deafening silence.
Although SERE may be helpful in terrorist capture situations, terrorists usually don't have time for such niceties, and they break-out the Black & Decker pretty quickly.
edh
So you're agreeing that torture is a tool for terrorists and not for a civilized nation that, you know, has laws?
Hey, the Khmer Rouge, the Gestapo, and the Japanese in WW2 did waterboarding. I guess that means the wingnuts like them now?
But this confuses the heck out of me, because the wingnuts also say George Soros is in the Gestapo. Does that mean Soros waterboards people and that is ok with the wingnuts?
The only people for whom there's nuance to the torture debate are people who don't know what the US laws and treaties say.
edh, my comments stand, as you didn't address my points at all.
You and Instarube want a critical topic discussed only on your terms. Neither the Tennessee Turd nor you (and I really do suspect you are the same person) addressed the quality of the debate in any way. If Instarube took time to explain why he thought the debate was of poor quality, he/you would have a leg to stand on. All he does is offer snark and links to the typical wingnut chorus.
You really should admit to yourself that you don't want the topic discussed and ask yourself why. Don't bother to answer, as I already know why this is true.
As to your attempt to rebut my pointing out that you used the fallacy of appeal to popularity, sorry, Charlie. No one reads Instarube for the quality of the writing there. He hardly writes at all. You were being snarky about audience size, nothing more or less.
Truly, don't bother to answer. Cowardly little men like you are boring. Save yourself the typing.
edh,
your summary of "the putz'" issue with the torture debate positively wreaks of nuance. your arguments smell...like arguments. in all this moral preening, you stubbornly stick to the matter at hand. what are you doing here?
actor212,
So, because I didn't know a link was behind an "(emphasis added)" that makes me a "motherfucking idiot"? Okay.
In actuality, you're wrong about the school. It says it's based on communist-style POW camps. This is where all these techniques came from. As I remember, most communist countries were signatories of Geneva, weren't they?
Although SERE may be helpful in terrorist capture situations, terrorists usually don't have time for such niceties, and they break-out the Black & Decker pretty quickly.
My point still stands that use of these techniques on our own personnel puts them in the gray area.
The unsourced quote you emphasize actually talks about "enemy", not "terrorist", capture and exploitation.
The quote WAS sourced and if you'd bothered to click the link, motherfucking idiot, you'd see THEY WERE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TERRORISTS!
Next time, troll, send your orc masters in. We don't want to deal with B-list material...
And so does Geneva. So did the US, who prosecuted the Nazis and the Japanese for the same thing.
I interpret "waterboarding is in the gray zone" as objectively pro-torture.
I think that's because waterboarding is in the gray zone.
And you'd be dead wrong.
actor212,
A self-referential what? You say:
"In other words, its included, mostly because they expect people who are captured by terrorists to be tortured, and said torture will include waterboarding, so they want to train them to endure it."
I couldn't disagree more completely. The unsourced quote you emphasize actually talks about "enemy", not "terrorist", capture and exploitation. I think it's phrased that way for a for a few reasons.
First, my annecdotal view is that nation states who are signatories to the GenCon have used waterboarding way more than "terrorists". I think that's because waterboarding is in the gray zone. Terrorist use cordless drills, etc.
Second, I think the military very well expects much worse treatment by the enemy, but for the purposes of training our own people uses waterboarding as a proxy specifically because it is not harmful.
That returns us to the question of whether or not waterboarding is "torture" or not. My point is to say that because it is selected for use in SERE training it probably isn't.
charles,
Again, I think Reynold's critiquing the caliber of the debate, not it's existence. He's saying the opposition rhetoric is extreme and insincere.
I didn't reference "popularity" of Reynolds' blog in terms of agreement with his personal view, but alluded to why more people are "interested in reading" Reynolds' blog. You see, for many people their interest and readership has more to do with the insight and quality of analysis presented than the writer's own conformity with their own pre-set opinions. Of course, that doesn't seem to apply within the realm of this comment thread.
George W. Bush has only had sex with an infant 3 times, and says he hasn't done it in the last 4 years at all. what's the big deal?
Yep. Or to just simplify it (though I love that example) -- we've only forced enemy combatants to play Russian Roulette a handful of times since 9/11.
What's the big deal?
George W. Bush has only had sex with an infant 3 times, and says he hasn't done it in the last 4 years at all. what's the big deal?
There is a reason why torture is a crime against humanity with universal jurisdiction. i.e. it is more abhorrent than child rape because it is systematic.
If W told him to, Mr. Mukasey would claim you can't unambiguously state that infant rape is a crime, as interpreting any law depends on "facts and circumstances".
If you think this analogy is too strong or in bad taste, what did Mr. Higazy think was going to happen to his children if they were sent to Egypt to be tortured as the FBI threatened?
Oh, and edh/Instarube, the reference to the size of your audience is pathetic. First of all, it is shrinking, and secondly, the popularity of an argument says nothing about its correctness.
Logic 101, you know.
Where I come from, saying "I don't support torture, but I don't think it's an issue worth getting excited about" is the same as saying you do in fact, support it.
Is edh a Reynolds sockpuppet? I mean, he is every bit the passive-aggressive pussy Instarube is.
edh, like Instarube, wants no politician to discuss the issue of torture openly. And he is perfectly happy with the non-answers and obfuscation that the Bush administration offers up. Apparently, it's much more important to discuss the issue of torture in precisely the way Instarube wants to discuss it.
What do you call a person who wants essential issues in a democracy not discussed at all, or only discussed in ways prescribed by the ruling party? At best, you call that person a coward.
Um, edh?
Your argument contains a sel-referential fallacy.
SERE training includes waterboarding...mostly because "The SERE/Terrorism Counteraction Department teaches
courses in two areas - courses designed to help military personnel avoid capture or exploitation by the enemy, and courses designed to make military and civilian students more aware of terrorism and protective measures against it."
(emphasis added)
In other words, its included, mostly because they expect people who are captured by terrorists to be tortured, and said torture will include waterboarding, so they want to train them to endure it.
Wooops, in the first sentence (above) I was trying to clarify a point made by another commentor about the instances of waterboarding, not point to an error in Blue's original post. Mia culpa.
Blue,
Reynolds cites only three instances of waterboarding, not alleged torture, all before 2004. I think that's why he finds much of the newfound concern about waterboarding tendentious.
Of course, we know that number is incorrect because waterboarding continues to be used routinely in SERE training by the US military. Not the source of numerical error hoped for above, but a major reason nonetheless why people differ on whether it's torture in the first place.
Essentially, what Reynolds has said is that despite the rhetoric of most prominent Democrats in congress, they are basically in lock-step with a majority opinion which supports the selective use of coercive interrogation methods, short of torture, against enemy combatants. Hence his critique of the "debate".
What Reynolds does is separate the "issue" of torture from the political "debate" about the issue. An issue may be serious, but not the way politicians are currently framing it.
Blue, like Sullivan, has confabulated that distinction in order to bait Reynolds and morally preen. Fine.
Indeed, befitting the structure of his blog, I think Reynolds views his own opinion on the "issue" as being of secondary importance to his observations on the "debate".
Alas, some bloggers think their most important contribution to the world is pontificating about the way things ought to be, and demanding the same of others. Other bloggers offer their insight into the way things are, while letting the readers make-up their own minds without juvenile recrimination.
Perhaps that difference in degree of self-centeredness is why more people are interested in reading Reynold's blog than yours?
This is precisely why Reynolds uses the schtick of phrasing his own beliefs in the form of rhetorical air-quote sarcasm. So that he can never be pinned down to actually taking a stand on anything "controversial". There's a word for that, and it's not "Libertarian".
And yes, the fact that his job is supposedly to study the law is also problematic.
But he's said before that he believes in the unitary executive.
As a self-described libertarian and law prof, what kind of reception did he expect for those remarks?
Yes, the "it's only happened 3 times" thing is laughable.
How the fuck does he know that only three people have been tortured? Really, because if the information comes from this government you know it's a bald-faced lie.
These cretins can't even tell the truth when it comes to whether the sun rises in the East or whether it rises at all.
You want cheap partisan tools?
Try WMD.
Try Iraq linked to 9/11. Try our troops being greeted as liberators.
Try the politicization and criminalization of the DOJ.
Try Katrina.
Try this fucked up invasion masquerading as the greatest crusade our nation has ever faced.
Try the constant stream of bullshit leaking from the fringe right like crap from a full diaper.
Fucking idiot.
Right on, brother BT. Rap on!
Commenting by HaloScan
