I always try to look for a silver lining on a cloud. I try to see both sides of the coin, and to be positive. That’s a lot harder today, BUT it is not impossible!
Senator Specter is switching from a Republican to a Democrat, and this gives the Democratic Party absolute power in Washington DC. They now have full control of the White House and both Houses of Congress as well as a filibuster-proof majority. That means they can pass and do anything they want, and no one can stop them except themselves.
Therein lies the silver lining.
It’s been 100 days for President Obama
It’s been well over 2 YEARS for the Democratic Congress
While tomorrow is day 100, Thursday is day1 in a completely new respect:
THERE CAN BE NO MORE EXCUSES
Nothing washes, nothing is credible, no scapegoating can work. Democrats have absolute power, and while-yes, some things take time to fix-not everything does. As such, on Thursday, President Obama, the Democratic Party, the House Democrats, and the Senate Democrats (complete with their favorite tool of the day, Sen. Specter) will have either accomplished SOMETHING significant, or they will have failed.
So while NBC, Kos, HuffPo, and Obama fans everywhere might look misty-eyed at The One on Wednesday with spin and claims of “Best President Ever” the reality is that on Thursday morning he will have accomplished absolutely nothing after Democrats spent $12000000000000.00 and have absolute power.
Truth Commission to look into torture? Bring it on because if they don’t, only Democrats can be blamed now.
Stop the Iranian nuclear program? They better, and they better do it soon because Israel’s not gonna wait forever, Iran’s not even slowing down, and there’s no one else to blame now.
6-7million Americans without jobs? Better get them jobs soon because there’s no one to blame for it now.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
@trizzlor #57 – That’s not what you said. You said:
That argument didn’t work, so you switched to:
There is no need to compare our standing in the world to that of China. While the left complains of the horrendous treatment of the Gitmo detainees, said detainees are enjoying food cooked by special chefs, with a religious overseer to make sure everything meets their strict religious diet. Those detainees that don’t act an ass have high def TV night, classes on anything from English to Oceanography.
So some of them were waterboarded. Tough. It’s not torture. You can say it is all you want, it will not change the fact that it isn’t. And the Japanese used hoses to force water up the nose of their prisoners while keeping their mouths covered. Big difference. Is our version of waterboarding unpleasant…hell yeah. Believe me, there are much more unpleasant things than waterboarding.
A bit off topic…when I first entered the Air Force, I went into ParaRescue. We spent a lot of time in the pool. I actually lost skin, we were in there so much. We would tread water forever or so it seemed. When the instructors got pissed at us or just for fun, they would make us fill our masks with water, jump up on the deck and start doing flutter kicks. Lots of flutter kicks. Try it some time and let me know how it works out for ya.
@Aqua: Okay, let’s break this down:
1. “We abhor it because it puts our troops in more danger”
.
2. “and because it detracts from our overall mission as peace-keepers.”
These are arguments that make themselves clear over time rather than in immediate events; one example is our standing in comparison to China; another is the capture by Iran of those British soldiers who then claimed on video that they were wrong – the world-wide reaction was “they were tortured and nothing they’re saying is valid”. Your response completely disregards these points, but is a nice little nutshell of the right-wing memes: (i) Deny the torture – lie about how wonderfully we treat the prisoners and how Guantanamo is a paradise – “see, they eat like kings”; (ii) Deny the severity – use isolated incidents where mild torture has been applied to US soldiers and claim that it is ineffective – “see, it’s just splashing water”; (iii) overstate the effectiveness – use classified or unsourced accounts to claim that torture is the most effective tool in the interrogators toolbox – “it’s saved lives, dammit, and that’s all that matters”. It must be fun keeping all those conflicting thoughts bouncing around in your head at once. Honest question: when did torture become a conservative principle? Or is the line between conservative and partisan much blurrier than you make it out to be? I’m a bit shocked that I still have to argue basic geo-politics concepts like “ends don’t justify the means” and “short term effectiveness does not guarantee long term success”.
And since we’re sharing stories: The Russian army has a fun ritual for graduating recruits which involves repeatedly caning the Achilles tendon while they squat; once or twice it’s an annoyance, but repeatedly it becomes excruciating (try it sometime). In an incident a few years ago, some guys got overzealous and the recruit ended up bleeding real bad and unable to walk. Unfortunately, this was New Year’s eve so the doctor was out for a few days, and the guys wanted to keep it quiet anyway. By the time he was treated he had to have his feet amputated (and his genitals, but I’ll skip that). Hooah for hazing!
@trizzlor That was actually a very good argument trizzlor. However, the Iranians were after a confession. They didn’t care if the confession was the truth. As I’ve said, there are much worse things out there than waterboarding. Being hung up by your arms for extended periods of times and beaten will almost certainly produce a confession. I’m sure waterboarding would produce a confession too.
Tell me though, what good would a confession do for US interrogators? Can you give the CIA a little credit? They aren’t trying to get a confession. They aren’t trying to openly humiliate the detainees. They are trying to get information. What good would it do to force phony information from KSM?
The fact that you compare this to what the Iranians did to the British Marines is incredible. The US isn’t doing this for propaganda purposes. We were attacked and we want to know if there will be other attacks. Also, the British Marines were uniformed soldiers. I think we can reach some middle ground here though. Since the terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, we line them up and put a bullet in the back of their skulls. Perfectly legal under the GC. If they decide to spill their guts prior to said bullet entering their gray matter, all the better for us. No more chefs, no more high quality healthcare, no more arguments from the left.
@Aqua: Aqua, I’m glad we can come to the agreement that certain extreme interrogation techniques wouldn’t be effective because they would just elicit false information. My comparison to the Iran incident was meant to demonstrate that; I’m not making an equivalence between the goals of the two acts, merely that world-wide gut reaction was that torture yielded those statements, and therefore neither Iran nor that evidence had any credibility.
As far as confessions, there have been reports that many of the torture techniques were used to extract information that supported a link between al Qaida and Iraq, here’s a taste:
This is effectively a confession. However, because these accounts are anonymous and unsourced, I give them as much credence as Cheney’s claims that torture was only used for the right reasons. Still, there is certainly the possibility that these techniques were used, in part, to achieve the kind of ends both of us believe are wrong.
Lastly, you may be surprised to find that I completely agree with your proposed treatment of terrorists. However, you make the bizzare leap that anyone imprisoned in Guantanamo is automatically a terrorist and should be treated under GC as a spy. In fact, until a prisoner is convicted of a terrorist act, he is either an accused civilian, protected under GC, or a militant POW, also protected under GC as below:
So, if you can prove using humane methods that a detainee is actually a terrorist; then immediate execution is the appropriate punishment.
Sorry to turn this into a damn lecture, but a few more points from the GC regarding spies:
These rights include, under ARTICLE 3: “(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”. Lot’s of interesting stuff from International Humanitarian Law.
As has been said many times, waterboarding is not torture and no torture was used.
key words–“an individual protected person”.
Terrorists/enemy combatants don’t qualify.
@Hard Right: Let’s repeat for the slow kids in the class:
And once you prove the detainee is a terrorist, as directed by the GC, then you can strip him of POW status. As for “an individual protected person”, ARTICLE 2 quoted above makes it pretty clear that an insurgent is a protected persons unless explicitly proven that he engaged in taking of hostages or is a mercenary. Have you even bothered to read through the conventions?
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
Why yes, I have. Thanks for asking.
The question is, have you?
Apparently not.
Not true. Sorry.
The GCs have no “innocent until proven guilty” provisions for all involved parties. Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs.
They are:
If the captives do not fit all four of those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants:
Furthermore, Protocol I states the following:
If you need to read that again, more slowly, so that you can catch up with the rest of us, we can wait.
Back with us now? Good.
The problem with your argument beginning way back in post #64 is that these captives DO NOT qualify for protections under the GCs.
You’re strutting around here like the cock o’ the walk crowing about what you think you know while denigrating anyone who says otherwise.
You should try less “damn lecture” and “slow kids” invective and more “read, comprehend, and learn”.
You’re making an idiot of yourself and you’re not even smart enough to know it.
@Aye Chihuahua: Well, on the one hand it’s nice to see you actually read the damn thing, that’s some progress. But I would suggest not omitting context when you link to the actual articles. Let’s see:
1. Your “Not true. Sorry” quote essentially summarizes what I said – civilians involved in armed conflict are considered belligerents, and, as you mentioned yourself “Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.”
2. To your statements claiming “Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs … If the captives do not fit all four of those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants”. Here’s is the beginning of the exact paragraph you link:
.
Your claim about belonging to all four categories is just an outright lie: a POW can belong to one of eight different categories; the latter of which clearly deals with the insurgents we’ve captured. Maybe you should stick to the threads about inappropriate bowing and DVDs?
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
You know, there’s nothing I like better than someone who is being deliberately and willfully obtuse.
No, here is what you said:
That simply is not true.
This issue has been specifically addressed and even the ICRC disagrees with you:
::snip::
::snip::
[That last part, the part in bold italics, should look awfully familiar to you.]
Finally:
Al Qaeda members are members of an irregular militia, thus they must meet all four requirements of Article 4, Section 2 as I noted.
Your assertion that captured insurgents fall into category 6 is patently absurd and can be dismissed with no more than a cursory examination.
Maybe this will help:
First, did the insurgents in question “spontaneously” take up arms on the approach of the enemy? No, the insurgents in question are either members of Al Qaeda who were already armed or they are civilians who had plenty of time to join in with the Iraqi military if they wanted a piece of the action lawfully.
The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were not surprise attacks. Thus, there was nothing spontaneous about the response. This distinction is important. It’s very similar to the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. One requires advance planning.
Furthermore, if you apply the definition of the word spontaneous to the response, then it’s reasonable to say that such a response would have only occurred in the days immediately surrounding the beginning of hostilities.
Only by deliberately ignoring the factors of foreknowledge of military action, and then applying the most generous coverage of the GC’s can you say that anyone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq fall into the “spontaneously” definition.
Second, did the insurgents in question have time to form themselves into regular armed units.
Yes, they did. As I said above, our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were known well in advance of the actual arrival of Coalition troops and if these individuals were truly interested in following the recognized rules of warfare then they had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Third, did the insurgents carry their arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. No, they didn’t. Quite contrary. They hid their weapons. They fought from within mosques, hospitals, schools, and other prohibited locations. They concealed themselves among civilian populations and targeted said civilians when such actions served their purposes.
Basically, once again, you’ve proven your ignorance to everyone who is reading.
All you need now is a rubber nose and a red wig.
Very nicely said Aye. Unfortunately, the truth isn’t going to work on trizzlor or the other lefties. After reading through trizzlor’s posts, it’s all about how the rest of the world perceives our actions. If we treat the detainees with kid gloves and we’re attacked again, the rest of the world will sympathize with us. The French will run frontline news stories that “We’re All Americans.” If we thwart those attacks…no sympathy. No matter what we do to get the information from terrorists, it is torture. You see, withouth the sympathy and accolades from the rest of the world, the left is lost. This was easily visible during Obama’s Apology Tour. In the end, what’s the loss of a few thousand American lives when the rest of the world sympathizes with us and our stellar treatment of the terrorists?
@Aye Chihuahua: Thanks for the FindLaw link, AC, it’s a good summary of the whole “unlawful combatant” question. I think we’re talking about different protections of the GC; specifically, I’m referring to protections from torture as this was the source of our debate. From ICRC:
From FindLaw:
And, finally, from the Body of Principles themselves:
This seems pretty clear-cut to me, but perhaps I should have been more clear what specific protections of the GC I was talking about (certainly not habeas corpus or repatriation). Am I missing something here?
My broader point is that when we capture an insurgent, we must first demonstrate that he is a spy, a mercenary, militia member, etc. Prior to this, we must assume they are civilians or belligerents. I would also argue that, even years into the Iraq war, if a person takes up arms to “defend” his home or village from incoming US forces, this is still a spontaneous act. I agree with your evidence indicating that Al Qaida is an irregular militia, however, you repeatedly assume that anyone we capture has Al Qaida or Terrorist stamped on their forehead. The fact that there prisoners in Guantanamo who were held for years without charge, and coalition officials’ own admission that 70-90 percent of captives at Abu Ghraib were caught by mistake (source, Red Cross) suggests otherwise. As I said above – once such an individual is convicted of being a spy, mercenary, etc. they lose any protection of the GC and can be executed, etc.
Triz, if I am slow then you are glacial. I’ve read the GC and they aren’t protected under it. Despite your efforts to twist it to fit your insane sense of morality, it has been explained to you in detail how wrong you are. As ususual you aren’t able to understand that which does not fit into your leftist fantasy.
@Hard Right, I like your attitude – pop into a thread, state your opinion as ground truth with no evidence whatsoever, and then skulk back into the shadows. The GC says that “enemy combatants” are protected under humanitarian law; the humanitarian law (to which we are signatories) re-iterates this by stating that “all persons under any form” are protected from torture, and defines torture to include even relatively mild interrogation such as sleep/sensory deprivation. Apparently my insane sense of morality is the belief in the supremacy clause?
I wouldn’t call your “sense of morality” insane, triz. I’d call it naive, effeminate and a politically correct sense of morality.
And why is it, BTW, that the only one the world demands follow the precious GC is the US? Hear anyone whining about any other country’s treatment?
Nope… one standard for the US, and nary a word for those who genuinely trample human rights.
The only way these human cockroaches gain any protections in the GC with their status is under Article 75. This is supported not only by legal scholars, but the ICRC. However when speaking of Art 75 rights, when you get right to it, what defines “humiliating and degrading acts”, and “mental suffering”?
How about we send ’em all to your house, triz, so you and family can take care of these poor, abused “victims”. I’d suggest you warn those around you not to turn their backs tho. And fer heavens sake, hide the butter knives. They love the dull blades and slow sawing thru human necks.
Otherwise, if we’re going to have this quasi candy ass battle about whether pouring water, or exposure to bugs is mental “torture” – since neither are physical pain – you’ll find yourself with these scum in a US courtroom, claiming their Mickey D’s happy meal was served cold… and thereby torture.
ad nauseum…
If I have to keep listening to the self-righteous types go on about this, I still say shoot ’em on the battlefield and be done with it.
@MataHarley: I’m interested to know more about this masculine and feminine classification of morality and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Besides, I’m not the one wetting myself because the scary Muslims are going to come to my house.
Part of me agrees with you that most of Europe has been on a high horse regarding the GWOT while basically whistling past the graveyard themselves – the USA is still, and will likely always be, the country that is most tolerant of Muslims and other minorities. But there certainly has been a lot said about countries who condone torture; if you’re hanging out with people who place the US even remotely in the same category as China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. as far as human rights, then you need to get some new friends (or enemies).
That being said, it’s doesn’t give us the right to break the law – if you don’t like a treaty then abrogate, leave the UN, etc. Both in spirit (as in Art. 75) and in explicit letter (as in the 1988 resolution) the Geneva Conventions classify many of the EITs as torture. What I don’t understand is why this is such a black & white argument for you guys: either you torture detainees or you let them roam around Hershey, PA and collect welfare, are those the only options?
Is fear, dehumanization, and faux-masculinity really the foundation for an effective policy?
It’s a typical feminine trait to embellish on pain, IMHO, triz. Such as a mom generally being more panicked than the dad with a kid who takes a fall off a bike, or a son who comes home from school with his first black eye after a fight. And most mom’s don’t like to think of their sons or daughters as boxers, ultimate fighters, etal.
That’s what I see in too many men today… an effeminate attitude towards things like waterboarding… which you equate with torture, and thereby some smug “morality”. Hang, most kids get that and more in the process of learning to swim. Dedicated athletes take more physical abuse than detainees who have been waterboarded. To watch so many wringing their hands in moral dismay over this stuff is absolutely pathetic, and quite frankly, embarrassing. Something I’d expect from my earth mommy sister, but not from men who I figure would have grown up doing what I remember boys do enroute to adulthood.
But then, I guess not all our young men or women can be the caliber of our special ops or SERE trained warriors. Maybe they [our military] just can take things in stride better than the average US citizen, used to nothing but a cushy life. You’ve not heard one of our many commenters here, who have gone thru waterboarding, whining about the pain and abuse, have you? Those who have experienced it have spoken up with what they can (without divulging more info than they should). They’ve been there, and I’d say they’ve got it all over you.
It would be interesting to get a sorority group together who indulge in hazing, and find out how they think about this stuff. How about the college students in the beer guzzling contests – in a way a self inflicted beer-boarding… LOL Think they could see their absurd double standard? Probably not for most… would get in the way of their PC programming. But I’m sure a few would.
This deserves to be on it’s own… thus the 2nd post
Apparently, I need a new POTUS.
@MataHarley: I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s a weird assumption here that the left is against torture because they’re not tough enough to stomach it. It’s odd that your definition of masculinity hinges on allowing someone else to commit violent acts for your security. It would be like arguing that someone is against capitol punishment because they think lethal injection is icky. To put it bluntly, I don’t have an ounce of pity or compassion for KSM or Zubaida and the things they were put through. Living in NYC, and still holding my breath a bit when I hear low flying planes, I actually get quite a bit of satisfaction thinking about their suffering. The difference, I think, is that I don’t go and base the actions of my government on my personal revenge fantasies. Rather, I abhor torture because it’s ineffective and because it’s an inhuman response grounded not in thought but in rage and sadism. Check the dates and places on those GC documents – a lot of these human rights regulations where established after the world looked into the abyss of the SS. Maybe you can see why I’m not impressed when we start calling people cockroaches and cheering for execution on sight.
Your problem here. triz, is that you have a blanket visualization of torture, encompassing waterboarding, sleep deprivation, drugs, etc. Frankly, you are a pansy wuss if you consider waterboarding, or any of the others above, as torture. Meaning, your effeminate nature isn’t because you abhor violence. It’s because of what you consider violent. By gosh, my granddaughter’s tougher than you.
I have a pretty clear division in my mind on what crosses the line. In your version… it’s all meshed together under the nanny GC rules that anything that offends the detainee enough for them to complain of “mental” suffering.
Do I condone cutting off limbs, maiming, beatings etc? No. I consider *that* torture.
Perhaps if you leave behind the Disney version of “torture”, and be more concerned if we do that which our enemy does, you might find more like kind thoughts out of the rest of us. Otherwise, you should consider yourself lucky there’s some tougher nuts around than yours to watch your NYC arse.
Like I said triz, glacial. AC explained it to you and now Mata. Your interpretation of it does not impress me and only shows you are not capable of viewing anything clearly, but only thru leftist colored glasses.
And I will say it again knowing it will never sink in.
Waterboarding is not torture and we did not torture anyone.
What’s sad is I know the true motives about your view. It’s not about what’s right. It’s not for the welfare of our soldiers or America. That’s a sham. It all about you and your ego.
You demand that we be absolutely perfect. When in your eyes we fail to meet this absurd standard, you pretend we tortured captured terrorists so you can show how morally superior you are by being outraged and against it. It’s been called selfless narcissm by psychiatrists and it’s usually liberals who suffer from it. Well actually, WE suffer from it when they bash and undermine their country and force socialism down our throats–for our own good.