Caterpillar in a Box

[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.

[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