Caterpillar in a Box

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.

Oakman

wolfbinary wrote:

That sounds like survival of the fittest.

Isn't that always the case? After all, if the representatives of the species/civilization/nation/clan/family aren't willing to do whatever they can to insure its survival then they are still making a judgement about the fittest - as being something/someone else.

wolfbinary wrote:

Morality, ethics, etc become a luxury and not substantive then

'I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape.' ~ Robert A. Heinlein Note please that neither Heinlein nor I are speaking of personal survival. Many times, morality requires the sacrifice of the individual for the survival of others. Nor can morality be imposed from without. It is immoral for someone to decide that another person should die for the greater good. It is terribly, beautifully, painfully moral when some one chooses to insure the survival of others with his/her own death.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

fred_ wrote:

If you give bully your lunch money once, you'll keep doing it forever until you find the right means

But in such a case, the bully has determined both the means and the end. As my son, a second degree black belt, learned it: Never start a fight; always walk away if you can; never lose one you can't.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Oops, I forgot to mention, oily, that since you are down to name calling, I lost interest. I'm not really sure here since, although it was a temptation, I only read about the first ten words, but I hope typing them gave you a sense of satisfaction because you won;t get anything but this from me. Have a nice day.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

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.

According to the ACLU article, people were tortured to death. The deaths were unlikely to have been deliberate, but nevertheless the torture caused death. Trivialisation of this by either misrepresenting the seriousness of the torture or by implying that we shouldn't care about it because there were bigger crimes committed strikes me as truly appalling judgement.

John Carson

Oakman

John Carson wrote:

According to the ACLU article, people were tortured to death. The deaths were unlikely to have been deliberate, but nevertheless the torture caused death.

If the ACLU article is correct - and that is a big IF, they are no longer the organization I joined in the '60's - then the people who did that should be identified, and tried for first or second degree murder. BUT my OP is about the release of details about what the CIA did in the days after 9/11. As Rob pointed out, Obama by saying that he would not prosecute the men who did these things, has announced that no crime was committed - or that he is aware that they did and he is covering up for them which makes him a conspirator after the fact and thus guilty of those crimes. There is no other legal interpretation of what he has done. Dragging in the ACLU or accusing me of trivializing murders that may or may not have occurred at other times and or other places because I comment on the absurdity of referring to the presentation of a caterpillar as torture suggests that we have strayed far afield in an attempt to absolve Obama of pandering to his base rather than listening to the urgings of his intelligence people. If it will make you feel better, I remind you that I have spoken out against torture in this forum (and elsewhere and elsewhen, for what that's worth) and no doubt will do so again. However, I suspect I have a stricter definition of what is torture and what is aggresive interogation. If somehow that make you feel that you are nobler than I am you are welcome to the feeling. I rest content with my judgements. [edit only of typo]

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 8:04 PM

John Carson

Rob Graham wrote:

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.

The Administration has not announced that the authors of the legal opinions are in the clear. I'm sure Obama is very well aware of the legal issues involved. He is trying to walk a very fine line. On the one hand, he doesn't wish to either condone or cover up torture. On the other hand, he doesn't wish to alienate the intelligence community nor expose himself to the (completely bogus but nevertheless often foreshadowed) charge of criminalising policy differences. As a practical matter, charging CIA agents who acted in accordance with DOJ legal advice was never a realistic possibility. "Just following orders" is not an absolute defence, but it is a pretty good one in all but the most heinous cases. Taking some sort of action against those responsible for the legal advice and/or Bush Administration officials who promoted the policy is another matter. We will have to see how it plays out. Your claim that the Obama Administration has clearly defined that "these acts did not in fact meet a legal definition of torture" is at best premature. It is also legally dubious. There is never a compulsion to prosecute, as such. Prosecutors exercise discretion all the time based on likelihood of a conviction and other issues. There is an obligation to treat allegations of torture on the same basis as any other allegations of criminal conduct.

John Carson

Oakman

John Carson wrote:

"Just following orders" is not an absolute defence, but it is a pretty good one in all but the most heinous cases.

Last time I looked, torturing people to death was considered pretty heinous. And it is established American (I have no idea about Australian) law that "following orders," is not a defense that can be used in court.

John Carson wrote:

There is an obligation to treat allegations of torture on the same basis as any other allegations of criminal conduct.

It would be useful to remember that when you talk of the ACLU report as being proven fact rather than supposition, hearsay, and deliberately prejudicial.

John Carson wrote:

I'm sure Obama is very well aware of the legal issues involved. He is trying to walk a very fine line. On the one hand, he doesn't wish to either condone or cover up torture. On the other hand, he doesn't wish to alienate the intelligence community nor expose himself to the (completely bogus but nevertheless often foreshadowed) charge of criminalising policy differences.

So he does both??? Tell you what, I agree that he knows exactly what he is doing and I suspect an destroy-before-reading memo went out throughout the CIA and the DOJ pointing out that he was essentially making it impossible for anyone to ever charge any past or present members with a crime. And my theory, at least, gives the man credit for an IQ above 110.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

John Carson · modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 8:04 PM

Oakman wrote:

As Rob pointed out, Obama by saying that he would not prosecute the men who did these things, has announced that no crime was committed - or that he is aware that they did and he is covering up for them which makes him a conspirator after the fact and thus guilty of those crime. There is no other legal interpretation of what he has done.

I replied to Rob directly.

Oakman wrote:

Dragging in the ACLU or accusing me of trivializing murders that may or may not have occurred at other times and or other places because I comment on the absurdity of referring to the presentation of a caterpillar as torture suggests that we have strayed far afield in an attempt to absolve Obama of pandering to his base rather than listening to the urgings of his intelligence people.

I think the point here is that the ACLU report is in large measure about "aggressive interrogation" gone wrong. "Stress positions", "roughing up" and deliberate interference with breathing lead to deaths. No doubt the opposition to torture can lead to nitpicking, just as the determined opposition to anything typically does. But it completely misrepresents the position to regard concern over minor abuses as the core of the debate.

John Carson

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

Last time I looked, torturing people to death was considered pretty heinous.

My understanding of the Obama statement is that there is no blanket immunity for CIA agents. There is an immunity for those who strictly followed the DOJ guidelines. And, in any case, intent is legally relevant.

Oakman wrote:

And it is established American (I have no idea about Australian) law that "following orders," is not a defense that can be used in court.

That was the legal position taken at the Nuremberg trials. I would like authoritative confirmation that "following orders" is never a defence in US court. As a practical matter, people get off on that basis all the time, by not being charged if by no other means. <edit> I'm pretty sure that "relying on legal advice" is a defence in US court for some things. </edit>

Oakman wrote:

It would be useful to remember that when you talk of the ACLU report as being proven fact rather than supposition, hearsay, and deliberately prejudicial.

I think we need to distinguish evidence sufficient to convict a specific individual of a specific crime from evidence sufficient to show the existence of criminal activity. We all know the mafia commits crimes, even if we can't easily convict individuals. I don't believe I made any claims of "proven fact". I find the ACLU evidence highly persuasive that serious torture has occurred, leading to deaths. I wouldn't be any more specific than that.

Oakman wrote:

So he does both???

Hard to walk a fine line between two things that overlap. A cover up was never an acceptable option. Expose yet forgive is something that has been used in the past. In post-apartheid South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was empowered to forgive people for serious crimes, including murders, provided they confessed. The US situation is trickier because of the legal obligations in relation to torture. Obama may be prepared to ignore the law for the sake of some approximation to the South African approach. Or we may yet see some prosecutions --- or at least firings or similar. Time will tell.

John Carson

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 9:17 PM

Stan Shannon

These documents make me proud of my country. They prove the care and compassion our government had for its worst enemies. It is too bad their release weakens our nation to such a great extent. If there are any more attacks on the US, Obama and people like you will be to blame.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

modified on Friday, April 17, 2009 9:26 PM

Stan Shannon

wolfbinary wrote:

Is anyone here saying the ends justifies the means?

They always have in the past. Thats how we got here.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

I continue to pray he does just that. These documents prove that (a) the methods were entirely benign, and (b) effective. Drag the Bush administration into the courts, possibly international courts, and condemn them for effectively defending the country, let these dispicable leftist sons of bitches prove to the American public who they really are. Please God let that happen.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.