War in Georgia

[GreatCarouser]

And that fact some how absolves them from condoning and encouraging its use? I wonder how a defendant in a court would fare in a jury trial using that defense?

There you go obscuring the issue. I asked when, and why, we lost 'moral authority'. You're trying to say President Bush and Vice President Cheney are guilty of torture, but are ignoring the question asked, as did OT.

Hardly, and I'll repeat his answer, "When we started torturing people".

Now on to my comment, when you said "I didn't ask how you defined torture, I asked when we started it. I can assure you, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not invent the technique." I read it as a defense of their use of the technique, was I mistaken? Perhaps you have no moral qualms about the use of torture as a means of policy/punishment/interrogation and feel it should be condoned and supported by our Presidents?

[OperaTenor]

Tell you what. Why don't you go volunteer to be waterboarded, then convince me it isn't torture. Until then, I don't really want to hear it.

I didn't ask how you defined torture, I asked when we started it. I can assure you, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not invent the technique.

As I see it, you think we lost our 'moral authority' when you became aware that we were using the techniques you classify as torture. That is a pretty narrow vision. We've used similar techniques in French Indochina, in Korea, In World War II, and probably in the Great War and beyond. Did we have 'moral authority' then? Is the loss of 'moral authority' the result of the torture, or the result of the publication of evidence thereof? If it is the result of the torture, then I daresay we've probably not had 'moral authority' in my lifetime....

First, we will probably never know exactly when it was begun, but my money says it was sometime after January 9, 2001.

Second, show me proof that we've used "similar techniques" elsewhere in history, and show me that they had Presidential sanctioning.

Prove to me that we weren't looked at internationally in the twentieth century as a moral bastion when it came to human rights. If not, why did the Nazis try their damndest to be captured by us at the end of WWII? How were we able to disparage the NVA's treatment of our POW's during the Vietnam war, if we were torturing them?

[OperaTenor]

And that fact some how absolves them from condoning and encouraging its use? I wonder how a defendant in a court would fare in a jury trial using that defense?

There you go obscuring the issue. I asked when, and why, we lost 'moral authority'. You're trying to say President Bush and Vice President Cheney are guilty of torture, but are ignoring the question asked, as did OT.

Hardly, and I'll repeat his answer, "When we started torturing people".

Now on to my comment, when you said "I didn't ask how you defined torture, I asked when we started it. I can assure you, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not invent the technique." I read it as a defense of their use of the technique, was I mistaken? Perhaps you have no moral qualms about the use of torture as a means of policy/punishment/interrogation and feel it should be condoned and supported by our Presidents?

I get the same read.

[Shapley]

First, we will probably never know exactly when it was begun, but my money says it was sometime after January 9, 2001.

You'll lose that money. Waterboarding was used during World War I. President Theodore Roosevelt opposed it during his term, and ordered the courts-martial of Maj. Edwin Glenn. The verdict was that he has 'acted with excessive zeal'. President Roosevelt, unhappy with this verdict, ordered him dismissed from the Army.

Although it was used prior to Vietnam, waterboarding was forbidden by generals during the war. Nonetheless, a photo of an American soldier and South Vietnamese soldiers was released, which identified the process as 'fairly common'. That soldier was subjected to courts-martial, and dismissed from the Army.

You posted previously on this thread that President Clinton had sanctioned waterboarding. The CIA has used the technique in Central and South America, and the U.S. has used it by proxy (i.e., the forces we trained have used it) for decades. We've trained insurgents, toppled governments, and overthrown lawful leaders, and you think we lack 'moral authority' because a handful of terrorists are waterboarded.

We also waterboard our own special-forces soldiers as part of their training. That would seem to be illegal, since the Constitution prohibits the torture of American citizens, but we accept it as a necessity. This training is done with the sanction of the Presidents.

By and large we treat prisoners of war better than our own are treated. However, spies and terrorists, who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, are and have been subject to 'special treatment' and to death. You fail to distinguish between uniform combatants and non-conventional forces. The military recognizes that distinction and recognizes a different set of rules regarding them.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Now on to my comment, when you said "I didn't ask how you defined torture, I asked when we started it. I can assure you, President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not invent the technique." I read it as a defense of their use of the technique, was I mistaken? Perhaps you have no moral qualms about the use of torture as a means of policy/punishment/interrogation and feel it should be condoned and supported by our Presidents?

I've stated my position on this before. Uniformed enemy combatants are protected by the Geneva Conventions, terrorists and spies are not. There have been additional conventions since 1948 that have sought to extend protections to these groups, and we have refused to sign them. Therefore, the official policy of the United States since 1948, when we first refused to sign, has been that the certain interrogation techniques that may be regarded as 'torture' by some are not forbidden in the case of terrorists and spies.

I have moral qualms in that I would not participate in such practices, but I realize that there is dirty work that has to be done and that we have to have people who are willing and able to do it. It is not, and has never been, a 'routine' practice, but it has been practiced, and our nation has been unwilling to prohibit it as a matter of convention.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

I can't find the quote in print, but I heard it on the radio yesterday. George Bush saying something like, “We will let the Russians be judged by the court of world public opinions.” I almost fell out of my car door. What a hypocrite.

I hesitate to speak for OT, but I think you guys may have found some common ground.

We have lots of common ground . . .

[dai bread]

Of course, the fact Russia is being poked in the side with a sharp stick, in the form of trying to get Georgia to join NATO, has nothing to do with it, either.

Not saying I approve of the action, just applying a little Atticus Principle to it.

Russia's Power Play

Of course, like the US has any moral authority anymore.....

I am reluctantly grateful Georgia is not a part of NATO. If it had been we would be facing a lose/lose scenario; betray the alliance's key purpose, or start a shooting war with the world's second largest nuclear power.

I have also reluctantly concluded that we have little or no national interest in the independence of Georgia or any portion of it.

The U.S. involvement in NATO has run its course and we should pull out and terminate any alliances in Europe. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall NATO has become an “entangling alliance” of the sort that George Washington warned us against, and remaining in NATO virtually guarantees our involvement in any bickering territorial disputes in Europe.

Of course if Russia controls the Georgian pipeline routes, it will have more leverage against Europe. But, let's face it, Europe hasn't been showing all that much backbone anyway. If the balance of power in Europe is out of balance, it is due to the new European nation being built there; and that certainly doesn't need anymore US blood and treasure to defend it. We have filled too many graveyards in Europe since 1917

Well said, Haggis.

I've wondered from time to time why 500 000 000 Europeans want 300 000 000 Americans to do their fighting for them.

[Shapley]

I've wondered from time to time why 500 000 000 Europeans want 300 000 000 Americans to do their fighting for them.

It's cheaper...

[OperaTenor]

First, we will probably never know exactly when it was begun, but my money says it was sometime after January 9, 2001.

You'll lose that money. Waterboarding was used during World War I. President Theodore Roosevelt opposed it during his term, and ordered the courts-martial of Maj. Edwin Glenn. The verdict was that he has 'acted with excessive zeal'. President Roosevelt, unhappy with this verdict, ordered him dismissed from the Army.

Although it was used prior to Vietnam, waterboarding was forbidden by generals during the war. Nonetheless, a photo of an American soldier and South Vietnamese soldiers was released, which identified the process as 'fairly common'. That soldier was subjected to courts-martial, and dismissed from the Army.

You posted previously on this thread that President Clinton had sanctioned waterboarding. The CIA has used the technique in Central and South America, and the U.S. has used it by proxy (i.e., the forces we trained have used it) for decades. We've trained insurgents, toppled governments, and overthrown lawful leaders, and you think we lack 'moral authority' because a handful of terrorists are waterboarded.

We also waterboard our own special-forces soldiers as part of their training. That would seem to be illegal, since the Constitution prohibits the torture of American citizens, but we accept it as a necessity. This training is done with the sanction of the Presidents.

By and large we treat prisoners of war better than our own are treated. However, spies and terrorists, who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, are and have been subject to 'special treatment' and to death. You fail to distinguish between uniform combatants and non-conventional forces. The military recognizes that distinction and recognizes a different set of rules regarding them.

V/R
Shapley

Wow, pretty much nothing but misfires here.

First, you quoted me out of context. I said, "and show me that they had Presidential sanctioning." Your first "example" proves my point, not yours.

I did not post that Clinton approved waterboarding. I posted that he first authorized extraordinary renditions. Apple, meet orange.

As for your other claims about waterboarding, show me where it had express authorization of the POTUS.

Your "distinction" is just an excuse to do unspeakable horror on other human beings. A slimy slope.

[OperaTenor]

I have moral qualms in that I would not participate in such practices, but I realize that there is dirty work that has to be done and that we have to have people who are willing and able to do it. It is not, and has never been, a 'routine' practice, but it has been practiced, and our nation has been unwilling to prohibit it as a matter of convention.

V/R
Shapley

Breathtaking. I'm saving this one for posterity.

[Shapley]

Wow, pretty much nothing but misfires here.

First, you quoted me out of context. I said, "and show me that they had Presidential sanctioning." Your first "example" proves my point, not yours.

Au Contraire. You first stated that it started 'sometime after Jan. 9, 2001', I posted several links showing that the practice had been used. We hear about, and can find reference to those that are prosecuted, not to those that aren't. Apparently, then as now, they are prosecuted if they become prominent.

I did not post that Clinton approved waterboarding. I posted that he first authorized extraordinary renditions. Apple, meet orange.

SInce I don't have time to look up the post, I'll accept your claim. It was my recollection that you read in a book that linked Clinton to torture.

As for your other claims about waterboarding, show me where it had express authorization of the POTUS.

I accept that, since no President has signed the conventions that extend the prohibition to terrorists and spies since they were first proposed in 1948, that it is the accepted policy of the U.S., and therefore by its' Presidents', that the prohibition does not apply to terrorists and spies. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Your "distinction" is just an excuse to do unspeakable horror on other human beings. A slimy slope.

My 'distinction' is to allow us to match terrorists 'atrocity for atrocity', as President Nixon stated was necessary. The fact is, there are some people who see compassion as weakness, and do not draw a distinction between killing innocents and killing combat soldiers. For these people, special methods are sometimes necessary to obtain information about their activities. My conscience would rest better knowing that I scared the **** out of some terrorist than it would knowing that innocent people died because I was unwilling to do so....

[Shapley]

Here is a blog containing the text of the original Wall Street Journal story that discussed President Clinton's support for torture. OT says that Clinton Supported "extraordinary rendition", but not torture. The article concludes that they are one and the same. Ahmed Osman Saleh, discussed in the article, was tortured and hanged. The link to the original Wall Street Journal story is expired.

[OperaTenor]

Extraordinary rendition and waterboarding are not one and the same. Your blogger is suffering from acute cardiocranialrectalitis.

Extraordinary rendition is the unauthorized nabbing of a suspect in a foreign country, without the country's knowledge or approval, and transporting them to a third country for interrogation and possibly torture.

Waterboarding is filling a person's mouth with water while they're confined on their back, essentially partially drowning them.

How in the world can you contend they're the same?! That's just nuts.

[OperaTenor]

My 'distinction' is to allow us to match terrorists 'atrocity for atrocity', as President Nixon stated was necessary. The fact is, there are some people who see compassion as weakness, and do not draw a distinction between killing innocents and killing combat soldiers. For these people, special methods are sometimes necessary to obtain information about their activities. My conscience would rest better knowing that I scared the **** out of some terrorist than it would knowing that innocent people died because I was unwilling to do so....

A true Christian sentiment, that....

[OperaTenor]

Wow, pretty much nothing but misfires here.

First, you quoted me out of context. I said, "and show me that they had Presidential sanctioning." Your first "example" proves my point, not yours.

Au Contraire. You first stated that it started 'sometime after Jan. 9, 2001', I posted several links showing that the practice had been used. We hear about, and can find reference to those that are prosecuted, not to those that aren't. Apparently, then as now, they are prosecuted if they become prominent.

Drivel.

You still ignore the "presidential sanction" qualification. You even state Teddy R was against it.

[Shapley]

Waterboarding is filling a person's mouth with water while they're confined on their back, essentially partially drowning them.

I wasn't aware that we were limiting torture to waterboarding. You initially said "when we started torturing people', not 'when we started waterboarding people'. The author did not mention waterboarding, but did mention torture as part of the 'extraordinary rendition'. This amounts to 'torture by proxy' on the part of the Clinton administration.

Perhaps this is what Sandy Berger was hiding when he smuggled and destroyed classified documents...

[OperaTenor]

Okay, I'm out. Too much equivocation.

I'll be back when the ludicrosity heads in another direction....

[dai bread]

Rendition was explained in my newspaper as a means of getting terrorist suspects to a place where the interrogators and their controllers have fewer scruples than American or British ones.

The suspects are just that, as far as I know. They haven't been found guilty of anything. They may well be guilty as sin, but it hasn't been proved when they are, what? rendered? renditioned? Sent overseas, anyway.

[Shapley]

Drivel.

Typical OT response. Have you never observed that such instances become newsstories, and then they are prosecuted, not the other way around.

You still ignore the "presidential sanction" qualification. You even state Teddy R was against it.

No, I've answered it. Name for me the president who has fought to have terrorists and spies protected under the Geneva Conventions. The 'torture' you speak of is being used on non-uniform combatants and suspected or known terrorists. The links that I posted involved the use of waterboarding against enemy combatants, clearly against the Geneva Conventions, although the third convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, was not yet signed when President Theodore Roosevelt issued his proclamation prohibiting the use of waterboarding. President Roosevelt had fought in the Spanish-American War and had apparently observed the use of waterboarding there. However, President Roosevelt's proclamation, the Geneva Conventions, and all subsequent prohibitions have applied to actions by the miltary against enemy combatants, not terrorists and spies.

I'm not equivocating, but I seem to be going around in circles, saying the same thing a dozen different ways. You continue to ignore the distinction between uniform combatants and terrorists and spies, which is the only group against which this President or, as far as I know, any President since Roosevelt, has recognized the use of waterboarding and other forms of extraordinary interrogation.

Do you really expect that there will be evidence of the use of such methods against terrorists and spies posted openly? It became evident in this administration because of the open and forthright nature of our war against the terrorists. In the past, such operations have been conducted secretly, as some remain today. With the events of 9/11, the terrorists perpetrated an overt act that forced this President to expand anti-terror activities from closed door and law-enforcement tactics to warfare in the open field. The tactics changed, not the nature of the enemy. The terrorist now, instead of being renditioned and hanged in foreign countries sans trial, are shipped to our own holding facility, where we are more open about the nature of their 'processing'. It seems to trouble you that that which was perpetrated in the dark is being shown in the light, and you condemn this President because you now have to look at and hear about that which used to be conducted in silence. That is not this President's fault, that is the fault of those who seek political gain by embarassing this President, with no regard for the damage their efforts do to the United States or our efforts against those who seek to do us harm.

A true Christian sentiment, that....

Perhaps, perhaps not, and I may well be forced to answer for that when my day of reckoning comes. Nonetheless, I am prepared to answer for it, as I have answered honestly and openly about it here on this board.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

I think this video was posted here before: this gentleman volunteered to be waterboarded.
http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399