I have never yet posted in any of the torture comment boxes because it is such a no-brainer: torturing is inherently immoral; playing games with how much discomfort you can inflict before it is *officially* torture is just so much childish semantics. What else need be said about it?
But after reading the present post, let me just say that if the GOP disintegrates like the old Whig Party did in the 19th century, historians years from now will be able to point at the current Bush administration as the starting point for that break-up.
Snow sounds very much like a man trying too hard to convince everyone that his friend did not really say what everyone plainly understood him to say. It would be funny if it were not for the grim admission from which he is trying to turn people's attention.
Mark, glad to see you have finally dropped to the new low of tying Cheney to TOJO with the blog site you have linked to above. Now it is all out on the table. You have finally sold your soul to the murder of 40,000,000 babies that have died so you can throw your hissy fit.
I still can't figure out whether joeh is a True Believer who has let blind loyalty to the GOP turn his brain, an operative hired by Karl Rove in order to stir up social conservatives' passions so they completely ignore all the shenanigans of his bosses, or an operative hired by Howard Dean to write contemptible partisan BS in order to drive SoCons away. In any event, his repeated argument that anyone who doesn't support and vote for Bush and the Republicans no matter what they do is embracing the murder of the unborn is utterly beneath contempt and has no place on even a semi-civilized blog.
Because to oppose the intrinsic immorality of torture is, of course, to support the intrinsic immorality that is abortion.
Thanks for that reliable opinion from the Land Where There Are Only Two Sides to Every Question, joeh.
Only in the surreal world of Right-Wing American politics could a Catholic be told he has "sold his soul" for opposing torture and the lies we are told about it by our politicians.
The anonymous post was mine.
Incidentally, joeh has done more to encourage me to not vote Republican than anyone. Perhaps he should keep that in mind next time he feels like making more, err, infinitely valuable contributions. Unless, of course, he really is a Democratic troll trying to parody a religious conservative.
I voted to Bush twice and I have to change the channel when either Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld come on.
Oops..."for", not "to" Bush.
Publius, you're probably right. He *really* looks like he's astroturfing -- and given that the 'Net's pretty canny about astroturfing these days, the most sensible astroturf tactic is probably to hire someone to apparently shill for the other side.
But then, that's an uncharitable assumption; it's also distinctly possible that he's for real, in which case he could really use a reality check (yes, this coming from *me* of all people :P) -- and in which case we should all say a prayer for the repose of the soul of Internet dialogue, robbed of its credibility in a classic Tragedy of the Commons.
On another subject, what *would* it take people to vote Republican again, and when? For myself (not that it matters too much: third post and I'm pontificating, woo! 
), I'm pretty permanently third-party now, that or Democratic if the Democrats for Life somehow triumph over Howard Dean and the Daily Kos...
Edit: Also, I was too young to vote in '00, but I too "held my nose and voted for Bush" in '04. If only the administration hadn't gone sour -- or, if they were going to anyways, if only they had a little sooner -- if only this were a discussion occurring in November 2004 instead of 2006...
Mark of course never answers any challenge. He throws out names at people which is certainly not Chrisitan in any way. He calls the President and VP liars without proof of any kind in the same vein as KOS. In fact, you could easily substitute his blathering for a pure left wing site. In this post he sends you to a site with TOJO and Cheney linked. As someone with a number of friends and family that suffered under TOJO this is way beyond anything a real Catholic would be doing. Where did Cheney or Bush have troops bayonetting babies as did the troops under Tojo. Or where did they order POW's starved, tortured, and killed outright. The most Mark has been able to come up with is waterboarding and he limply refuses to post a clear definition of torture. Now of course his groupies come on the site to back him. Why not challenge him to come up with any solid definition an interogatre could use to understand the limits they are to be held with. I guess if a question is asked that offends the terrorist, we are not treating them with love as one poster suggested for an answer or humanely. Well, please give a definition of humanely. could it be OK for partial birth abortion? Is that humane. Bush and Cheneny do not think so but the majority of the democrats do. I also asked mark to use his feeble brain to come up with the five things he would do as commander is cheif to fight the war on terror. Silence like the democrat party. Silence is fine when all you have the brains for is to whine but a hell of a lot harder if you are faced with the job. So come on, some of you other groupies, Step up and give your clear legal definition or the five things you would do. I guess number one for all of you is to write a blog calling the leadership of the country at war liars, the second is to pull the troops out and leave the middle east to terrorist, the third is to cover your head and hide, the fourth is to surrender when they come, and the fifth is to change your faith to cover you butt when they are in charge.
Now Mark will ban me from the site becuase he cannot take the heat or answer the questions. He can only continue to whine.
joeh:
Calm down my friend it is only a blog.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
These "torture" entries always remind me of the many Gospel passages that concern themselves with military issues and the way 1st century Roman and Middle Eastern powers dealt with prisoners of war. OK, I can't think of any right now, but there must be a few. And anyway, they're so relevant because of all the incidents of torture that are occurring on a daily basis. OK, I can't think of any of those either.
MIke:
You posted in part: "they're so relevant because of all the incidents of torture that are occurring on a daily basis. OK, I can't think of any of those either".
Sadly we have lost 58 service members KIA in Iraq over the laat two weeks of October 2006. If you remember our Commander In Chief proclaimed victory in Iraq in May 2003. In January 2004 the Abu Ghraib story alleging the torture of Iraiqis prisoners by MU.S. soldier's broke. The enemy immediately ceased the moral high ground and received recruits and money from previosuly uncommiteed sectors of the Iraqi population. Now the insurgents have all but defeated the USA in Iraq.
We are paying a price in blood for changing our WWII policy of humane treatment of prisoners to the the use of torture. Also the immortal souls of our service members who engage in these practices are put at risk.
Our defeat in the Middle East eventually impacts on our national defense. In my opinion these incidents of torture are very relevant indeed.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
The administration has denied using "waterboarding." Cheney, in his "dunking terrorists" interview, said that the U.S. complies with international law on torture, which prohibits waterboarding. So what is the reason for this nonsense about the US using waterboarding on this blog?
Here's my theory. You are disappointed with the GOP and you want to send them a message. But you also know that important court appointments are coming soon and that only the GOP will appoint judges who will not annul legislation that limits abortion. This is enough to disturb any decent human being, so you attempt to justify your actions by grasping at any rumor, no matter how little evidence you have for believing it to be true.
In moments of doubt, you look at shocking pictures of waterboarding and ask 'How can any Catholic support this?' It's a good question. The only problem is, it has nothing to do with the current election. There is no evidence that waterboarding was used.
But here's something that you cannot deny. Lots and lots of babies are killed every year and you will be facilitating the election of a party that does the bidding of the death industry that makes it all happen. You'd better look at that Vietnamese painting again.
Vice glorious leader of the Happy Catholic Brigades parades with picture of things our government does not do while his platoon chants "How can Catholics do this? How can Catholics do this?" Innocent bystander asks the question that must not be asked: "What is your evidence?" Innocent bystander is surrounded by Happy Catholics (TM) holding little plastic likenesses of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Happy Catholics chant "This is a human being. This is a human being." Innocent bystander repeats, more timidly, "What is your evidence?" Happy Catholics chant loudly "Bad Catholic! Bad Catholic!" Fade to black...
The most Mark has been able to come up with is waterboarding and he limply refuses to post a clear definition of torture. Now of course his groupies come on the site to back him.
Call me a groupie, if you must. But. Has anyone who opposes Mark come up with this supposedly crystal clear definition of torture, so that every conceivable human action in this regard is clearly allowed or condemned? Does such a list of "allowable" and "intrinsically evil" practices exist? Can it possibly exist and be exhaustive? And if it exists, can it fail to be anything but something that anyone who wants to torture can very easily get around by coming up with a new way of torturing? Lists can't work. And anything short of a list is always treated as hopelessly vague.
I suppose, "love your enemies" can be construed as vague. But you can't get around it. Many acts will clearly violate the command. Others may approach a gray area where we are not sure. If so, hopefully the person will use their God-given sense not to do that act. When unsure don't do it.
But. Waterboarding is quite clearly torture. And thus intrinsically evil. And if our adminsitration is doing it, shame on them. And Lord have mercy on them.
reluctant penitent:
You posted in part: "So what is the reason for this nonsense about the US using waterboarding on this blog?"
The U.S. Army has already thrown low ranking enlisted soldiers into prison and ruined the careers of commissioned officers with reprimands for the crime of inhumane treatment of prisoners. Other soldiers are either on trail now or under investigation. Some of the soldiers are accused of water boarding. This and other inhumane techniques have corrupted our Army.
Vice President Dick Cheney implied that he did not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ( See Official White House Transcript, Interview of the Vice President by Scott Hennen, WDAY at Radio Day at the White House, October 24, 2006.)
You also posted in part: “Here's my theory. You are disappointed with the GOP and you want to send them a message. But you also know that important court appointments are coming soon and that only the GOP will appoint judges who will not annul legislation that limits abortion.”
Do you really think Mr. Shea is so powerful and influential that he is another Rush Limbaugh and that his public opposition to torture will send a “message” to the President of the United States?
You further posted: “Lots and lots of babies are killed every year and you will be facilitating the election of a party that does the bidding of the death industry that makes it all happen.”
You are right. Lots and lots of babies are killed every year – while the Republican Party has controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives and making all those appointments to the Supreme Court.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford.
"The U.S. Army has already thrown low ranking enlisted soldiers into prison and ruined the careers of commissioned officers with reprimands for the crime of inhumane treatment of prisoners. Other soldiers are either on trail now or under investigation."
This is your evidence for the claim that the U.S. army has institutionalized torture. When the state prosecutes a rapist are we to protest because we now have evidence that the state is condoning rape?
"Lots and lots of babies are killed every year – while the Republican Party has controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives and making all those appointments to the Supreme Court."
Right. And now we have some more judges who will not annul legislation restricting abortion. How is that a bad thing?
reluctant penitent:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part: "This is your evidence for the claim that the U.S. army has institutionalized torture."
I reply: Yes. It is in black and white. Court Martials. Investigations. Establishment of probable cause.
There is an old saying: "There are no bad soldiers just bad officers." When at GTMO and Abu Gharib you have soldiers torturing prisoners and acting in an inhumane way towards the prisoners then you not only have a break down in discipline but a breakdown of leadership.
The Commanding General at GTMO institutionalized torture at that facility he was then sent to Iraq where he "advised" the leadership there on how to handle Iraqi prisoners. He was allowed to reture without promotion.
The officers fail as leaders becasue of poor moral leadership at the very top.
This is very sad. It has cost us the war in Iraq.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
reluctant penitent:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
"Right. And now we have some more judges who will not annul legislation restricting abortion. How is that a bad thing?"
As you know most of the Justices who have voted for abortion haev been appointed by Republican Presidents.
We have had five Republican Administrations since Roe v Wade. Nothing has changed. We still loose about 4,000 a day to abortion.
We lost 3,500 on 9/11/01.
Simple math dictates that the Bush Administration should be spending most of its energies saving babies. Instead it is focused on stupidly losing a war.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Remember Judge Bork. He was supported by Republicans and his appointment was sabotaged by Democrats. Since the Republicans have had control of the house we've had promising appointments. The promising appointments will stop if the GOP lose control of the house or senate.
I'm still having trouble your evidence for the claim that torture is now approved policy. I'm supposed to believe that this claim is true because the military has tried and punished soldiers who were abusive. Doesn't a trial and sentence usually indicate disapproval? You must be opposed to laws against rape because, according to your logic, to support laws that prohibit some act is to support the act.
Richard,
If what I think you are doing is minimizing the terror and tragedy of the 9/11 attacks, I think you need to apologize. I'm sure that in 1941, there were more deaths from alcohol than from Japaneese bombers, but war resulted anyway. You should know better than to make dumb comments like that.
Doesn't a trial and sentence usually indicate disapproval?
Torture is against the UCMJ and is illegal for soldiers. It has however been practiced by the CIA (in some cases resulting in the death of the tortured captive), and the Bush administration attempted to elimination the restriction on soldiers so that soldiers, like CIA agents and contractors, could legally (at least under Bush administration legal opinion) torture captives.
So actually, no, trial and sentence don't indicate disapproval on the part of the President and Vice President. They simply indicate the current legal and political realities; legal and political realities that the President and Vice President have been laboring to change to allow torture.
To the Vice President in particular torture is pretty obviously a "slam dunk".
"It has however been practiced by the CIA (in some cases resulting in the death of the tortured captive), and the Bush administration attempted to elimination the restriction on soldiers so that soldiers, like CIA agents and contractors, could legally (at least under Bush administration legal opinion) torture captives."
Would it be unCatholic of me to ask for some evidence for this new CIA torture policy?
Sydney Carton ;:
Thank you for your kind reply:
You posted in part: "You should know better than to make dumb comments like that".
I make a lot of dumb remarks. Which dumb remarks in particular are you referring to please?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
reluctant penitent:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
"The promising appointments will stop if the GOP lose control of the house or senate."
Has not helped so far. We are still loosing 4,000 a day to surgical abortion; and God knows how many immortal souls have been endangered.
You also posted in part: "Doesn't a trial and sentence usually indicate disapproval?"
Yes. However you did not see any officers stand court martial; or Generals resign?
Subtle hint that.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"Yes. However you did not see any officers stand court martial; or Generals resign? Subtle hint that."
It's not a subtle hint but a direct and frank statement of a failure to find evidence of wrongdoing by officers who were in charge.
"We are still loosing 4,000 a day to surgical abortion; and God knows how many immortal souls have been endangered."
And legislation restricting abortion will continue to be annulled in the courts if the right sorts of judges are not appointed. That's precisely why maintaining a GOP majority in the Senate and House is so important. If the wrong judges are appointed in the next few years then even a President Richard COmerford with a Happy Catholic majority in the Senate and House and a majority of the population supporting you will be able to do NOTHING about abortion. Any new legislation will simply be annulled in the courts.
Would it be unCatholic of me to ask for some evidence ...
No problem.
These "torture" entries always remind me of the many Gospel passages that concern themselves with military issues and the way 1st century Roman and Middle Eastern powers dealt with prisoners of war. OK, I can't think of any right now, but there must be a few. And anyway, they're so relevant because of all the incidents of torture that are occurring on a daily basis. OK, I can't think of any of those either.
And posts like this always remind me of arguments that "Jesus never said anything about homosexual acts," implying that they must not be morally problematic in any way. Of course, since Jesus never said anything about slavery or female circumcision either, I guess they must be OK too.
reluctant penitent:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
"It's not a subtle hint but a direct and frank statement of a failure to find evidence of wrongdoing by officers who were in charge."
You cannot be serious.
An officer is repsonible for everything his soldier's do or do not due. If the officers did not know that their soldiers were engaged in torture then they failed to properly lead, supervise and train their soldiers.
Each of the convicted soldiers had a fire team leader. squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, first sergeant, company commander, battalion sergeant major, battalion executive officer, battalion commander, brigade sergeant major, brigade executive officer and birgade commander who's primary job, mission and purpose was leadership.
In addition the convicted soldiers also had a chaplin and inspector general.
Where were all the leaders while the torture was going on? None of them stood court martial. None of them resigned.
I know guys who would have (wrongly) put a bullet in their heads if their soldiers tortured prisoners.
There was and is a huge breakdown in morla leadership from the very top for this to happen.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
reluctant penitent:
Thank you for your kind reply in which you posted in part:
"nd legislation restricting abortion will continue to be annulled in the courts if the right sorts of judges are not appointed."
What makes you think you are ever going to get "the right sorts of judges". Every judge is after all a lawyer. You are going to put the fate of our nation's babies in the hands of lawyers?
If the Supreme Court discovered a never before known interperation of a line of the Constitution that purprotedly called for all Jews to be rounded up and gassed woudl Congress and the President stand for that? Or if the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reinstate slavery what would the President do?
This arguement that the Executive and Legislative Branches cannot do something until the right judges are appointed is horse manure.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I am a christian and believe people have to wake up and live in reality. War is war! Do you believe anyone takes into consideration when attacking what is right and wrong? There were times God said, don't let anyone live not women or children. I am not condoning any torture but, this is what mankind, not just Americans do, and that won't change until Jesus Christ returns.
Zippy,
With all due respect, if I were to live my life with the standard of evidence used by the author of that article, I'd also be certain that Saddam had nukes and that Saddam had nukes. The evidence? A couple of 'unnamed sources,' partisan critics of the President and the Jamadi case--which is being investigated by the Justice Department. If the use of excessive force is prohibited, it's not permitted. In his 'terrorist dunking' interview Cheney also said that the government has worked withing the confines of international laws on torture. But of course that must be a lie because the glorious leader of the happy catholic brigades has discovered his inner sullivan and decided that reason and evidence are old school.
"...I'd also be certain that Saddam had nukes and that Saddam had nukes..." should be I'd also be certain that Saddam had nukes and that Elvis is alive..."
Julie:
You posted in part: "I am a christian and believe people have to wake up and live in reality. War is war! Do you believe anyone takes into consideration when attacking what is right and wrong?"
Christ commanded his floowers to "Love thine enemy". Just becasue the bullets are flying does not mean that God grants us leave to ignore His Commandments. And right and wrong or the perception of what is right or wrong is vitally important in war. The Army which believes that is fighting for "God, King and Country" has a huge advantage over an Army that believes it is fighting for money.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Mark,
The thing to do is for all the major pro-life organizations to issue statements condemning torture and adding it to the list of outrages agains human life (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and torture).
Think what would happen if the pro-life movement were to add torture to their agenda, the republicans would be forced to take notice and the debate that would ensue.
As it stands our country's moral imagination has been hijacked by the "24" scenario. And I've noticed there are a lot of casual torture scenes coming out of Hollywood (in one weekend I saw one in "Mr and Mrs Smith", and another one in a movie--can't remember it's name--about aliens who abducted children and tried to erase the parents memory apparently just to test the mother-child bond--this movie was so lousy I think the only reason it was made was to provide pro-torture propoganda) and they're supposed to be liberal so what's up?
I'm really concerned, we need to think of solutions.
Hannah
With all due respect, ...
With all due respect, you asked for evidence and I gave you some. And nobody is denying that we waterboarded KSM.
"nobody is denying that we waterboarded KSM"
Nobody in the Happy Catholic Brigade that is. The administration, on the other hand, is denying it. But of course we know that they are lying because the Glorious Happy Catholic Leader(TM) has said that they are. Therefore, any Catholic who fails to believe that they are lying is a Bad and Unhappy Catholic (TM).
"As it stands our country's moral imagination has been hijacked by the "24" scenario:..."
Does everyone here watch television? Why? You might as well stuff baby food in your ears with a spoon.
I understand that "24" is not even a documentary, but fiction, but that people are forming their ideas from the notions of scriptwriters. I've seen references to some character named "Jack Bauer" as if this fictional character were a real person.
Pavel,
I have a TV at home and sometimes I watch it. More often I use it to watch DVDs. Through the years, though, I noticed that in the US (and probably elsewhere) much of our every day life conversations center around TV programs and their characters--most of which are unfamiliar to me. I have never watched 24, West Wing, American Idol, not a single one of those "reality" shows, etc, etc. The disadvantage is that sometimes you don't know what people are referring to in their conversations. The advantages, of course, outweigh the disadvantages by far.
"I have a TV at home and sometimes I watch it. More often I use it to watch DVDs."
Phil, we have a tv set at home, and occasionally we too will rent a film. My wife and I love good films, although it's getting harder and harder to find something we might like that we haven't seen before.
As for actually watching a broadcast, I can't remember exactly when we turned the thing on. The election returns for the '04 US election stands out in my mind. Before that it was the day of 9-11, during which my wife was crying part of the time, and I felt as if I'd been hit over the head with a blunt instrument. The furthest from entertainment I can think of.
One of the anchors on one of our local DC stations said something I found memorable: No, folks, this is not a grade B movie you're watching.
I wouldn't watch the tube to see a grade B movie, or a grade B program either.
We've got books, we've got conversation, and we've got walks in our beloved woods. I write almost every day, and my wife reads extensively in English and German.
There's the distraction of the computer, of course, but at least there it's more like reading an interactive book.
Whatever we do, it's most often something that requires active mental and physical effort by us. Sitting and letting images and talk pour into one's brain is a passive way to spend the time. It's also a quick and easy way to be indoctrinated with someone else's program, mission statement, spin and twist.
The other time I can remember watching a tv program was when I was a patient at Walter Reed for a few days in 2001, before 9-11. But then, I spent more time dozing off than watching. TV is fine for invalids. But a few hours a week should be enough for any active person, I think, supposing there's something worth watching.
Pavel Chichikov:
You posted in part:
"Does everyone here watch television? Why? You might as well stuff baby food in your ears with a spoon. I understand that "24" is not even a documentary, but fiction"
Fortunately I like baby food. My nephew loaned me the first 4 seasons on DVD and I was able to watch them back to back when I was ill. I understand the fictional account of a US Counter Terrorist Agent Jack Bauer is in its 5th season
I enjoyed them very much. Jack Bauer saves the world from terrorists in almost every episode. He also cleaverly kills terrorists and traitors by gun fire, high explosive, cold steel and using his bare hands in almost every episode. His love interest always seems to be a blonde who he has to give up in order to pursue the terrorists.
Jack Bauer is particualrly effective at saving the world by capturing a terrorits or traitor. The prisoner knows all of the terrorist secrets. Jack Bauer tortures the captured terrorist or traitor until the captured terrorist or terrorist tells Jack Bauer where the nuclear bomb/chemical agent/biological agent -which is hidden in an American city, usually Los Angelous, and is tickin gaay on a timer getiing ready to explode is located.
(In one episode the President of the United States had a member of his cabinet tortured by a Secret Service Agent.)
Jack Bauer then fights his way to the nuclear bomb/chemical agent/biological agent and disarms it in the nick of time, usually with the beautiful blond looking on. I am quite captivated by the show.
In my opinion U.S. Counter Terrorist Agent Jack Bauer is about as realistic as Superman or Spiderman; but then again I enjoyed Superman and Spiderman cominc books when I was a child.
Now to watch some mindless NFL violence.
God bless
Richard W> Comerford
The administration, on the other hand, is denying it.
Really? Do you have access to a quote of someone in the administration saying explicitly and directly that KSM wasn't waterboarded?
"Fortunately I like baby food".
I used to love White Castle hamburgers, and then someone had to tell me that they're made from baby food. I think he meant that literally. I haven't quite felt the same way about them since.
"...the nuclear bomb/chemical agent/biological agent -which is hidden in an American city, usually Los Angelous, and is tickin ..."
Hmm, do you set them off with a twenty dollar alarm clock from CVS? Ticking!?
I dreamed the other night that I was telling someone about how to initiate a nuclear detonation, using the the appropriate elements. For some reason or other, in the course of my life I've met and talked with various people associated with these weapons, starting from the time I was a small child and visited the Enola Gay just after the war, until I had conversations with the top US bomb designer, and quite a few others. Two of these at least could have started a global nuclear war, and perhaps two or three others. One of them was on the other side.
People become cavalier about how it was a cinch to prevent the final War from happening. Just rely on MAD, and all was and will be well.
IMHO, we have not (yet) been turned into radioactive dust by the grace of God. Never did I hear anyone say anything about 'ticking.' But if the threat has to be thwarted every week then I have to conclude that either the damn things don't exist, or they don't work.
Pavel Chichikov:
It is half time Colts v Broncos.
Thank you for your kind reply.
In the TV series titled "24" the terrorists have access to a seemingless limitless suppoly of nulear/chemical/biological weapons. However in real life the enemy does not need weapons of mass destruction to terrorize us. The enemy has done an efficient job with conventional expediant weapons like hijacked airplanes. He is forcing us on the defensive in Afghanistan and on the retreat in Iraq using WW II technolog. All of our WW III weapons are proving ineffetive against the Holy Warriros of Islam.
The enemy is fighting smarter than we are.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Mr. Comerford,
Thanks. I was just doing some simple arithmetic and realizing that the first nuclear weapon was tested only 43 years after the first heavier than air flight.
Subtract 43 from '06 and you find yourself back in 1963, when the Vietnam War, US edition, was just getting started.
At about the same time or a little earlier an American special forces solider who I met a few years ago was ready, he said, to hoist a nuclear weapon onto his back and storm Soviet headquarters at Karlshorst in East Germany, in case it became necessary.
When I think of all that might have happened to us in those years I once again feel strongly that only by God's grace has catastrophe been averted, for now.
I'm sorry to hear - and perhaps you are right - that things could be going better for us in various theaters than they might. But they could be a lot worse.
When bad things happen in slow motion there is still time to correct mistakes.
I have been afraid of the big weapons ever since I was old enough to understand what they were. I still dread them, and in fact, for anyone who knows anything about them they are dreadful things. When people say: What does it matter if Iran, North Korea (Brazil? Argentina? Saudi Arabia? Japan?) have them, I wonder why they can't understand what might happen.
God bless,
Pavel
"the first nuclear weapon was tested only 43 years after the first heavier than air flight. "
Sorry. Make that 42 years.
Pavel Chichikov:
Thank you for your kind reply:
The special forces soldier you spoke to was probably from my old unit the 10th Special Forces Group. A handful of the very best soldiers (I was not numbered among them) were tasked in the event of nuclear war to infiltrate into WARSAW Pact targets and detonate man packed nuclear weapons.
It is interesting that none of these guys thought they would survive the mission. Very heroic; but the dedication needed to turn oneself into a slef propelled bomb is nothing new and not limited to Islam.
These guys were quite willing to go to certain and unsung deaths, no one would ever know their names, in the event fo war.
Thank God we avoided nuclear war.
Any Christian who supports the current mess in Iraq needs to have explained to them the difference between "a just war" and "just a war".
Yes Zippy, Cheney says that the U.S. is living up to its international obligations and does not use torture. He says it in the interview with the 'dunking' comment. Here's the excerpt:
"Q Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save
lives?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while
there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We
don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our
obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."
http://www.areavoices.com/hottal...talk/?
blog=4166
So far we have denials from the administration that the prohibitions against all forms of torture, including waterboarding, have been violated. On the other side we have something that makes the Roswell cover-up evidence look like a mighty fortress. If you're going to vote out the GOP for lying about torture, you might as well add lying about aliens, big foot, the illuminati and nazi pope pius xii to your picnic basket of grievances.
Yes Zippy, Cheney says ...
That won't do, RP. I asked you for a direct denial that KSM was waterboarded, not vagueries about how nice we are because we only "dunk" captives rather than torturing them. Cheney says that we live up to Internatonal treaties, but the Bush Administration also said that Geneva Convention Article 3 doesn't apply to terrorists. Lots of people seem to think waterboarding isn't torture, and I have yet to see any direct denial that KSM was waterboarded from anyone in or connected to the Administration. In fact lots of people hold up the "success" of waterboarding KSM as reason to believe that "aggressive interrogation" (that is, torture) actually works. If you really think that KSM wasn't waterboarded it is because you are living in a fantasy land.
That is why I asked you for a quote from someone in the Administration, on the record, saying definitively that KSM wasn't waterboarded. You won't find one, by the way. Because KSM was waterboarded by the CIA. (And Manadel al-Jamadi died while undergoing strappado, a.k.a. Palestinian Hanging, inflicted on him by CIA interrogator Mark Swanner).
I stopped believing this administration a while back ago, but have there been any recent (say, during the last three months) in which the president and/or vicepresident unambigously denied that the US has engaged in waterboarding?
What I have read is statements that the US does not torture, but when asked about waterboarding they simply repeat that the US does not engage in torture but that they do not reveal specific techniques. In other words, they do not deny that they practice waterboarding.
Are there any recent statements clearly saying that the US does not waterboard? It could well be that they are playing semantic games and according to their self-serving definitions waterboarding is not torture. I hope to be wrong about this....
"Because KSM was waterboarded by the CIA."
Well if you say so then it must be true. I'll try hyperventilating. Maybe that will make the evidence seem more credible.
"The special forces soldier you spoke to was probably from my old unit the 10th Special Forces Group. A handful of the very best soldiers (I was not numbered among them) were tasked in the event of nuclear war to infiltrate into WARSAW Pact targets and detonate man packed nuclear weapons."
Richard,
Thank you for validating this story. I found it so fantastic when I heard it that I couldn't help wondering if it might, perhaps, be a tall tale.
I wonder if many people remember that General Aleksandr Lebed, a Soviet/Russian paratroop general who was credited with negotiating the end of the First Chechen War, was briefly head of Yeltsin's Defense Council, said that he learned while briefly in that position that the SU had manufactured many - perhaps hundreds - of suitcase bombs. He was ridiculed for saying this by some Russian bureaucrat or other.
Lebed, who by all accounts was a soldier's soldier, even visited to the States and testified before Congress. If I remember rightly his testimony was, if colorful, not that significant. But I wonder what he might have said in private.
"...said that he learned...that the SU had manufactured many - perhaps hundreds - of suitcase bombs."
In fact, the bureaucrat asserted that no such devices had ever existed.
Pavel Chichikov:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part: "he learned while briefly in that position that the SU had manufactured many - perhaps hundreds - of suitcase bombs."
We assumed in the 1970's that the Soviet Union had man portable nuclear weapons. (I was too unimportant to be told hard information on this subject.) However the "suitcase" size weapon sounds too small. In my own very limited experience, back in the dark ages, when one of these things was rigged for a drop, via paratrooper, it was more about the size of a trash can.
You could also swim ome of these things into a target - like a large war ship at anchor. The SEALS were always taking about taking out a target like the Kiev.
The problem with any nuclear weapon especially Soviet ones is that they degrade over time. The likelihood that an old nuke especially a man portable one going bang when you want it to go bang is low. This is why the bad guys do not put a lot of energy into trying to get their hands on one.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
You know, for all the attacks on this administration, I do not see the Democrats running on the fact that they will not allow any torture if they are put in power. I do not even see them running on the fact that if elected, they will end the surveilence of calls from terrorist. I do not see them saying that if they are in power, they will insist on open borders and amnesty for everyone here illegally. I do not see them saying if they are in power they will legalize gay marriage. However, that is what most who examine their record see them doing.
I do not see them saying if they are given power what they will do to fight the war on terror other than spend two years harrassing the president in time of war.
I have asked several times to see how Mark and this group would define terror. Zippy post above about proof had these definitions. Is this the definition most would like to see and the Democrats to run on to gain power? Lets see anyone running for office saying these things should not be allowed when we have a terrorist and a ticking bomb.
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
I wish the Democratic Party and all the eager critics had some plan, some definition, some ideas.
At Mass today, the priest after mass introduced the son of the choir leader who was leaving for training as a navy seal. He came up for a blessing by the priest. The priest read off some of what this man was headed for in the training process. It would make the 6 items listed above look like a cake walk. After the blessing, there was a sustained applause for this man for over 5 minutes. Thank God we have such as these. I only hope that the American people sustain them with their support but I fear that once again, as we did in other wars since WWII, that the whiners will cause us to lose. It will never be lost be men such as this fine young soldier.
" However the "suitcase" size weapon sounds too small."
It does to me too. However, I'm not a nuclear physicist. If you're ever in DC you might visit the Air & Space Museum, where there is a mock-up of the nose cone of a Pershing-2. If I rememember rightly it's a bit smaller than a trash can, and was built to contain three 200 k weapons.
"The problem with any nuclear weapon especially Soviet ones is that they degrade over time."
No doubt. It's a high precision instrument, so I don't think a 20 dollar alarm clock from CVS would be an effective component. Knowledge, however, does not necessarily degrade.
You know, for all the attacks on this administration, I do not see the Democrats running on the fact that they will not allow any torture if they are put in power.
I agree.
Pavel Chichikov:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
"Knowledge, however, does not necessarily degrade."
You are of course right; and it is a very good point. However the great strength of Al Qaeda is also its great weakness when it comes to this matter. (Yes, be warned, a pompous pontification is forthcoming.)
Al Qaeda is essentially a closed system which blinds the traditional intelligence eyes of Western powers. Ii relies on a network of men and women who share religious, cultural, ethnic and family ties (like the old Mafia). It uses trusted family members to conduct face to face meeting for important information.
Let us suppose that Al Qaeda bribes a former Soviet nuclear weapons handler to come to the wilds of West Pakistan and to do a make over on an old nuke. First of all he is outside the "family" so to speak - so there is a significant trust problem. Second of all there are no facilities to work in. Third of all why do it?
Al Qaeda is winning. On 9/11/01 we held the moral high ground. We then invaded Iraq and decided to abandon our WWII policy of humane treatment of prisoners. In so doing we ceded the moral high ground to Al Qaeda. If AL Qaeda tried to pop off a nuke in LA then it would loose the moral high ground.
Right now it has the USA on the defensive in Afghanistan. It is forcing the USA to retreat from Iraq. It has defeated the IDF. It has turned the suburbs of Paris into a battleground. It has disrupted the Republican Party's hold on power. On hanging over all of this is the specter of Moslem babies. Old Europe is dying. New Europe wears a veil.
If you were Al Qaeda why risk it?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Zippy:
In minor races all over the country lines like this are popping up:
"I am Barry Welsh and I am the Democratic Candidate in Indiana's 6th ... Torture is wrong. Torture is unproductive. Torture will not make us safer."
How do you vote when you have a Republican candidate who is pro abortion and pro torture; and you have a Democratic candidate who is pro abortion and anti torture?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Hi guys. The whole point is that torture is wrong. It should not be seen as a Republican or Democratic issue. The fact that politicians are taking advantage of this issue for their own political gains is a given--politics is politics. That still does not change the fact that torture is wrong.
It would make the 6 items listed above look like a cake walk.
No, it wouldn't. Simulating certain things in training isn't the same thing as doing them in reality.
It is of course possible that some training exercises are immoral. Suppose for example that there was a rape-resistance training exercise where the (voluntary) trainee was actually physically forcibly penetrated by the trainer. Would this be immoral? Without question, at least if trainer/trainee were not married. Would it be rape? No.
The claim that we have harsh training exercises for our own men, and therefore it follows that we are justified in torturing captives, is obvious nonsense.
How do you vote when you have a Republican candidate who is pro abortion and pro torture; and you have a Democratic candidate who is pro abortion and anti torture?
My suggestion in that situation is that you vote by going to the tabernacle and spending an hour praying, and stay the Hell away from those little pagan temples we call "voting booths". That is just my suggestion though. Each has to come to his own conclusion.
Zippy
You posted in part:
“The claim that we have harsh training exercises for our own men, and therefore it follows that we are justified in torturing captives.”
Please allow me to pontificate.
A solider that undergoes resistance to interrogation training is normally very young, super fit and highly motivated. In my day usually soldiers who were cycled through these courses were Special Forces, Air Crew or reconnaissance personnel - people who were at high risk of capture. The instructors could abuse this type of student without worrying too much about heart attacks, strokes asthma attacks etc. Just the same, tragically, there were serious injuries and even deaths during there training scenarios.
The big problem is that most interrogation subjects are not healthy, fit, motivated young men. Often the majority of subjects are children, pregnant women, the elderly, the mentally ill and the sick. In third world countries almost everyone is sick or lame. Physically abusing interrogation subjects leads to unintended deaths and injuries which is a victory for the enemy. If you kill or maim a subject in interrogation then you turn his entire family, clan and tribe against you which then places the lives of uniformed service members at more risk.
We used to know this. In my day every soldier was taught to “safeguard” prisoners. The idea of abusing a prisoner was abhorrent. Why and how this changed I still do not understand.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
We used to know this. In my day every soldier was taught to “safeguard” prisoners.
As I suspect you already know, Richard, American soldiers are still taught this. And even in your day, there were bad apples who abused prisoners anyway.
And the people that are being aggressively interrogated are mostly exactly who you say they are not: fit, healthy, motivated young men -- jihadists.
Frank Sales:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
“As I suspect you already know, Richard, American soldiers are still taught this. And even in your day, there were bad apples who abused prisoners anyway.”
I reply: I do not know this. That is the problem. The soldiers at GTMO now treat prisoners in a way that in my day or in WWII would have placed them in Fort Leavenworth making big rocks into little rocks. The soldiers found guilty of abusing prisoners at Abu Gharib allege that they had been so ordered by their superiors to soften the prisoners up for interrogation. So far only a couple of Reserve privates have gone to prison. No officers have stood court martial. No generals have resigned. Either the Reservists were told by their chain of command to torture the prisoners or their chain of command turned a blind eye to the Reservists’ activities. In either case this raises questions as to what both soldiers and officers are being taught these days.
You also posted in part:
”And the people that are being aggressively interrogated are mostly exactly who you say they are not: fit, healthy, motivated young men -- jihadists.”
I reply: I hope not. If we are only interrogating young fit jihadists then we had just better surrender now and get the best terms possible. Most of the human information necessary to defeat an insurgency comes from one of two sources: 1) Cadre members who are often not young fit fighters; 2) Uncommitted people who get caught up in the insurgency to include the elderly, the sick, and the very young, the mentally ill and the pregnant. The young fighters who are captured under arms are essentially easily replicable pawns who know very little in terms of actionable intelligence. (Often if you provide a pregnant woman with medical care you will get far more out of her, and gain an ally in the process, than if you slap her around.)
And of course the question must be raised of how many of the fit, healthy, motivated young men who undergo interrogation at are hands are actually jihadists? How many of the prisoners at GTMO right now were jihadists when the USA purchased them from Afghanistan War Lords and Pakistani Intelligence? To the best of my knowledge only about 10% of these guys were taken bearing arms against the USA. Of course they all now probably hate aour guts.
That is a big problem is it not? You interrogate a guy who at the beginning of the interrogation was not your enemy; but by the end of the interrogation he is your enemy.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
My heart doesn't bleed for the Gitmo prisoners: their own Korans which are handled by gloved guards, a diet that has resulted in a net weight gain for them, and unlike the Cubans down the way, as much toothpaste and toilet paper as they need.
And Richard, show me one documented case of a pregnant woman being tortured by the military in this war. If you can do that, other than in the context of a military trial of the perpetrator, than I will be forced to admit that you have a clue and are not the hysteric you come across as.
God bless you and those that fight to keep you safe.
Frank Sales:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
“My heart doesn't bleed for the Gitmo prisoners”.
I reply: It should. Christ commanded us to love our enemies. Some in if not most of the prisoners at GTMO now appear to be innocent of the charge of bearing arms against the USA. By falsely imprisoning them we have created more enemies and placed U.S. soldiers rt increased risk.
You also posted in part:
“And Richard, show me one documented case of a pregnant woman being tortured by the military in this war.”
I reply: I was unaware that I made any such claim in any post “of a pregnant woman being tortured by the military in this war”. If I have made such a post would you be so kind at to point it out to me?
You also posted in part:
“I will be forced to admit that you have a clue and are not the hysteric you come across as.”
I reply: On no please keep me marked down in the hysteric column. The mighty IDF just got beat by a lightly armed militia. The USA is on the defensive in Afghanistan and is retreating from Iraq. Paris is ringed by Moslem sums which have become no go areas for its police and fire services. We area loosing 4,000 a day by abortion. And what is the US administration focused on – torturing prisoners. God help us.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Richard, the evidence of both your hysteria and your allegation that torture is being perpetrated on pregnant women is:
Often the majority of subjects are children, pregnant women, the elderly, the mentally ill and the sick.
And if you say you weren't implying that the US is torturing these unfortunates, I will be charitable and accept that, and urge you to be more careful in communicating your thoughts.
God bless you and those who fight to keep you safe.
Frank Sales:
Thank you for your kind reply.
The entire comment I posted reads as follows:
"If we are only interrogating young fit jihadists then we had just better surrender now and get the best terms possible. Most of the human information necessary to defeat an insurgency comes from one of two sources: 1) Cadre members who are often not young fit fighters; 2) Uncommitted people who get caught up in the insurgency to include the elderly, the sick, and the very young, the mentally ill and the pregnant."
The word "torture" does not appear in the above cited comment. The operative word is "interrogation". In fact I said we should be interrogating pregnant women among others if we are not so doing now. I do not see how anyone could have possibly read into the above cited comment that I accused the U.S. Army of torturing pregnant women.
I post this information based on about 35 years of experience in an effort to help civilians understand some of the real world problems encountered by soldiers and cops in interrogation, counter insurgency and special operations.
I have not made any personal attacks on anyone else who posts on this site. I have treated everyone, whether I disagree with them or not, with respect.
In the military bogs, which are visited in the main by non - practicing Christians, I find the posters much more charitable. I have never seen one poster insult another with an accusation of hysteria or some such other accusation.
My original post on this matter was not directed to you. It was directed to Zippy. You then went out of your way to twice accuse me of purported hysteria in a public forum based on a very gross misreading of my very clear and simple post.
I am not an intellectual, I am a dummy. I was just trying to facilitate the discussion with observations based on experience.
To falsely accuse an old soldier of purportedly accusing young soldiers of the purported torture of pregnant women is a terrible injustice.
Forgive me if I do not respond to your posts in the future.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Richard,
Even old soldiers can get hysterical. The quote to Zippy, in full, is not what you just posted. It's this:
A solider that undergoes resistance to interrogation training is normally very young, super fit and highly motivated. In my day usually soldiers who were cycled through these courses were Special Forces, Air Crew or reconnaissance personnel - people who were at high risk of capture. The instructors could abuse this type of student without worrying too much about heart attacks, strokes asthma attacks etc. Just the same, tragically, there were serious injuries and even deaths during there training scenarios.
The big problem is that most interrogation subjects are not healthy, fit, motivated young men. Often the majority of subjects are children, pregnant women, the elderly, the mentally ill and the sick. In third world countries almost everyone is sick or lame. Physically abusing interrogation subjects leads to unintended deaths and injuries which is a victory for the enemy. If you kill or maim a subject in interrogation then you turn his entire family, clan and tribe against you which then places the lives of uniformed service members at more risk.
To say that MOST OFTEN our troops are interrogating pregnant women, children, mentally ill people, the sick and the old is, bluntly, hysterical. For instance, I'd hazard a guess that of the women who are interrogated, MOST OFTEN they are not pregnant.
And you show nothing but contempt for our officers and soldiers (in other posts) in insinuating that they are being trained to abuse prisoners and are routinely doing so. Even Mark concedes that waterboarding etc. is CIA or contractor practice and that Abu Ghraib was an abberration.
You don't have to respond, but you may have to continue to carry the cross of my criticism when you go over the top.
God bless you and those who fight to protect you.
Commenting by HaloScan
