Oh please, PLEASE try and prosecute members of the Bush administration for keeping our country safe, this will be one huge mistake from which dim-ocrats will not recover.

We were soooo safe… except, of course, for that one time where we lost all of the buildings at the World Trade Center, a good chunk of the Pentagon, and not incidentally, some 3000 human lives. By that definition, the Columbine killers were okay guys; they never did it again after the first time.

Bob, I think Darth Cheney is destroying the PUKIES, party of whinners. Keep up the delusional outlook, you don’t want to have to pull your head out of your butt! Cheney ‘O-bought-ma’ is a weak president, this from the handler of the sock puppet front of FACISM. You guys make my day with your dithering. I get a great laugh every time I see the latest non-issue you neoNAZIcons are screaming/whinning about each day. You people are irrelevent and you all know it. Just have to try to grab the spot light to try to protect your sock puppet’s ‘Legacy’!! hahahahahahaha

Yes, please, please prosecute the war criminals since they broke the law and haven’t kept us safe at all. Since there’s still a threat and still a GWOT, I don’t at all feel safe especially when traveling abroad. I worry that as a citizen of a nation that tortures, I may be picked up for those crimes. And I especially don’t want any future President to ever do this again. Reasons like this are why we need these prosecutions.

Note to “bob”: Not everybody thinks that we are any safer today than before 9/11. Torturing may have given some people revenge but it didn’t stop the terrorists, did it? In fact, it did a bang-up job in recruiting new terrorists; now there’s even more to worry about. I suppose though, people like you who think that “torture kept us safe” wouldn’t mind if their son or daughter was pulled off the street, bound and flown to some hidden airport and locked up, beaten, waterboarded, head slammed, etc., you know tortured; that’s OK for you, right? Oh, I see, its only brown skinned Muslims that have to be tortured. Oh I see, we’re the USA and we are gods and saviours of the world. Oh I see, we’re above the law.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
You’re argument holds no water!

bob-you should read about nuremberg and the nazis. the majority of the american people want to see the bush crime family and its cohorts go to prison. nothing was gained by torture, our nations’s soul was lost and the american people want it back. the bushies are liars and torturers, soulless hollow eyed loonies who tried to destroy us while looting the treasury and killing off a generation of american and iraqi young people. rather than not recovering from the huge mistake, holder will be applauded for doing what is right, what is moral and what is REQUIRED BY US AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Hey Bob,

Guess what, if you had read the above you would have noted that nobody wants to try to prosecute for keeping the country safe, we want to prosecute for breaking the law, and since we are just talking investigating, well bushco would not have a thing to worry about if he did nothing wrong…, kinda feels funny having that very argument used against ya, isn’t it?

Hey, it looks like the American people are turning against ya, Bob, oh those scare tactics aren’t working so good are they?

Bob, thanks for the insight. Good to see that because nobody lost $62,000.00 in a land deal in Arkansas or had oral sex that your sense of justice has not been upset.

I’m not condoning all of what the Bush admin. OK’d; I found some of it to be fairly disturbing. However, I think people need to chill the f*** out. On the world-wide scale, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, confinement in a box, in the dark, are small beans. Yes, we all remember that scandle with whats-their-names where they stripped inmates and put them in compromising poses and took pictures…but hey, were the perps prosecuted and sent to jail for those crimes, or were they not? When an inmate died because he was not given adequate medical attention for injuries he sustained, were the perps prosecuted and punished? They were! I think we have shown that we don’t condone all manners of torture and brutality.

Now, as for all this allowed torture on the part of the USA, lets compare it to what would happen to you if you were taken prisoner in Iraq or Afghanistan: if you’re lucky enough not get beheaded on camara, you might be shot in the back of the head and perhaps also have your body set on fire, or dragged through the streets, or, maybe, just maybe – if you’re super lucky – merely left rotting in some roadside ditch. Iran, it would seem, has milded out, so, should be a woman caught with a book, they’ll just throw you behind bars for 10 years. You want to talk about condoning torture? Hamas skips the whole torture thing all together and moves directly on to killing if you break their laws.

I’m not saying that, by thinking we should prosecute those of us who tortured POWs, you think it’s ok what other countries do to american POWs. I’m not saying that at all. Nor would I argue that, because what other nations or organizations do is way worse, that people should accept what we do, or be cool with it. In fact, I think it’s great when a human being looks down on the ways we’ve treated POWs. However, I think people need to chill out a little. We are not the Nazi party from WWII, or the Bosnian serbs of the mid-90s. The war crimes of the Bush era are frivolous, by comparison.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you’re energy would best be directed towards yammering about much bigger crimes of war? I mean, this is not Darfur.

One more thing, get over the whole thing with the lawyers, you’re blowing it way out of proportion. You want an evil mastermind who planned crimes against humaity and sent out legions of goonies to do his bidding? I give you Heinrich Himler.

…I’m not saying that at all. Nor would I argue that, because what other nations or organizations do is way worse, that people should accept what we do, or be cool with it.

We are not the Nazi party from WWII, or the Bosnian serbs of the mid-90s. The war crimes of the Bush era are frivolous, by comparison.

What am I missing here?

And, why must we always revert to the straw man of bringing up extremes – as if it is some sort of testament of humanitarian decency to claim relative moral superiority to societies that chop rape victims’ labia off? I mean, no offense Barbie, but saying “I’m not saying X” is not sufficient to absolve yourself of the accountability of saying X two sentences later.

I’m down with moral relativism and all within reason But, “frivolous war crimes” rings as an oxymoron to me.

ok, frivolous war crimes is a total oxymoron.

Barbie:

Sorry, but the “we’re not as bad as the people we tortured, so that makes it okay” defense has never flown with me. This actually surprises me, coming from someone with libertarian tendencies like yours. You don’t trust the government to run the schools, but you DO trust them to figure out who’s guilty, and do things to those people that we’ve always called “torture” when other people are doing them to us? Puh-lease.

However, I think people need to chill out a little. We are not the Nazi party from WWII, or the Bosnian serbs of the mid-90s.

Nobody’s arguing that we are. It’s a pretty straw man, though. Did you make it all by yourself?

The above in short form: you’ll forgive me if I don’t think we should use Iran and Afghanistan as the standard for what constitutes “going too far.” And there’s nothing wrong with “starting at home” and holding ourselves up to our own purported standards of decency, even if there are worse people in the world doing worse things. If we waited until after we fixed all those problems before we cleaned up our own house, our house would never get cleaned.

[OK, so that wasn't really any shorter.]

Third attempt at shorter, with a question for Barbie:

Do you think that the fact that other people have condoned and done things worse than what we’ve done is in any way relevant to the rightness or wrongness of what we’ve done?

If yes, I’m interested to hear why.

If no, then your entire counterargument is irrelevant.

It saddens me that this is in any way a partisan issue. Every American should be horrified by what was done in our name — borrowing tactics from the Godless Commies™ — and should be eager to prosecute those responsible, so that we send a message that this isn’t tolerated, and that no one is above the law.

Wow this really brought out the koolaid drinkers.

Note to “bob”: Not everybody thinks that we are any safer today than before 9/11. Torturing may have given some people revenge but it didn’t stop the terrorists, did it?

Um, yes.

In fact, it did a bang-up job in recruiting new terrorists; now there’s even more to worry about.

considering most have been shot dead or blown up in Iraq, thats unlikely.

I suppose though, people like you who think that “torture kept us safe” wouldn’t mind if their son or daughter was pulled off the street, bound and flown to some hidden airport and locked up, beaten, waterboarded, head slammed, etc., you know tortured; that’s OK for you, right?

yep, I’ll take that over a beheading anyday. In fact now that the terrorists know how lenient we are here in our interrogation techniques, they have nothing to fear in being captured. Way to go O’ness. Head “slammed” and beaten is a lie btw.

Oh, I see, its only brown skinned Muslims that have to be tortured. Oh I see, we’re the USA and we are gods and saviours of the world. Oh I see, we’re above the law.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
You’re argument holds no water!

I know it must pain every PC bone in your body to admit that most terrorists today are brown skinned Muslims.

Three very quick thoughts:

- Seconding T.’s remark about not using Iran and Afghanistan as examples, I recall that after the Gulf War I was having a debate about its roots and its wisdom, in the course of which my opposite number responded to a criticism of the US I made by saying that Iraq had “reserved the same right for itself.” In reply, I asked if he was suggesting we look to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq for our moral compass.

- The comparisons and justifications and downplayings related to torture are a demonstration of my contention that “every war is just when modified by the word ‘my.’”

- In fairness, it should be noted that Barbie acknowledged that “frivolous war crimes is a total oxymoron.”

t saddens me that this is in any way a partisan issue. Every American should be horrified by what was done in our name — borrowing tactics from the Godless Commies™ — and should be eager to prosecute those responsible, so that we send a message that this isn’t tolerated, and that no one is above the law.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, libruls have no moral high ground to stand on on this or any other issue when they condone the murder of over 1 Million innocent unborn children every year in this country alone.

“I know it must pain every right-wing bone in your body to admit that most terrorists today are conservatives.”

FIFY Bob

bob: “…libruls have no moral high ground to stand on on this or any other issue when they condone the murder of over 1 Million innocent unborn children every year in this country alone.”

Yeah, and if it were up to you, all gay folks would be in concentration camps and swinging from trees!

See, I can make nonsensical, off-topic statements, too! It’s fun!

“I know it must pain every right-wing bone in your body to admit that most terrorists today are conservatives.”

The scary part about this is you really believe it. So much so that you’re willing to jeopardize the safety of this country in your hatred for conservative values.

Bob:

[bites on threadjack]

Perhaps you’re right, bob. Much better to let them be born to parents who don’t want them, and live a life of poverty and neglect. What’s funny to me is how important it is to you that we force these children to be born, and how it’s simultaneously at least as important to you that we as a society do absolutely nothing for them once they get here. Abort them? Horror! Provide them with food, shelter, education, and health care once they get here? Communism, I tell you!

LarryE:

I realize that Barbie wasn’t exactly defending the practices, but that was sort of my point — if she wasn’t defending them, then what, exactly, was her point supposed to be? I’m sure most of us can agree that Mussolini wasn’t as bad as Hilter. That doesn’t mean that Mussolini wasn’t bad. In fact, the existence of Hitler has no bearing on whether or not Mussolini was bad. So why bring up Hitler?

The rightness or wrongness of what was done in our names is not contingent upon whether or not others have done worse. It stands or falls on its own. So no, I will not “chill out” about it. I will not be the guy who says the equivalent of, “Hey, he only raped her, it’s not like he killed her or anything…”

The unfortunate thing is that this IS being touted as a partisan issue in the US (at least based on any news I’ve seen). While I understand viewing the Bush leadership that way, I am amazed at how it seems the entire military is viewed as being right wing.

This line by KTK makes it pretty clear that he views this as a conservative or right wing issue: I have no problem believing that conservatives are doomed to jail because of their “ideology”. I just think there’s an obvious lesson in that – one that anyone moral enough not to be a conservative would have no problem grasping.

T. -

I realize that Barbie wasn’t exactly defending the practices, but that was sort of my point

I was aware of your point and while I expect it was not your intention, it reads as if you are associating me with the idea that you should “chill out.” Which is wrong, especially since the first part of my comment was to agree with you.

All I was saying regarding Barbie is that when someone you’re having a dispute with says “okay, you’re right about that part” ( in this case by admitting she had gone too far), it should be acknowledged.

Big U:

The last numbers I saw (which, admittedly, are several years old) show that something like 2/3 of the US military self-identifies as Republican. So it’s more partisan than you might think.

And while I’m not keen on that particular choice of words by KTK, he’s right in pointing out that this is a partisan issue. I’m not saying that it isn’t; I’m saying that it shouldn’t be — it’s a different argument.

But the fact remains, you’ll be hard pressed to find prominent liberals who defend the torture enhanced interrogation techniques, or to find prominent liberals who argue, as Republican Senator Lindsay Graham does, that while what was done was clearly wrong, we shouldn’t actually prosecute anyone over it. The notable exception is President Obama, who started from a position roughly like that, but has since started walking back from it.

The other problem is that it will be very easy to spin this as a partisan witch hunt, even if it isn’t, because this all happened under the Bush administration, and that administration was rabidly partisan. Virtually all of the wrongdoing would have been done by Republicans and Republican appointees because there simply weren’t any Democrats in positions of power while it was going on. The argument, then, that this somehow unfairly targets Republicans rings hollow to me.

LarryE:

I knew what you were getting at, but did a lousy job of expressing it. I agree that her mea culpa should be acknowledged and commended, I just didn’t think it went nearly far enough, is all. In my dealings with Barbie, I’ve found her to be quite reasonable most of the time, even if we do slap each other around a bit.

Perhaps you’re right, bob. Much better to let them be born to parents who don’t want them, and live a life of poverty and neglect. What’s funny to me is how important it is to you that we force these children to be born, and how it’s simultaneously at least as important to you that we as a society do absolutely nothing for them once they get here. Abort them? Horror! Provide them with food, shelter, education, and health care once they get here? Communism, I tell you!

You know t-man, your messiah and his messed-up childhood meets many of the criteria under which you believe abortion is acceptable, and perhaps if abortion had been legal in 1961 we wouldn’t have our first affirmative action president. You can’t justify murdering someone because they might have a difficult childhood.

Gee, bob, are we freeking out about the dark skinned terrorists or the light skinned ones? Let’s not forget the OK city bombing while we are at it.

bob,

If you’re gonna try to claim to be morally superior, could you at least pretend to think that torture is a bad thing? Okay, maybe you think abortion is worse (That’s insane, but you do seem to really think it.), but holy fuck at least admit that it’d be bad if torture was done by our government.

yeeeeeeeeeeah, I’m gonna take back what I said when I said basically that “I’m not saying I think others way worse attrocities make waterboarding seem frivolous by comparison.”

…because, the more I think about it, I kinda do feel like waterboarding is a petty issue. Mea culpa.

I think what I could’ve stated better is that I don’t expect people to agree with me that waterboarding is petty or frivolous. I just disagree with it being defined as a war crime in todays world. I don’t think it should be defined as torture. I also think that to make that statement is not the same as saying I think it’s a decent practice. For example, I know full well that I shouldn’t tie my neighbor’s kid down and waterboard him when he wont confess to breaking my window. But we’re not talking about citizen on citizen practices, nor are all the people being tortured citizens. Maybe not all of them are terrorists, but many probably are. I don’t know this. I don’t have the exact numbers on who was and wasn’t involved in the militias we fought, but frankly, you don’t seem to have those numbers either, so, while I do think Bob is redneck hillbilly and needs to stuff it, I don’t its fair to claim that anyone using the word “terrorist” is a racist and hates dark skinned people.

I would like to add that I full understand people who might say “I don’t want my kid to grow up seeing our government and representitives of our country torturing others because it sets a bad example.”

However, I also think it’s fair to make a distinction between citizens and criminals. I would explain to my (future) kid that those people are in jail because they are suspected of committing very, very bad crimes, much worse than what has since been done to them in prison, but that it’s not something that is ok for ordinary people to do to one another.

T:
““Hey, he only raped her, it’s not like he killed her or anything…”

C’mon now, who says stuff like that?! Now, if one were to say, she was raped, but at least she’s still alive, it doesn’t lessen the rape bit of it, and it doesn’t make it ok either, but it does pose the claim that raped and murdered is worse than raped but not-killed. Do you disagree?

oops, didn’t see that I was asked a question…
“This actually surprises me, coming from someone with libertarian tendencies like yours. You don’t trust the government to run the schools, but you DO trust them to figure out who’s guilty, and do things to those people that we’ve always called “torture” when other people are doing them to us?”

I don’t trust the government to know what’s best for me and mine and to act in my own best interest. I think it’s clear to everyone that the government is run by politicians and acts in it’s own best interest. Secondly, you’re not really asking me if I trust the government to figure out who is guilty. You’re trying to trick me into contradicting myself and it’s not going to work here because those two examples are not mutually exclusive. My distrust in the government has to do with the fact that it does a sheisty job at running schools (no child left behind = fail), and keeping the peace. My dislike for the government has to do with policies that I feel are unsuccessful and put in place because of a few miscreants, but end up imposing on a bunch of otherwise benign and law-abiding citizens, as well as non-sense bullshit about who can and cannot get married.

I may have libertarian tendencies, but I’m not an anarchist. So, while I think that the government sucks balls when it comes to figuring out who the turrerrists are, it doesn’t mean that I think they shouldn’t do anything at all.

Recognize that last phrase in the argument, T? You should…it’s yours.

And yes, I make my straw men all by myself

They’re not all straw men, by the way. Using another argument to invalidate a premise of a pre-existing argument doesn’t mean it’s a straw man, by the way. It just means you fail at the logic game. Also, poor arguments, demonstrably false, or inconsistant are not the same as straw man arguments. I happen to know what a straw man argument is, and that it is a waste of time, imo, and is also something that a lot of conservatives and republicans do and think they can get away with. I am not one of those people, and I’d like to think I have a healthy respect for logical form. So, if I argue falsely, I expect you to correctly and precisely bring it to my attention. Pointing and shouting “straw man!” at everything and then claiming victory is weak, dude. Instead, go with your gut: if you have the urge to accuse me of a strawman argument, it probably means something I said doesn’t look right, and might very well be poorly argued for any number of the reasons I’ve listed, and you should pursue that accordingly, look for the reasoning yourself, and call it (I will be happy to submit to good logic, or attempt to clarify my position or further back it up) if you truly want to be victor of the smackdown.

And don’t tell me you haven’t held up a straw man on a regular basis, or I will start a little tgirsch file and email it to you as a birthday present – for your own personal benefit, of course. Not all because I like being a smartass.We can start right here in this comment thread if you like

SB:

If simulated drowning isn’t torture, then I’d hate to see what your definition of torture actually is. It frankly saddens me that you’re so willing to become more like our enemies for the ostensible purpose of “defeating” them.

Maybe not all of them are terrorists, but many probably are.

Well, here’s the improtant question: How many non-terrorists tortured interrogated using “enhanced” techniques is too many for you? How many innocent civilians have to be emasculated and humiliated in your name before your comfort level is offended?

However, I also think it’s fair to make a distinction between citizens and criminals.

#1, criminals have rights, too, to the extent that 40% of our Bill of Rights concerns their rights. You can’t put the punishment court before the due process horse, and that’s exactly what you’re doing here. (Besides which, I guaran-damn-tee that waterboarding would be ruled an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment if it were done to a US citizen — not torture, though, oh, heavens, no!)

#2, you’re awfully willing to simply assume guilt here in a way that I find very disturbing. On what basis? Because they’re brown, come from a naughty country, and have the “wrong” religion?
#3, even setting #1 and #2 aside, I think setting up a double-standard like that, where it’s okay to treat bad people as less then human, is remarkably dangerous and short-sighted. You may no believe that such a double standard is what you’re arguing for, but I don’t see any other way to look at it.

C’mon now, who says stuff like that?!

In effect, you do, which was my point. When you say that waterboarding isn’t really all that bad, that it isn’t really torture, etc. You’re justifying its not-badness on a comparative scale — your entire argument seems to be that because these people (or, more accurately, people like these people, but not necessarily specifically these people) do unconscionable things to us, it’s okay for us to do unconscionable-but-not-quite-as-bad things to them. (And if you think waterboarding is “petty,” then let’s see you volunteer to receive it, beee-yotch! )

Secondly, you’re not really asking me if I trust the government to figure out who is guilty.

That’s correct. What you’re doing, instead, is allowing the government to do things to possibly-innocent people that we wouldn’t even allow them to do to demonstrably guilty people domestically.

So, while I think that the government sucks balls when it comes to figuring out who the turrerrists are, it doesn’t mean that I think they shouldn’t do anything at all.

Except you’re taking it a lot further than that. You’re basically arguing that even though the government “sucks balls” at figuring out who the terrorists are, they’re justified in doing the things that they’re doing because the people they’re doing it to are (or “probably” are) terrorists. That’s nonsensical! And it undermines your whole “it’s okay if they’re mostly terrorists” line of reasoning.

Using another argument to invalidate a premise of a pre-existing argument doesn’t mean it’s a straw man, by the way.

I know that, but I misinterpreted what you were saying. Which I’m glad I did, because what you were actually saying manages to be far worse, and much closer to the rape/kill example you objected to above. You’ll have to explain to me how “Sure, we waterboarded them, but it’s not like we gassed them to death” is fundamentally different from “sure he raped her, but it’s not like he killed her.” And if you come back with some variation of “it’s different because there’s some indeterminate chance that this guy might be a terrorist of some sort,” I’ll direct you to the rant above concerning why that’s the wrong way to look at things, and also my oft-repeated statements that the rightness or wrongness of torture-like things is not dependent upon whom we’re doing them to. In any case, you’re right back to the “we’re not as bad as the Nazis” defense, which in my estimation is no defense at all. We shouldn’t be using the Nazis as our moral compass.

And don’t tell me you haven’t held up a straw man on a regular basis, or I will start a little tgirsch file and email it to you as a birthday present

Knock yourself out, and don’t wait for my birthday. If I’m guilty of making straw man arguments, I fully expect to be called on them, and I’ll totally issue the mea culpa right away, if you’ve got the valid point.

We can start right here in this comment thread if you like

By all means, knock yourself out.

Aight, the gauntlet is thrown, and the challenge has been accepted. Let’s see a rumble.

Anyway, I won’t interject myself much here, as TG seems to be doing a very good job of defending himself (and making most of the points I would anyway). I do want to go on record though as saying that I too don’t see any way you can back away from the rape/kill analogy. I don’t see any other way to read the argument, despite your attempts to bob and weave in the aftermath.

Also, waterboarding is absolutely a torture technique. This position has been conceded by many of those who have used it in the past. How can it not be considered so, if you’re able to read through the most transparent of marketing gimmicks? “Simulated drowning?” Seriously?… Your lungs fill up with water. “Simulated drowning” is about as a legitimate concept as “simulated ejaculation”

“It frankly saddens me that you’re so willing to become more like our enemies for the ostensible purpose of “defeating” them.”

Well, shit, t, I never said I’d do those things, but I am not the government, and I don’t make it my personal mission to defeat terrorists or get info from them. I don’t demand others acquiesce to my way of life and commit violent acts upon them when they don’t do as I believe they should. Please.

“I guaran-damn-tee that waterboarding would be ruled an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment if it were done to a US citizen — not torture, though, oh, heavens, no!”

Um, well, we do this our own marines as part of their training. Does the fact that they volunteered for the service make it different?

“On what basis? Because they’re brown, come from a naughty country, and have the “wrong” religion?”

I don’t know what basis I have given you for the assumption that I would make such judgements. One, I don’t give a rats ass about religion, and you know that. Two, I’m not some backwoods idjit; I don’t consider Iraq or Afghanistan “naughty countries” and saying that these countries have some humanitarian issues doesn’t make a racist or a bigot. Do they or do they not have some serious freaking issues with religious extremists and militias? And skin color has nothing to do with it in my book. Even if I am quick to assume guilt, I think it’s equally disturbing that you would assume innocence, without actually knowing about the capture of these prisoners. Not *all* were plucked from their families homes in the middle of the night. Those who were, sure, I’m ok with the benefit of the doubt. But its terribly ignorant to go about accusing me of making racist, bigotted judgements like that when the fact is that there are founded reasons why a good number of these men are being held. To simply say that shouldn’t imply racism.

“I think setting up a double-standard like that, where it’s okay to treat bad people as less then human, is remarkably dangerous and short-sighted. You may no believe that such a double standard is what you’re arguing for, but I don’t see any other way to look at it.”

Again, “bad people” and “less than human” are your words, not mine. But if you want to go there, I do think it’s ok to treat bad people differently than good people. Let me give you an example: I would not walk up to a random person on the street, assumed to be a good person doing nothing bad-guy-ish, and pull my gun on them and shoot them. Should that very same person decide to break into my house in the middle of the night and pose a direct threat to my safety, I would most definately shoot them to save myself. I would, effectively, be treating them differently as a bad guy. Would that be treating the bad as less than human? Well, technically, yes. I would say it is also quite dangerous to promote the belief that all people, good or bad, should be treated the same. This gives way to “there are no good people and there are no bad people.” I think only a budhist monk would truly believe you and a murderer are no different in terms of good/bad. So, while you may be right that my position has some dangerous implications, your counter argument that it’s not okay to treat bad people less-humanly than we treat ourselves is non-sense and equally dangerous.

“C’mon now, who says stuff like that?!

In effect, you do. When you say that waterboarding isn’t really all that bad, that it isn’t really torture, etc. You’re justifying it’s not-badness on a comparative scale — your entire argument seems to be that because these people (or, more accurately, people like these people, but not necessarily specifically these people) do unconscionable things to us, it’s okay for us to do unconscionable-but-not-quite-as-bad things to them. ”

First of all, it’s not straight up like you told it there. “People like these people” implies only those people who resemble the terrorists by some associative property but are not actually terrorists themselves. Not my words. And how do you know that to be more accurate? Could you please provide some hard data on how many of those guys only resembled terrorists but had nothing to do with al-quaeda or extremist militias? I’m still not seeing any facts, so I don’t think you can say that your framing is more accurate. I’ve already accepted that not all the prisoners were known operatives or associated with the suspected activities, but you still seem so unwilling to believe even that some of these guys actually were extremist militia operatives. What gives?

While you still hit closer to the mark with your statement, I think a better descriptor would be “those suspected of committing crimes/militia activities.”

“What you’re doing, instead, is allowing the government to do things to possibly-innocent people that we wouldn’t even allow them to do to demonstrably guilty people domestically.”

First of all, I’m not sure how it became that *I’m* allowing for this to happen. Secondly, I’m pretty sure that’s not a true statement. How does our government treat domestic murderers? Would we waterboard them? No, we’d give domestic terrorists life sentences, and or possibly the death penalty.

Here’s your straw man argument:

“Hey, he only raped her, it’s not like he killed her or anything…”

By definition of a straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, this is a misrepresentation of my argument, which was that waterboarding is less damaging than tortures employed by others. Your statement is only superficially similar to mine, thus refutation of your statement doesn’t apply to my statement because you never actually addressed what I said. If you wanted to make a true and valid comparison, you would have to say that rape is less damaging than raped-and-killed. And I think few people would disagree that rape-only is a lesser crime than raped-and-killed.

So, do you see how what you said and what I said are not the same thing? You are fundamentally comparing waterboarding to rape! Simulated drowning to actually, really being raped! Gimme a break.

(and simulated ejaculation? really? wouldn’t that be the same as not-really-actually ejaculated? and not in the dry fire sense either…christ on a crutch, I can’t believe we’re actually debating this. It’s true: arguing on the internet is like the special olympics; even if you win, you sound retarded.)

Whats the undoing factor that makes it a simulation? For waterboarding: not dying. For rape: not penetrated.

Well, shit, t, I never said I’d do those things, but I am not the government, and I don’t make it my personal mission to defeat terrorists or get info from them.

Right, but you’re effectively defending the government (the same government you don’t trust on any number of other issues) for doing Very Bad Things in the service of that ostensible goal, and that those of us who are upset that those Very Bad Things were done in our name should “chill out.” I’m curious to know what you’re basing those judgments on. Because so far, all I’ve been able to discern is that (1) other people have done worse things; and (2) it’s okay because they’re probably terrorists anyway. If that’s a gross oversimplification, then by all means, disabuse me of that notion.

Um, well, we [waterboard] our own marines as part of their training.

That’s odd, because I’ve got several jarhead Marine friends and acquaintances, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever been waterboarded. Cite, please.

I don’t know what basis I have given you for the assumption that I would make such judgements. … its terribly ignorant to go about accusing me of making racist, bigotted judgements like that when the fact is that there are founded reasons why a good number of these men are being held.

Then for the love of Pete, give me a better reason to presume guilt. And coming from you, especially, “the government says so” does NOT constitute a “better reason.”

But the disturbing trend I’m picking up on here is that you don’t seem to give much of a shit about the human rights of people accused of terrorism (or, in some cases, accused of just knowing something about terrorists). My distaste for that theme is what has led me to jump to certain conclusions. Again, if you don’t like those judgments being leveled at you, then stop arguing just like the people who are guilty of such bigotry.

Again, “bad people” and “less than human” are your words, not mine.

Just because I say “duck” when you say “one of a number of species in the Anatidae family of birds” doesn’t mean that “duck” is an inappropriate label to use. But I’ll bite. In your estimation, when is it OK to waterboard someone?

So, while you may be right that my position has some dangerous implications, your counter argument that it’s not okay to treat bad people less-humanly than we treat ourselves is non-sense and equally dangerous.

Except that this isn’t my counter-argument at all. My argument instead is twofold: first, that there are certain behaviors that cannot be justified no matter how bad someone is. You’ll find that assertion listed not long after your dearly beloved RKBA, so I’m far from the first guy to come up with that “dangerous non-sense.” [sic] And second, that until we’re reasonably certain that someone actually IS a bad person, that takes even more off the table. You, on the other hand, are effectively (though not literally, I must point out) arguing that it’s okay to execute 10 suspected terrorists if five or six of them turn out to be actual terrorists.

“People like these people” implies only those people who resemble the terrorists by some associative property but are not actually terrorists themselves. Not my words.

Nope, just your implications, which you seem to be getting increasingly eager to run away from. In any case, just how am I supposed to interpret this:

But we’re not talking about citizen on citizen practices, nor are all the people being tortured citizens. Maybe not all of them are terrorists, but many probably are. I don’t know this.

…if not to mean “people who are accused by the government [more accurately, the military] of being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers or ‘enemy combatants’” or whatever the hell? Typing “people like these people” was a lot easier.

Could you please provide some hard data on how many of those guys only resembled terrorists but had nothing to do with al-quaeda or extremist militias?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is not on me, and ought not to be on me, but rather on the ones who want to torture “enhancedly interrogate” the prisoners we’re talking about. And before you jump on this, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not to prosecute, because according to my opinion, US law, the Geneva Conventions, and international law, the guilt of the victim is irrelevant to whether or not torturing the victim is a crime.

I think a better descriptor would be “those suspected of committing crimes/militia activities.”

Key word, suspected. Once you start favoring the torture and punishment of suspects, you lose pretty much all of your freedom-loving, government-distrusting libertarian street cred.

By definition of a straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, this is a misrepresentation of my argument, which was that waterboarding is less damaging than tortures employed by others.

Well, for starters, it’s NOT a misrepresentation of your argument. It’s a precise analog to your argument: Bad Thing A is not as bad/damaging as Bad Thing B, therefore Bad Thing A is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. That’s precisely the argument you just summarized in the last part of that sentence! I just effectively substituted “rape” for “waterboarding” and “murder” for “tortures employed by others.” Observe, before:

“[My point] was that waterboarding is less damaging than tortures employed by others.”

After:

“[My point] was that rape is less damaging than murder.”

For starters, the latter is more obviously true than the former. But more importantly, my counter-argument, which you have not yet directly address and don’t seem to be getting, is that the fact that people have done worse things than Bad Thing A (even far worse things) is wholly irrelevant to whether or not Bad Thing A is indeed bad and whether or not Bad Thing A should be prosecuted. By your rationale that you’ve spilled a ton of virtual ink defending, we shouldn’t prosecute rape or theft as long as murder’s around, because murder’s worse, and therefore rape and theft are no big deal, comparatively speaking.

So, do you see how what you said and what I said are not the same thing? You are fundamentally comparing waterboarding to rape! Simulated drowning to actually, really being raped!

OK, would it make you feel better if, in my analogy, they held you down, tore off your clothes, and forcibly dry-humped you? They didn’t penetrate, and therefore it was really only simulated rape. It doesn’t hurt my analogy at all to make that switch, and the point is driven home just as effectively, but it seems like an odd hair for you to choose to split.

Frankly, your whole argument here is completely anti-accountability, and I’m just not getting it. Are you going to tell me that if THEY waterboarded OUR guys, it’s no big deal (hell, they didn’t BEHEAD them or anything), and we should therefore not demand that they be held accountable for doing so? Speaking of “gimme a break.”

while I do think Bob is redneck hillbilly and needs to stuff it…

thank you Jeanene Garafalo.

[...] the equivocation being done on torture: Of course, Shoothouse Barbie thinks he needs to “chill the f*** out” because on a worldwide scale, what we did ain’t no [...]

My point, Barbie, was that there no such thing as “simulated drowning” You’re tied up, blindfolded, and tilted upside down while they pour water up your nose, which will begin to fill your lungs. That’s not simulating drowning – that’s like attempted drowning. “Simulated” implies that it is not real. Your body knows no difference, so in that sense “simulation” is kind of a strained marketing term. It’s not like you’re conducting a fire drill. Since we’re on this rape thing, it’s more like blindfolding a woman and raping her, but with a dildo – viola, “simulated rape”

I forget where, but I’ve heard the much better description “controlled drowning”.

It bears mentioning in passing that one of the purposes of waterboarding – Dan, I like the term “controlled drowning,” it’s apt – is to create a state of extreme, terrifying panic. It’s not only the physical response that’s involved but, even more importantly, the psychological one.

Ok, I concede. I would’ve written this last night, because I truthly I felt pretty dirty, but I don’t have internet at home. I retract the chill out statement; actually, I believe I retracted it much earlier in this thread, saying that I’m glad people protest it and in fact do not think everyone or anyone for that matter should have my oppinion.

I don’t condone torture. But if you read above, I disagreed with the defining waterboarding as torture. I’ve since then reconsidered that stance, and duly wave the white flag so as to remain consistent within my character.

My point, Barbie, was that there no such thing as “simulated drowning” You’re tied up, blindfolded, and tilted upside down while they pour water up your nose, which will begin to fill your lungs. That’s not simulating drowning – that’s like attempted drowning.

Uh you might find a better source than wikipedia to understand the waterboard techniques used at Gitmo.

Wow, someone admits they were wrong on a blog forum! I think we may have an Intertube first!

But seriously, SB, good on you. Even when we agree to disagree, it’s refreshing to debate with someone who’s clearly arguing in good faith.

Here, bob, hear it frome somebody you probably already hate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

Now tell the class how important it is whether the board is being tilted or not.

Christopher Hitchens would consider atomic wedgies as torture, which I’m sure had got plenty of growing up.

I did not look at the Wiki page for waterboarding, so I don’t know what it says. My insights about what waterboarding is are based on, um, the definition of waterboarding. If that’s not what they were doing at Gitmo, then they shoulda referred to what they were doing accurately. And, my comments about “simulated drowning” are rooted in simple semantics.