

What should stop the world snorting in derision when the US military states that evil doing must be stopped when it would not take action of any sort to stop a torturing regime in its own country? No wonder we want organisations that aid and abet torture out of UK territories and soon.

[Kestrel]

You seem to have missed the question mark. I certainly missed your problem with his claims. George Bush is a torturer who demands that the USA be allowed to continue torturing and the US military, Us Senate and US congress, the US airforce, the CIA and the FBI are doing nothing to stop him. It is clear that they are all aiding and abetting a torturer and his torturing regime.

Some FBI agents made an attempt to stop the torture of inmates at Gitmo. The right wingers responded by selling "Club Gitmo" t-shirts and minimizing the seriousness of the abuse.

[Piggy]

No, I think you missed my point. I don't recall any mass surrenderings going on - let alone those attributed to us offering hot meals and A/C - and if it was all that effective, I doubt we would have stopped it. Believe it or not, Bush wants to win this war as much or more than anyone, and given a proven effective method, I very seriously doubt he would abandon it.

I don't doubt Bush wants to win the war. I don't know of anyone in the US gov't who want to lose this or any war.

But wanting isn't enough.

The war, by all accounts, was horribly mismanaged and characterized by intense conflict between military and civilian leaders, often resulting in a kind of paralysis. Chains of command were murky, sometimes totally incomprehensible. Troops in the field often did not know what their rules of engagement were. Troops and commanders were often rotated out of areas after only having begun to establish relationships with the locals. Etc etc etc.

The civilian leaders often adopted strategies not recommended by military leaders in the field, based on the advice of inexperienced or overly idealistic counsel.

Given the sorry track record of this war, I find it impossible to contend that we have done what we have done because it is what worked best.

More often that not, strategies were ill-considered, and hastily and incompletely implemented. Sometimes, they were reversed before results could be known or achieved.

In short, excepting the initial invasion, things were a mess from the start, and there were precious few mechanisms to correct the mistakes.

[bigred]

Even assuming all that is true (it would not shock me and I've no doubt that more than a little of it is), it also misses the point.

[Darth Rotor]

Your former 'allies' are awaiting a simple unfudged answer? When is the US military going to stop aiding and abetting a torturing regime? Or shouldn't I ask?
Who would that be, these former allies?

The last news release I read on Gitmo was that if it aint in the field manual, it can't be done. That's a concrete policy step away from the nebulous issues over what rules apply. We have already discussed the Patreus policy document, some months ago, on what is acceptable to him in Iraq, but since you chose to stick your fingers in your ears on that one, I doubt you'll change your place now.

If you ever learn what civil control of the military is, we'll talk further. Until them, it has been good seeing you again. You demonstrate no desire, of course, to see anything other than the unfavorable in American actions, political or military, so why observe what was in the NYT in 14 Feb? You will merely shut your ears again.

Some were aid workers who were kidnapped by armed Afghan groups and sold to the C.I.A. as extremists. One longtime Sudanese aid worker employed by an international charity, Adel Hamad, was just released by the U.S. in December after five years in captivity.

A U.S. Army major reviewing his case called it “unconscionable.”
Please feel free to read this as well, from someone who actually knows what is going on at Gitmo.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0217Guantanamo0217.html
Or do your usual fingers in ears thing. It's all good.

Hope the bridgework goes well.

DR

[E.J.Armstrong]

Some FBI agents made an attempt to stop the torture of inmates at Gitmo. The right wingers responded by selling "Club Gitmo" t-shirts and minimizing the seriousness of the abuse.


You are right. Some FBI agents did try to highlight the absue and stop it. I respect their attempts and am happy to amend the list of all those US organisations that are aiding and abetting the torturing regime of the USA governed by George W. Bush - President of the USA, Richard Cheney - Vice President of the USA and Condalezza Rice - Secretary of State of the USA.

Unfortunately the US military continues to aid and abet the torture policy of those named people by inaction and even 'forgot' to tell an 'ally' for some 6 years apparently that it illegally abused their trust by facilitating the 'rendering' people for torture by proxy across the UK's territory.

That is not a friendly act.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Who would that be, these former allies?

The last news release I read on Gitmo was that if it aint in the field manual, it can't be done. That's a concrete policy step away from the nebulous issues over what rules apply. We have already discussed the Patreus policy document, some months ago, on what is acceptable to him in Iraq, but since you chose to stick your fingers in your ears on that one, I doubt you'll change your place now.

If you ever learn what civil control of the military is, we'll talk further. Until them, it has been good seeing you again. You demonstrate no desire, of course, to see anything other than the unfavorable in American actions, political or military, so why observe what was in the NYT in 14 Feb? You will merely shut your ears again.


Please feel free to read this as well, from someone who actually knows what is going on at Gitmo.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0217Guantanamo0217.html
Or do your usual fingers in ears thing. It's all good.

Hope the bridgework goes well.

DR

As you know the US military manual specifically requires members of the US military to refuse to obey illegal orders. despite this, torture was carried out at the US military Guantanamo Bay concentration camp. George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief of the US military and George W. Bush operates a torture programme. The question therefore remains and is very simple.

When is the US military going to stop aiding and abetting the USA in the torture programme of George W. Bush - President of the USA and Commander in Chief of the US military, Richard Bruce Cheney - Vice President of the USA and Condalezza Rice - Secretary of State of the USA?

The US military also runs the US military base on the UK territory of Diego Garcia and facilitated the illegal 'rendition' (read illegal kidnapping and transportation of people for torture by proxy) operations of the Commander in Chief of the US military and apparently 'forgot' to tell their 'ally' the UK about the illegal abuse of their territory.

Is there no end to the abuse of human rights facilitated by the US military?


According to the Washington Post Condalezza Rice is a liar. "Andrews Air Force Base before boarding her plane for a week-long swing through Europe, Rice said the United States always respects the sovereignty of foreign countries when conducting intelligence operations within their borders. Aides said that was diplomatic code meaning that the United States does not act without first getting permission.' from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500240.html

No it does not.

Is there to be no end to the lies of the US government to its 'allies'?

[Piggy]

More on Gitmo (http://newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20080220-16344800-bc-us-gitmotrials.xml):

The Pentagon announced Feb. 11 it was charging six Guantanamo detainees -- including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- with war crimes, and was seeking the death penalty in all the cases.

In an interview in TheNation.com Wednesday, the former prosecutor, retired Col. Morris Davis, said Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes told him there could not be any acquittals.

Haynes oversees the prosecution and defense at the upcoming trials, The Nation said. Davis resigned from the U.S. Air Force last year, claiming the Pentagon was meddling in the commission process and alleging a conflict of interest in Haynes' role.

Davis told The Nation he met with Haynes in 2005: "I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process. At which point, (Haynes') eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"

Three prosecutors, Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr and Capt. Carrie Wolf, asked to be transferred from the Office of Military Commissions in 2004, saying they had been told the process was rigged, Davis said.

[bigred]

Good point - the US military should stage a coup!

Just when I thought this thread had worn thin, it becomes fresh again with entertainment value. :cool:

[bigred]

duplicate post

[E.J.Armstrong]

Good point - the US military should stage a coup!

Just when I thought this thread had worn thin, it becomes fresh again with entertainment value. :cool:

So the only option for the US military when faced with a torturing regime is to do what it is told? Interesting. Where have I heard that view before?

Where does the US military manual say 'the US military must support any torture programme implemented by its Commander in Chief?'

[E.J.Armstrong]

More on Gitmo (http://newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI-1-20080220-16344800-bc-us-gitmotrials.xml):

Well at least the world now knows just how far the US military will go to abuse human rights except for some courageous individuals who will no doubt be held up in future as examples of
US military officers who refused to aid and abet a torturing regime.

The world needs more of these type of people to stand up and proclaim by their actions that the USA stands for what is decent and legal and truthful - not what is criminal, sordid and wrong.

[bigred]

So the only option for the US military when faced with a torturing regime is to do what it is told? Interesting. Where have I heard that view before?

Where does the US military manual say 'the US military must support any torture programme implemented by its Commander in Chief?'Nowhere, because we spell the word "program" differently.

[SDC]

So the only option for the US military when faced with a torturing regime is to do what it is told? Interesting. Where have I heard that view before?



Trimmed and bolded by me. OK, where are the judges? My claim is that EJA has manifested Godwin's Law, and I herewith claim the prize. I know, I know, the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" or "Germany 1933-45" were not used. But I think the implication is clear.

Where are the damned judges... Oh great, the East German guy just showed up...

[SezMe]

"A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning.

No, I think you missed my point. I don't recall any mass surrenderings going on - let alone those attributed to us offering hot meals and A/C <snip>.
My bold.

"Countless" is not the same as "mass". Reickhoff could easily have meant that this type of surrender happened so many times on his patrols he could not - literally - count them.

Please argue the assertion, not your interpretation of it.

[bigred]

Gee I'm glad you're not splitting hairs or anything.

:rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

When is the US military going to stop aiding and abetting the USA in the torture programme of George W. Bush - President of the USA and Commander in Chief of the US military, Richard Bruce Cheney - Vice President of the USA and Condalezza Rice - Secretary of State of the USA?
How quaint: a Brit with BDS. I though only the colonists could catch that. Thanks for teaching me something new today. :)

To answer your question: when mutiny becomes policy.

Next stupid question?
Is there to be no end to the lies of the US government to its 'allies'?
Government being made up of politicians? It won't end, ever, under any administration, any more than the lies of the various allies of the US will end any time soon.

Toshiba and propeller jigs for fifty, 1986, Alex.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Trimmed and bolded by me. OK, where are the judges? My claim is that EJA has manifested Godwin's Law, and I herewith claim the prize. I know, I know, the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" or "Germany 1933-45" were not used. But I think the implication is clear.

Where are the damned judges... Oh great, the East German guy just showed up...
Eff me, he gave EJ a 4.2, and a 4.8 for artistic interpretation. The fix is in, it seems.

DR

[bigred]

How quaint: a Brit with BDS. "BDS" - ?

[Darth Rotor]

Bigred: BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome

I had thought it was confined to some Americans who have been angry as hell ever since Bush took office.

DR

[bigred]

lol - thx for translation. JREF learns ya stuff. :cool:

[E.J.Armstrong]

Nowhere, because we spell the word "program" differently.
And with the spelling change?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Trimmed and bolded by me. OK, where are the judges? My claim is that EJA has manifested Godwin's Law, and I herewith claim the prize. I know, I know, the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" or "Germany 1933-45" were not used. But I think the implication is clear.

Where are the damned judges... Oh great, the East German guy just showed up...

And the answer is what? Oh, you didn't provide one.

Maybe that the US military will continue to do what its told up even if it breaks international law? Now who used that defence before and were told by US prosecutors that the argument was invalid. As a regime that supports torture what is the USA's own answer to their own prosecutors? It's bound to be a good one and no doubt many future torturers will be listening for tips on the correct answer.

[E.J.Armstrong]

How quaint: a Brit with BDS. I though only the colonists could catch that. Thanks for teaching me something new today. :)

To answer your question: when mutiny becomes policy. So illegal kidnapping for torture flights will continue to be helped by the US military. Whare are all the brave men in the US military? Sorry - now that is a stupid question.


Next stupid question? Right? Asking to what lengths the US military will go in support of a torturing regime is a stupid question?

Government being made up of politicians? It won't end, ever, under any administration, any more than the lies of the various allies of the US will end any time soon.

Toshiba and propeller jigs for fifty, 1986, Alex.

DR

Right? So there are no limits as to what the US military will do when told? I think the people of the UK are slowly getting the message. I predict that as they learn the views of US military types such as yourself, the pace of understanding will escalate. Thanks for providing me with the facts.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Eff me, he gave EJ a 4.2, and a 4.8 for artistic interpretation. The fix is in, it seems.

DR

It's OK I get the message loud and clear. The US military will keep on doing their masters bidding - whatever international law is broken. Got you. Thanks. Its going down well over here. Keep on with the quotable material.

[bigred]

And with the spelling change?Page 73, para 3c. (also cross-referenced on pg 97 and pg 156, albeit briefly)

[SDC]

I'm not sure if E.J. Armstrong understood my point, which was that I was claiming credit for the first manifestation of Godwin's law in this thread. When in doubt, describe those you dislike as Nazis, or the equivalent. That is supposed to put an end to all opposition to you. "Gosh... He thinks we're like the Nazis! Well, that's it, boys and girls, he won the argument, we might as well slink away."

Nuts. It's the reverse. Anyone who has to drag the actual, historic Nazis, into a contemporary argument, has admitted that he has no real-world argument.

Another point, by Bigred, which EJA evidently did not understand; "programme" is not US spelling.

[dudalb]

Pssts SDC...Life here at JREF is much better if you put certain people on Ignore.

[SDC]

Sigh. I guess you're right. EJA would be the first... Dare I? Yes!

ETA: ooooooohhhhhh... Nice!

[bigred]

Sigh. I guess you're right. EJA would be the first..That about shocked me until I realized you were new. :cool: Trust me the list will gradually grow.....

[JoeEllison]

I'm not sure if E.J. Armstrong understood my point, which was that I was claiming credit for the first manifestation of Godwin's law in this thread. When in doubt, describe those you dislike as Nazis, or the equivalent. That is supposed to put an end to all opposition to you. "Gosh... He thinks we're like the Nazis! Well, that's it, boys and girls, he won the argument, we might as well slink away."

Nuts. It's the reverse. Anyone who has to drag the actual, historic Nazis, into a contemporary argument, has admitted that he has no real-world argument.Godwin's "Law" is sort of stupid and illogical, don't you think? Pretending that you win an argument because the other person brings up the Nazis is kind of, well... lame and pathetic.

Who was this "Godwin," and how did he convince people to buy into his crap? Did he call them Nazis? Or did someone call him a Nazi? :rolleyes:

[gtc]

The first person to mention the nazis loses the thread according to Godwin's law.
The first person to mention that Godwin's law means that the first person to mention the nazis loses the thread also loses the thread.
The first person to mention that people who mention Godwin's law should also lose the thread also loses the thread.
People who suggest that anyone mentioning a particular topic loses the thread also lose the thread.

The cycle can only be broken with a kitten picture.

[Merko]

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance?
If I were in that situation, and according to my best judgement, the use of torture was the best possibility of preventing the disaster, then yes, I would use torture. What does this have to do with any law? What would be legal or not would certainly be the last thing on my mind in such a situation. If I did use torture and it turned out that my judgement was right, and I did prevent the disaster, then certainly I would expect to be pardoned. If my judgement was wrong, and I tortured someone innocent, then I should go to jail.

[WildCat]

Godwin's "Law" is sort of stupid and illogical, don't you think? Pretending that you win an argument because the other person brings up the Nazis is kind of, well... lame and pathetic.

Who was this "Godwin," and how did he convince people to buy into his crap? Did he call them Nazis? Or did someone call him a Nazi? :rolleyes:
You obviously have no idea what Godwin's Law is. Hint: It says nothing about winning an argument.

[WildCat]

Note to EJ Armstrong: The US military is prohibited by law from torturing anyone. Perhaps you missed where people were prosecuted for what went on in Abu Ghraib?

[pgwenthold]

You obviously have no idea what Godwin's Law is. Hint: It says nothing about winning an argument.

If you look at gtc's post two above, you see a different view. Moreover, if you read about Godwin's Law on Wiki, it comments about losing the argument by Godwin's Law ("It is generally considered...")

Regardless of the technicalities, GL is "generally considered" to be about winning and losing the argument. You are, in fact, agreeing with Joe in that it really isn't.

[WildCat]

If you look at gtc's post two above, you see a different view. Moreover, if you read about Godwin's Law on Wiki, it comments about losing the argument by Godwin's Law ("It is generally considered...")
This is where Wiki goes askew. Godwin's Law states only:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

That's it! What it means to some random yahoo editing Wikipedia is irrelevant, because Mike Godwin made no such judgement when he stated it.

You are, in fact, agreeing with Joe in that it really isn't.
How could I agree with Joe when Joe doesn't even know what it means, and thinks it means something it doesn't?

[JoeEllison]

If you look at gtc's post two above, you see a different view. Moreover, if you read about Godwin's Law on Wiki, it comments about losing the argument by Godwin's Law ("It is generally considered...")

Regardless of the technicalities, GL is "generally considered" to be about winning and losing the argument. You are, in fact, agreeing with Joe in that it really isn't.

Why let reality get in the way of a stupid position? Isn't that why people invoke "Godwin's Law", or more correctly "Reductio ad Hitlerum"(which are interchangeable in current usage) in the first place?

[SDC]

"Ad hitlerum..." that would be neuter. I don't think it's correct but will check the Latin grammar.

Perhaps I cited Godwin injudiciously. My point was really that EJA's approach seemed to be, "Americans are nazis!" Which is, at best, silly.

[gtc]

gtc's first law:
The first person to mention the nazis loses the thread.

gtc's second law:
The first person to mention that Godwin's law means that the first person to mention the nazis loses the thread also loses the thread.

gtc's third law:
The first person to mention that people who mention Godwin's law should also lose the thread also loses the thread.

gtc's nth law:
People who suggest that anyone mentioning a particular topic loses the thread also lose the thread.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Note to EJ Armstrong: The US military is prohibited by law from torturing anyone. Perhaps you missed where people were prosecuted for what went on in Abu Ghraib?

Then why has the US militray pro dived facilities for the use of torture. Under US law if you aide and abet murder are you not guilty by association. Under any definition the US military has aided and abetted torture.


And how many CIA were tried for Abu Ghraib?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I'm not sure if E.J. Armstrong understood my point, which was that I was claiming credit for the first manifestation of Godwin's law in this thread. When in doubt, describe those you dislike as Nazis, or the equivalent. That is supposed to put an end to all opposition to you. "Gosh... He thinks we're like the Nazis! Well, that's it, boys and girls, he won the argument, we might as well slink away."

Nuts. It's the reverse. Anyone who has to drag the actual, historic Nazis, into a contemporary argument, has admitted that he has no real-world argument.

Another point, by Bigred, which EJA evidently did not understand; "programme" is not US spelling.

Au contraire. If someone copies practices of the Nazis they can be compared to the Nazis behaviour in that regard.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Pssts SDC...Life here at JREF is much better if you put certain people on Ignore.
Ah the man who makes claims but consistently runs away from justifying him (Dudalb) appears and suggest that debate be stopped and, as if by magic, SDC does as he is told.
Plus ca change but at least the MO is out in the open.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Godwin's "Law" is sort of stupid and illogical, don't you think? Pretending that you win an argument because the other person brings up the Nazis is kind of, well... lame and pathetic.

Who was this "Godwin," and how did he convince people to buy into his crap? Did he call them Nazis? Or did someone call him a Nazi? :rolleyes:

Godwins law actually states: -

'If I copy any Nazi practices (or support those who do) I will not talk to people who point this out.'

Simlpy witness Dudalbs and SDC's behaviour above for proof of the law in action.

It never fails to amuse me to be attacked by the likes of Dudalb.

[E.J.Armstrong]

"Ad hitlerum..." that would be neuter. I don't think it's correct but will check the Latin grammar.

Perhaps I cited Godwin injudiciously. My point was really that EJA's approach seemed to be, "Americans are nazis!" Which is, at best, silly.

Then your point would be wrong and is at best silly but then, as you have run off with your ball, you won't see this.

In the meantime the US military continues to serve a commander in chief who demands the right to use torture and to kidnap people for torture by proxy.

What is the law on aiding and abetting criminals in the USA? Maybe there isn't one?

[dudalb]

Funny, I am amused by the likes of EJ, who seems totally driven by a hatred of the US and Israel.
I guarantee, if Obama takes office, EJ within a few weeks will hate him as much as he hates Bush.

[MarkCorrigan]

If you want to make a point it's one thing. But this isn't the place for propaganda. Trying to turn it into a black and white issue and use dishonest adjectives is just childish.

Sorry to disappoint you but yes this is just another step to prevent a perfect world where there is no torture, there are no bad guys, we're all vegetarians, there are no wars, there is no greed, there is no fighting, there is no environmental issues, etc etc.

And you just simplify it by trying to present a case where it's nothing but torture or none at all.

I keep asking the question, but no one has the balls to answer it. If a situation was presented where a nuclear bomb was due to go off in less than 24 hours in NYC and the guy who planned it is a POW, would you let thousands and thousands of people die just to uphold your moral stance? I don't care about all the "well, how do we know this, or that". Just a yes or no is all that is needed. Would you let those people die?
Yes.

If I knew that torture was 100% definately no lie going to work I might change my mind, but on the whole I think I would stick with what I believe. Without those absolute reassurances, I'd just issue an evacuation order.

[bigred]

Evacuate NYC in 24 hrs.

OK.......you are still likely condemning many, many people to death FYI.

What if you had a mere 80-90% confidence that torture would work in getting the info in time to stop the bombing?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Funny, I am amused by the likes of EJ, who seems totally driven by a hatred of the US and Israel.
I guarantee, if Obama takes office, EJ within a few weeks will hate him as much as he hates Bush.

Dudalb when are you ever going to support any of your claims? Just once would be nice. I have challenged you repeatedly publicly to support your claims but as yet you have failed to do so. I have highlighted your little campaign before and am happy to do so again here.

If your claims were correct you would no doubt want to post all the evidence for them instead of showing contempt for the truth. But, after all this time, you still won't.

In your world it seems that if someone dislikes some specific US policies they are, by definition, consumed by a hatred of the USA. Similarly if someone highlights some specific policies of the Israeli government you become a hater of Israel. I think that throws the spotlight on dudalb's activity. As he has stated it is clear that because I have had the massive gall to challenge some specific policies of Israel he believes he has a right to harass and follow me around the site hurling personal abuse without engaging in any of the substantive points I have made or providing any evidence for his claims. Sort of sick isn't it dudalb?

I note that you are now pretending to be psychic dudalb. I think your last silly claims about Obama (agin asserted without as much as one word of mine in support) says more about your state of mind that anything I could post - so thank you for being so public about it.

I am proud to be against all torture and terror and if that annoys people like you dudalb who do not even have the courage to support your own claims, then so be it.

You cannot bully me dudalb. I have nothing but contempt for your. When you have a rational argument to provide I will however be pleased to debate it with you. Until then good luck with your blatant campaign.

[RandFan]

In your world it seems that if someone dislikes some specific US policies they are, by definition, consumed by a hatred of the USA. I can't speak for him but I doubt this is true. I think it is your ham handed rhetoric that leads him to his conclusions. You eliminate any possibility of discussion or alternate conclusions.

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.
America is bad.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I can't speak for him but I doubt this is true. I think it is your ham handed rhetoric that leads him to his conclusions. You eliminate any possibility of discussion or alternate conclusions.

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.
America is bad.

I have asked before but it looks like I have to ask again. Where is the evidence for your claims. You can erect strawmen all you like and torch them as vigourously as you want but you simply can't be taken seriously while you put words in people's mouths.

If you want to take issue with what I have said please post some of my words thatg support your claims. So far you have not.

Does your continued personal abuse make you right or is simple assertion of falsities that makes them true and you right?

Are you also unable to differentiate between taking issue with specific US policies and a hatred of the US?

[RandFan]

Where is the evidence for your claims. Which premise do you take issue with?

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.

[MarkCorrigan]

Evacuate NYC in 24 hrs.

OK.......you are still likely condemning many, many people to death FYI.

What if you had a mere 80-90% confidence that torture would work in getting the info in time to stop the bombing?

Oh I know most citizens are going to die.

No, I would not torture a man on an uncertainty. I do not, however, state I have the moral high horse, I merely state MY moral codes would not allow this, because I personally find torture to be morally reprehensable. However there is no overarching morality, so it's quite possible that you think the torture is warrented and that's fine, because it's your opinion.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Which premise do you take issue with?

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.

Is there perhaps any chance that you could support your assertions with some words of mine as already requested or should we just accept your misrepresentations as fact without support?

[RandFan]

Is there perhaps any chance that you could support your assertions with some words of mine as already requested or should we just accept your misrepresentations as fact without support? I don't know how else to ask the question.


Which premise do you take issue with?

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.This is important. Could you please just answer the question? You say my claims are false. Which claims?

Look, EJ, I'm happy to comply with your request but give me a break here. Which claims?

[bigred]

Oh RF just admit you're a rabid Bush backer and go rip some wings off flies already, will ya? Yeesh

[bigred]

Oh I know most citizens are going to die.

No, I would not torture a man on an uncertainty. I do not, however, state I have the moral high horse, I merely state MY moral codes would not allow this, because I personally find torture to be morally reprehensable. However there is no overarching morality, so it's quite possible that you think the torture is warrented and that's fine, because it's your opinion.
It's mostly about circumstances to me. There is for me no absolute here - it looks morally the most logical on first glance, but when you throw certain realities of a situation to it, it becomes shades of gray, that's all I'm saying.

[RandFan]

Oh RF just admit you're a rabid Bush backer and go rip some wings off flies already, will ya? Yeesh:D Jawohl, herr kommandant.

[Piggy]

What if you had a mere 80-90% confidence that torture would work in getting the info in time to stop the bombing?

In the real world, how would you ever come up with such figures?

[MarkCorrigan]

It's mostly about circumstances to me. There is for me no absolute here - it looks morally the most logical on first glance, but when you throw certain realities of a situation to it, it becomes shades of gray, that's all I'm saying.

I completely agree, but the shades of grey don't apply to your constructed scenario. In the real world, I would not use torture because there is little chance of it being effective. In the hypothetical, I wouldn't useit because I don't agree, and it doesn't really matter.

I guess from a purely hypothetical standpoint there would be some part of me that would push for the torture use if the 80-90% figure were definate, but since that cannot happen in the real world, I still said "no".

[bigred]

In the real world, how would you ever come up with such figures?You wouldn't, of course; my point was a very high degree of confidence that it would work w/o expecting some 100% guarantee.


I completely agree, but the shades of grey don't apply to your constructed scenario. ? How so?

In the real world, I would not use torture because there is little chance of it being effective. Maybe, maybe not. Again the scenario was having a high confidence that it would indeed be effective, which could be true in some cases.

I guess from a purely hypothetical standpoint there would be some part of me that would push for the torture use if the 80-90% figure were definate, but since that cannot happen in the real world, I still said "no".Again the point is having a high confidence/very strong chance of it working, and I think you answered my question and the point I and whoever else said it were making, ie from a philosophical/moral perspective, of course you don't want to torture anyone - but there might be extreme cases where the moral or "right" choice is not so simple.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I don't know how else to ask the question.


Which premise do you take issue with?

Torture is bad.
Torture is endemic to the American establishment.This is important. Could you please just answer the question? You say my claims are false. Which claims?

Look, EJ, I'm happy to comply with your request but give me a break here. Which claims?

Then comply and quote where I used any of your terms? Its not that difficult as they are all on the thread - if you are being honest that is. What do you mean by establishment?

Bush has insisted on being able to torture whoever he wants whenever he wants. See
'President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".
He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Water-boarding is condemned as torture by rights groups and many governments.' from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7285290.stm

Does Bush qualify as having anything to do with your establishment or is he merely a lone voice crying in the wilderness with no influence over various arms of government and it is just by chance that the US military for example have aided and abetted that policy?

Your president is a torturer. Your government tortures people. You have contempt for international law. Have I got any of those statements wrong?

[RandFan]

Your president is a torturer. Your government tortures people. You have contempt for international law.We know your POV. You've made it abundantly clear.

You refuse to answer my questions or respond in a way that I can even engage you. You question my honesty. That's fine. I have thick skin. I'm honestly trying to have a discussion but it is clear that you are not.

I don't know what else to do.

I've conceded that our government has made serious errors. I don't condone our atrocities but I can try and understand why countries like ours make mistakes and why America finds itself in the position that it does today. I don't see the world in a childish black and white fashion where every regime that doesn't fit my world view is simply criminal.

Let me give you an example. It would be easy to demonize the Palestinian government as mass murderers and the Palestinian people as complicitous and or abettors of mass murder. Truth be told they are. But that's just one side of the story.

It's so simple to only look at what you want to in order to justify your contempt and bigotry. A grown up view of the world requires more subtlety.

[Normal Dude]

Nevermind.

[Oliver]

You people don't get the point:

The USA has been a torturing country for decades or even longer. You just have to torture them via a foreign proxy:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=egypt+secret+prisons+torture+cia&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

[RandFan]

You people don't get the point:

The USA has been a torturing country for decades or even longer. You just have to torture them via a foreign proxy:

If you say so Oliver. A discussion with you on the merits of your claim is pointless given you are so arbitrary in your responses.

I will say However that we did stop Germany from mass murdering every Jew they could get their hands on so we've got that going for us. Oh, and we kept West Berlin going during the Soviet's blockade.

Your fixation with the US must give your life a great deal of meaning.

[pgwenthold]

I will say However that we did stop Germany from mass murdering every Jew they could get their hands on so we've got that going for us.

Perhaps off topic:

If Germany hadn't tried to expand an empire across all of Europe, Russia, and Africa, would the US have lifted a finger to save the Jews?

[dudalb]

Someone from Germany should be very careful about making sweeping statements about another country being a torturing country.

[RandFan]

Perhaps off topic:

If Germany hadn't tried to expand an empire across all of Europe, Russia, and Africa, would the US have lifted a finger to save the Jews? If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor we might not have lifted a finger. It's a fair point but in the end we did stop it and when we were finished we didn't annex half of Europe the way the Soviets did. We believed that independent nations with Liberal Democracy was in everyone's best interest which is why we defended Berlin during the blockade.

[mrbaracuda]

I will say However that we did stop Germany from mass murdering every Jew they could get their hands on so we've got that going for us. Oh, and we kept West Berlin going during the Soviet's blockade.

If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor we might not have lifted a finger. It's a fair point but in the end we did stop it and when we were finished we didn't annex half of Europe the way the Soviets did. We believed that independent nations with Liberal Democracy was in everyone's best interest which is why we defended Berlin during the blockade.

And at least I appreciate this greatly and am ashamed about Germans who tend to forget this and hate America just for the sake of it or their political agendas.

[Oliver]

Someone from Germany should be very careful about making sweeping statements about another country being a torturing country.


So what? The CIA tortures by proxy in Egypt. For decades now - and in other Countries probably as well.

Why should I be careful? Does Germany do the same? :confused:

[RandFan]

Why should I be careful? Because of Germany's history you come off as a hypocrite. Your country was behind 2 world wars and commited genocide.

[RandFan]

And at least I appreciate this greatly and am ashamed about Germans who tend to forget this and hate America just for the sake of it or their political agendas.Yeah, it's a childish black and white viewpoint that requires willful blindness to half of the discussion.

[mrbaracuda]

Because of Germany's history you come off as a hypocrite. Your country was behind 2 world wars and commited genocide.

Maybe he's projecting the hatred he got for Germany on the US?
Probably hates both really.

[bigred]

You people don't get the point:

The USA has been a torturing country for decades or even longer. You just have to torture them via a foreign proxy:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=egypt+secret+prisons+torture+cia&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

I liked you better on the Brady Bunch.