Caterpillar in a Box

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

Is anyone here saying the ends justifies the means?

I think the question I would put forth - because I don't know the answer - is: do the ends ever justify the means? The trouble is, I pretty much automatically distrust anyone who is absolutely sure of the answer.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

Attempt to trivialize it all you like.

I don't have to. Caterpillars in a box are trvial. standing in awkward positions for hours is painful as hell, but seldom if ever has any lasting effects. Even less damaging is being kept awake for three days - done all the time in sleep studies. Expressing moral outrage over the idea that these people are not coddled is, on the other hand, as ludicrous as Stan exprssing moral outrage over someone smoking a joint - and claiming it can and does kill.

oilFactotum wrote:

it can and does kill.

I'd like to hear about all the folks who have been killed by being kept awake. The truth is that it is a very effective means of interogation because, without the use of truth serums or other foreign substances, it causes the person to to have less ability to censor his responses to questions.

oilFactotum wrote:

You have never read any such expressions.

Perhaps you should review your way of expressing yourself. You certainly comes across as if you care more for the rights of the enemies of the U.S. than for the lives of your fellow Americans. Look at your first response to this thread - any attempt on the part of Obama to maintain an agressive pursuit of our enemies upsets you and your "progressive" friends. Any time spent digging up past history and whining about it delights you.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

Oakman wrote:

do the ends ever justify the means?

That's pretty much where I was going with it.

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

That's pretty much where I was going with it.

So what do you think? Don't tell me you're going to come up with a wussy answer like "I don't know, either." Oily will call you a fascist; Ilion will call you godless; Stan will call you a socialist; and Karl will call you an American. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[oilFactotum]

Again, more attempts to trivialize. All of these methods are either outright torture or can easily rise to the level of torture if use is extended. They have all been illegal since well before 2001. Your claims that some of these methods are 'very effective' is unsupported by the evidence. Any intelligence gathered by these methods will always be unreliable because the victims will say anything to get it to stop.

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps you should review your way of expressing yourself.

No that is not the problem. The problem is the false assumptions you bring to the conversation and how they color you reading of what I write.

Oakman wrote:

You certainly comes across as if you care more for the rights of the enemies of the U.S. than for the lives of your fellow Americans.

I'm concerned about my rights as an American citizen. But, of course, those rights also apply to my enemies. And not everyone who has be imprisoned, tortured or killed while in custody has been our enemy. And I have no interest in allowing my government the ability to disappear me.

Oakman wrote:

Look at your first response to this thread...

More bullshit. A complete mischaracterization of what I said. "any attempt"? I said no such thing. "agressive pursuit of our enemies upsets you" to characterize unlimited warrantless wiretaps with no oversight in this manner is simply dishonest.

Oakman wrote:

"progressive"

Scare quotes. :rolleyes:

Oakman wrote:

digging up past history

Another attempt to trivialize possible war crimes.

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Look, John, I am not saying that there haven't been actions taken which do not reflect my image of what American should be. I am glad that we have eschewed water-boarding and agree with John McCain that it is torure or the next best thing. At the same time, I am sick to death of people who see no difference between people trying to get descent intel from a self-confessed terrorist and people who fly a planeload of innocents into a building for the express purpose of killing as many more innocents as possible.

I'm not sure who these people are that can't see differences. However the fact that criminal act A is worse than criminal act B doesn't stop criminal act B from being criminal. "Seeing differences" is not the point. Following appropriate procedures is the point.

Oakman wrote:

Somehow I am reminded of the screams of outrage that rose up all over Australia when it was discovered that the US knew that Indonesian terrorists were planning something - what turned out to be that horrific firebombing - and the demands for an exsplanation of why the US did not share its intel. Ironically, of course, the US had shared the info, and your government was forced to admit that it had chosen not to pass on the warnings. I find myself wondering if that intel had come from someone who was waterboarded. Perhaps that was why your government felt it needed to ignore it?

I have no recollection of "screams of outrage". Indeed, I don't even recall the allegation. Lots of claims get thrown around with everyone trying to be wise after the event and to cast the blame on someone. Not many people are realistic enough to recognise that shit happens. I take it all with a grain of salt. A little Googling suggests that the US warnings were non-specific, as these warnings typically are, and hence the government chose not to pass them on. Nothing to do with water-boarding. Just the usual "we know they may have something planned, but don't know what" deal. The idea that the John Howard government would give a toss how the intel was acquired is rather comical. An indication of its attitude to human rights can be gathered from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/07/08/1057430195786.html[

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

"Seeing differences" is not the point

This is, of course, what Stan and others say when someone suggests that smoking a single joint and having twenty lbs of uncut heroin in your fridge should not be considered the same offense. To my mind seeing the differences and making judgements based on them is the most important point.

John Carson wrote:

I have no recollection of "screams of outrage".

I do. I read them in Australian newspapers, by following links sent to me by Aussies who were angered over the American "failure." Unless the papers have been taken off line, I'm sure you could find them on Google.

John Carson wrote:

Just the usual "we know they may have something planned, but don't know what" deal.

Too bad John Howard adopted the same blase attitude.

John Carson wrote:

The idea that the John Howard government would give a toss how the intel was acquired is rather comical.

You guys elected him, we didn't. Though somehow, I suspect Oz blames us for him.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

An interesting thought: could all this actually backfire? Releasing the memos, and publicly announcing that neither the authors of the guidance nor those who applied the methods will/should/can be prosecuted makes this legal precedent for any future administration that decides that the methods should be used and are legal. What the Obama administration has accomplished is to clearly define that these acts did not in fact meet a legal definition of torture (otherwise the would be compelled to prosecute), but only in their opinion are inappropriate. In any case, it was stupid, as it served no useful purpose and makes future intelligence gathering and cooperation more difficult. It was just another poorly thought out feel-good move that will end up haunting them for the remainder of Obama's term, and will cost them votes in the center in future elections.

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

or can easily rise to the level of torture if use is extended

Which means they aren't torture, per se. Do you understand that you are agreeing with me?

oilFactotum wrote:

The problem is the false assumptions you bring to the conversation and how they color you reading of what I write.

False assumptions like the lives of American citizens should be protected? False assumptions like to receive the rights of an American citizen you must be an American citizen? False assumptions like there are people in the world who don't give a damn about your fine sensibilities and would be glad to kill you if they had half a chance? Guilty as charged.

oilFactotum wrote:

A complete mischaracterization of what I said

You're beginning to sound like a politician trying to "clarify" what he said.

oilFactotum wrote:

Scare quotes

Far from it, I was trying to indicate that I was quoting your use of the word and I couldn't bring myself to simply agree. Truth to tell, I think you and those who agree with you are misguided, bleeding hearts, and anything but "progressive."

oilFactotum wrote:

Another attempt to trivialize possible war crimes

"War Crime" has a specific definition. I suggest you write me a 500 word essay on how showing a prisoner a caterpillar fits that definition.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

What the Obama administration has accomplished is to clearly define that these acts did not in fact meet a legal definition of torture (otherwise the would be compelled to prosecute), but only in their opinion are inappropriate.

I hadn't thought of that - perhaps that's what has Oily so hot under the collar?

Rob Graham wrote:

In any case, it was stupid, as it served no useful purpose and makes future intelligence gathering and cooperation more difficult. It was just another poorly thought out feel-good move that will end up haunting them for the remainder of Obama's term, and will cost them votes in the center in future elections.

The one thing I am quite sure it has accomplished is to make those who consider themselves enemies of the U.S. hold Obama in ever greater contempt. I can only imagine the semi-humans who think nothing of beheading their hostages laughing at him. I am certainly not suggesting that we need to imitate them in order to defeat them, but making a P.R. spectacle out of this to win the approval of his base is saddening.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

They can call me maple syrup and I could care less. I think it depends on what kind of person you want to be and what you want to be about. 'ism's and 'ist's are fine if labels make you feel better about people you don't try to understand or agree with. I don't think I could connect all the dots for you to make it completely clear to you with how I'd go from this line of thinking to being civilized, but I'll give it a try. If I understand the word civil correctly then I would say that believing that the ends justifies the means in any circumstance is uncivilized because it goes counter to the very meaning of the word and thus any civilization cannot do this and be a civilization. I don't believe that modern civilization anywhere on the planet is completely civil yet and so we have a quazy civilization right now. This isn't a them vs us thinking, just an observation of how we treat each other on a day to day basis. Don't get me wrong we have our high points, but equally we have our low points. I don't want to be anything like these low points.

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

I hadn't thought of that - perhaps that's what has Oily so hot under the collar?

In retrospect, it makes Bush's decision to NOT to grant blanket amnesty exactly the right one. Now that the Obama administration has reviewed all the evidence, and all the advice, and decided that it was not worthy of prosecution, and compounded that by publicizing all of the advice reviewed, they have granted it the imprimatur of legality and made it precedence fodder for any future court action. Had Bush granted the amnesty, they could have just ignored the legality issue, and continued to scream about the wrongs done. Instead they become enablers for future administrations that wish to follow a policy more like Bush's I'd say they shot themselves in the foot. Several toes worth.

[oilFactotum]

Oakman wrote:

Do you understand that you are agreeing with me?

Clearly, I am not. This has not been a discussion about what constitutes torture. Though you have attempted to trivialize any coercive techniques to the level of "showing a prisoner a caterpillar" You're beginning to sound like Red. "Wetting a terrorist's hair" is how he described waterboarding. X|

Oakman wrote:

You're beginning to sound like a politician trying to "clarify" what he said.

And you are beginning to sound like a troll liar. Support your claim. How does this:

oilFactotum wrote:

I have been greatly disappointed by Obama in the past few weeks for his recent support of some of Bush's worst abuses of executive power and secrecy

become this:

Oakman wrote:

any attempt on the part of Obama to maintain an agressive pursuit of our enemies upsets you and your "progressive" friends.

It doesn't. Your attempt to equate the two statements is completely dishonest.

Oakman wrote:

...how showing a prisoner a caterpillar fits that definition.

Another attempt to trivialize possible war crimes.

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

This isn't a them vs us thinking

But what is the proper response to such thinking? Is it civilized to shoot back when being shot at?

wolfbinary wrote:

I would say that believing that the ends justifies the means in any circumstance is uncivilized because it goes counter to the very meaning of the word and thus any civilization cannot do this and be a civilization.

I think that the essence of civilization is survival - of the species, the civilization, the family, the women and children, and even of oneself. Any action, no matter how noble the motivation, that runs counter to the above is, for me, uncivilized behavior. The question becomes, for me: is what I do and is what I approve of others doing, contributing to survival (as ranked above) or not? When it comes to the kind of torture practiced by Al Quaeda or the Inquisition, I have to think that ultimately survival requires that we abjure it. That kind of cruelty begets more cruelty. In the case of sleep deprivation, I am not so sure. In the case of caterpillars, I am quite sure that survival is on the side of showing the prisoner the box.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

Several toes worth.

chuckle. Obama's aim is getting better in this regard, it appears. As is his ability to find new toes.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

Oakman wrote:

But what is the proper response to such thinking? Is it civilized to shoot back when being shot at?

I don't think you have a choice but to shoot back.

Oakman wrote:

I think that the essence of civilization is survival - of the species, the civilization, the family, the women and children, and even of oneself. Any action, no matter how noble the motivation, that runs counter to the above is, for me, uncivilized behavior.

That sounds like survival of the fittest. If that's the case morality doesn't matter, because it doesn't enter into it. Morality, ethics, etc become a luxury and not substantive then?

[fred_]

you'll have to distrust me then, because yes. If you give bully your lunch money once, you'll keep doing it forever until you find the right means :evilGrinEmote

[Rob Graham]

If a choice made on the basis of some issue of morality results in becoming dead, or extinct, then the "morals" involved are indeed not substantive. Morals that result in actions that are counter to survival need serious reconsideration.

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

You're beginning to sound like Red. "Wetting a terrorist's hair" is how he described waterboarding.

oh please. My observation was a metaphor; yours is just a silly ad hominem attack.

oilFactotum wrote:

And you are beginning to sound like a troll liar.

See what I mean? you are no longer arguing a point of view, you are not even arguing against my point of view. You are simply trash talking.

oilFactotum wrote:

It doesn't. Your attempt to equate the two statements is completely dishonest.

It might have been wrong (I don't think so) but it was honest. Your need not to argue the point but to simply yell "liar," suggests to me that you can't debate the point.

oilFactotum wrote:

Another attempt to trivialize possible war crimes.

That was one of the "tortures" inflicted on imprisoned suspected terrorists. Dance aropund it how you may, but that fact remains that the CIA has been revealed to be guilty of doing this. Now if you had any sense, you'd just say that it was stupid to have included this in with the other CIA activities, and let it go. :laugh: :laugh:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[oilFactotum]

Oakman wrote:

My observation was a metaphor

An attempt to reduce the Bushies illegal use of coercive interrogation to an anecdote about a caterpillar. Not really much difference than red's attempt to trivialize waterboarding.

Oakman wrote:

you are no longer arguing a point of view

Arguing a point of view? You grossly mischaracterize my statements and refuse to explain how you got from here to there. You have refused to argue your point of view - instead say that I am "beginning to sound like a politician". That is an ad hominem attack.

Oakman wrote:

but it was honest.

If so then explain youself. If you are really going to claim that you honestly believe that the 2 statements are equivelent then I will apologize for calling you a liar and dishonest. But you will have to explain yourself first.

Oakman wrote:

you can't debate the point.

Debate the point?! When you first made your mischaracterization, I made an attempt to "debate" you, and you chose to respond with an ad hominem attack.

Oakman wrote:

That was one of the "tortures"

And who, beside that rabid pro-torture advocate Charles Krauthammer has called this specific technique torture?

Oakman wrote:

it was stupid to have included this in with the other CIA activities

Well, you'll have to talk to the Bush justice department about that. That was their memos. It was they who included it.