Innocents in Gitmo

[GenSeneca]

That is why it is so totally uancceptable that so many abuses have, in fact ocurred, and even more apalling that our commander in chief has not had the courage to condemn such actions.

Totally appalling... Bush was silent about the whole thing.

"People in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhorrent," Bush said in an interview with Alhurra (search), an Arab-language network funded by the U.S. government.

"They also must understand that what took place in that prison does not represent the America I know. The America I know is a compassionate country that believes in freedom. The America I know cares about every individual."

"We're an open society, we're a society that is going to investigate, fully investigate in this place, what took place in that prison," Bush said.

People have to understand, the president continued, that "in a democracy, everything is not perfect, that mistakes are made but in a democracy as well, those mistakes will be investigated and people will be brought to justice."

"The people of the Middle East must understand that this is horrible, but we're dealing with it in a way that will bring confidence not only to our citizens … but confidence to people in the world that this situation will be rectified and justice will be done," Bush continued in the Al Arabiya interview.

"These actions of a few people do not reflect the nature of the men and women who serve our country." FOX

He could of at least had the courage to cross his arms, stamp his feet and throw a full on temper tantrum as proof that he condemned such actions.

 

[PLC1]

Totally appalling... Bush was silent about the whole thing.



He could of at least had the courage to cross his arms, stamp his feet and throw a full on temper tantrum as proof that he condemned such actions.

Or he could have matched actions with deeds. Instead, this is what he did.

 

[GenSeneca]

Or he could have matched actions with deeds. Instead, this is what he did.

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

 

[PLC1]

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

I don't think there are any terrorist fetuses, so your analogy simply doesn't hold water. In addition, it is based on the false notion that anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake is part of "the left", and therefore, pro abortion.

You say I'm reaching, then come up with a statement like that.

The bottom line is that it is not up to me to define torture. Mistreatment of prisoners is already defined, has been for a long time, and is considered uncivilized behavior. That the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior, whether or not you, I or anyone else wants to call it torture, is simply appalling and unacceptable, not to mention counter productive in the so called "war on terror."

McClatchy has conducted an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners in our custody, and has published its findings. Our choices are:

(1) understand that there have been abuses, and do what we can to correct the situation, or
(2) decide that the messenger is unreliable, and discount the findings, or,
(3) justify what has been done, using whatever mental gymnastics it takes to do so.

Is there a fourth choice I've missed?

 

[Federal Farmer]

You have provided one definition of torture and WaterBoarding was one of the practices that did not meet the definition... So it appears you're the one reaching, trying to throw apples in with the oranges under the pretense of them both being similarly sized, round fruit.

It kills me that the Left can so easily, arbitrarily, and unanimously decide when a fetus is really a human by use of very specific definitions.... Yet when it comes to defining torture, they are all over them map.

It's even worse is that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, they don't mind tearing a living, FEELING, human being to shreds while it's still inside the mother, or even waiting until it's halfway out to punch a hole in it's head and ripping it's brains apart, but when it comes to radical, islamofascist TERRORISTS, who wants to do the same to THEM and their entire families, they don't even want you to use "coarse language" to them, much less smack 'em upside the head!

I believe Michael Savage said it best, "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think there are any terrorist fetuses, so your analogy simply doesn't hold water.

Terrorist fetuses? Red herring... Torture has a Definition. Fetus has a definition. Thats the analogy - THEY BOTH HAVE DEFINITIONS.

In addition, it is based on the false notion that anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake is part of "the left", and therefore, pro abortion.

Nowhere did I suggest that.... Stop being silly. People on the RIGHT who appose the war have representatives on the RIGHT that have pushed for the clarification of legal definitions. The LEFT has done a great job of blocking those attempts.

The bottom line is that it is not up to me to define torture.

Cop out.

You CANT define it to cover everything you want... but you know it when you see it and complain accordingly.

Mistreatment of prisoners is already defined, has been for a long time, and is considered uncivilized behavior.

Ok, you just jumped from Torture to "Mistreatment" as if they are one in the same and share the same definition.

That the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior, whether or not you, I or anyone else wants to call it torture, is simply appalling and unacceptable, not to mention counter productive in the so called "war on terror."

Words mean things. Suborn has a definition:

to bribe or induce (someone) unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed or to commit a crime.

Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees... I want to read the White House memo, signed by Bush, authorizing the use of "appalling and unacceptable" behavior. Until I see such evidence, this is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory.

(1) understand that there have been abuses, and do what we can to correct the situation

I have understood the abuses and called for stronger.... Definitions, outlines and rules of law.

And.. There is a 4th option. Put Democrats in control of the Executive and Legislative branches. While that will not stop any abuse, the Democrats will have the cover of the Liberal Media - once abuse stories stop flowing over the wires of the AP, Americans will stop caring. Out of sight, out of mind.

Then Americans can feel good about themselves again - despite having changed nothing.

Any Democrat will tell you - Perception is Reality. They don't change reality, they change perceptions.

 

[PLC1]

Terrorist fetuses? Red herring... Torture has a Definition. Fetus has a definition. Thats the analogy - THEY BOTH HAVE DEFINITIONS.

The dictionary is full of words with definitions. What point are you trying to make by bringing up a totally unrelated issue?

Nowhere did I suggest that.... Stop being silly. People on the RIGHT who appose the war have representatives on the RIGHT that have pushed for the clarification of legal definitions. The LEFT has done a great job of blocking those attempts.

Oh. There's the connection in your mind. The RIGHT is pro war, and anti abortion. The LEFT is anti war and pro abortion. We Libertarians are anti war, but anti government involvement in any decision that needs to be left to a doctor and patient.

Cop out.

You CANT define it to cover everything you want... but you know it when you see it and complain accordingly.

It is not up to me to define it at all. It has already been defined.

Ok, you just jumped from Torture to "Mistreatment" as if they are one in the same and share the same definition.

If you don't have a definition, what difference does it make?

Words mean things. Suborn has a definition:

Yet another word in the dictionary. Yes, it does, and I used it correctly.

Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees... I want to read the White House memo, signed by Bush, authorizing the use of "appalling and unacceptable" behavior. Until I see such evidence, this is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory.

I didn't say that he did.

I have understood the abuses and called for stronger.... Definitions, outlines and rules of law.

And.. There is a 4th option. Put Democrats in control of the Executive and Legislative branches. While that will not stop any abuse, the Democrats will have the cover of the Liberal Media - once abuse stories stop flowing over the wires of the AP, Americans will stop caring. Out of sight, out of mind.

Then Americans can feel good about themselves again - despite having changed nothing.

Ah, yes, let's invoke the myth of the "Liberal Media." Did you think Rupert Murdock is a liberal?

Most words have definitions, as you said. The term "liberal" has many, so many in fact as to render it meaningless.

And yes, the word "render" has several definitions as well.

Any Democrat will tell you - Perception is Reality. They don't change reality, they change perceptions.

Really? Well, if you say so. I suppose you must be an expert in Democrats.

 

[GenSeneca]

I suppose you must be an expert in Democrats.

I am.

I didn't say that he did.

"the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior"

You must have meant some other president....

We Libertarians

CaLiCo: Capitalist, LIBERTARIAN, Conservative.

I didn't want us to go into IRAQ, but we did and its now our responsibility - Not saying I like it, thats just how it is....

the myth of the "Liberal Media."

So your suggesting there is NO bias or that it goes to the Right??

 

[top gun]

Anyone detained or arrested should have his or her day in court with competent legal representation. Serial Killers do... Baby Rapists do...

The fact that there is such a fear of having a fair trial only highlights the fact that these are obviously not all documented cases... meaning they are holding people in prison forever on a "hunch"?

Have fair trails and then punish those found guilty to the MAX! It seems so obvious... but then this is the administration that set up one repeated lie after another to get the country to go along with an invasion into Iraq. Doesn't really surprise me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

 

[PLC1]

I am.

Good for you.

"the president of the United States is willing to suborn such behavior"

You must have meant some other president....

Please provide proof that Bush secretly pushed for torture and abuse of detainees

No, I meant that there was nothing secret about his having vetoed legislation to stop it.

CaLiCo: Capitalist, LIBERTARIAN, Conservative.

I didn't want us to go into IRAQ, but we did and its now our responsibility - Not saying I like it, thats just how it is....

PLC: Pragmatic Libertarian Conservative. I agree with that statement on Iraq. I wish the Congress hadn't approved it, wish Bush had shown more restraint, but now we're stuck with it. Of course, if we had conducted the war differently, we wouldn't be creating more terrorists, and might even be done with it by now.

So your suggesting there is NO bias or that it goes to the Right??

There is some bias, sometimes "right", sometimes "left", sometimes something else. There is no general liberal bias. That is a myth perpetrated by those on the so called "right", meaning authoritarian end of the spectrum.

The one dimensional, left to right political model is yet another myth.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, I meant that there was nothing secret about his having vetoed legislation to stop it.

President Bush vetoed Saturday legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, saying it "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror." -Washington Post

Waterboarding, and the other "harsh interrogation tactics", did not meet the definition of torture. Democrats SUPPORTED waterboarding until it became public, then they did a 180 by broadening the term:

Many Democrats and human-rights groups say coercive tactics are often counterproductive and that, regardless, constitute illegal torture under U.S. and international law.

Coercive tactics constitute illegal torture... Coercive has a much broader definition than torture, so Democrats broadened the definition of torture, they DIDN'T narrow the definition making it easier to ban - Which is what I have been complaining about but you refuse to acknowledge.

Can you not see how ANYTHING short of letting people go free can now be considered torture? "He coerced me to stay in a jail cell when I didn't want to."

if we had conducted the war differently, we wouldn't be creating more terrorists, and might even be done with it by now.

Everything we do creates more terrorists but I don't expect you to agree we are in a catch 22 on that point. It could be over by now, if the LEFT fought Islamic Terrorists as ferociously as they fight the Christian Right.

There is some bias, sometimes "right", sometimes "left", sometimes something else. There is no general liberal bias. That is a myth perpetrated by those on the so called "right", meaning authoritarian end of the spectrum.

Sometimes right? I would love an example...

No general bias? The media is in the tank for Obama!

And... its not very nice to suggest that people who disagree with you are part of the "authoritarian right" when it comes to media bias.

 

[PLC1]

Waterboarding, and the other "harsh interrogation tactics", did not meet the definition of torture. Democrats SUPPORTED waterboarding until it became public, then they did a 180 by broadening the term:



Coercive tactics constitute illegal torture... Coercive has a much broader definition than torture, so Democrats broadened the definition of torture, they DIDN'T narrow the definition making it easier to ban - Which is what I have been complaining about but you refuse to acknowledge.

Can you not see how ANYTHING short of letting people go free can now be considered torture? "He coerced me to stay in a jail cell when I didn't want to."



Everything we do creates more terrorists but I don't expect you to agree we are in a catch 22 on that point. It could be over by now, if the LEFT fought Islamic Terrorists as ferociously as they fight the Christian Right.



Sometimes right? I would love an example...

No general bias? The media is in the tank for Obama!

And... its not very nice to suggest that people who disagree with you are part of the "authoritarian right" when it comes to media bias.

Did I use the phrase "authoritarian right?" If so, then that was a slip of the fingers.

The authoritarian position is opposite the libertarian one, while the right, or conservative, is opposite the liberal one. The authoritarian position would use the power of government to impose their own values on the rest of society. The libertarian position is to live and let live.

The liberal, or left wing position is that big government is the answer to problems, while the conservative, or right wing position is that government power is likely to make matters worse, and we're better off with a limited government.

The two continuums, liberal to conservative and authoritarian to libertarian are two of the three dimensions of political philosophy. One can be on the authoritarian side, and yet be a liberal, or on the libertarian side, and be a conservative. The two positions are independent.

There is also a third dimension to political philosophy, that of ideological to pragmatic. Those on the pragmatic side will favor whatever works, while those on the ideological side want to see their ideology prevail, regardless of practicality.

There is a lot more to a well developed political philosophy than the one dimensional "conservative" to "liberal" model can comprehend. Many of the ideals that tend to be labled as "conservative" are, in reality, authoritarian in nature and not conservative at all. Authoritarian ideals, in fact, require more government power than do libertarian ones.

That's why I tend to poke fun at the simplistic and mindless practice of labeling anyone who disagrees as "libs", "lefties", or some other meaningless term. If I did the same by labeling someone who disagreed as "authoritarian right," then that was wrong and I apoligize.

 

[GenSeneca]

Many of the ideals that tend to be labled as "conservative" are, in reality, authoritarian in nature and not conservative at all.

I don't disagree with that but you left off the Left....

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ones do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?

I tend to poke fun at the simplistic and mindless practice of labeling anyone who disagrees as "libs", "lefties", or some other meaningless term.

In Congress, the continuum is that simplistic.... There are only 2 parties, each towing their own party line - Left to Right.

When I complain about Democrats, Liberals, Progressives etc., I am specifically referring to Congressmen and other politicians - Not the rank and file voters unless otherwise specified.

So when I say the LEFT has done ZIP to help prosecute the war on terror and everything to lose it, I'm talking about the Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's that run our Congress. I would love an example of how they have HELPED but such an example doesn't exist.

-------------------------

Since you shared your theory about the political spectrum, I would like to share mine.

Very similar to yours I believe.

 

[PLC1]

I don't disagree with that but you left off the Left....

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ones do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?



In Congress, the continuum is that simplistic.... There are only 2 parties, each towing their own party line - Left to Right.

When I complain about Democrats, Liberals, Progressives etc., I am especifically referring to Congressmen and other politicians - Not the rank and file voters unless otherwise specified.

So when I say the LEFT has done ZIP to help prosecute the war on terror and everything to lose it, I'm talking about the Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's that run our Congress. I would love an example of how they have HELPED but such an example doesn't exist.

-------------------------

Since you shared your theory about the political spectrum, I would like to share mine.

Very similar to yours I believe.

That is a far better model than the simple "left" to "right" line.

Exactly which Liberal/Progressive Ideals are not authoritarian in nature? Which ons do not require someone, or some particular group, to give up something "for the greater good"?

The liberal, ie statist big government ideals do require someone to give up something (money) in order to feed the beast (the big government that they see as the solution to problems). In that sense, liberalism is authoritarianism also.,

The "social conservative" also wants to give some of the individual's choice to the government, so that, too, is an authoritarian stance.

That's one reason why the simplistic model simply doesn't work. Both ends of the supposed left to right spectrum are really on the authoritarian plane.

I think there are at least two more continua: The pragmatic to ideological one, and, in the field of foreign affairs, the neoconservative to isolationist spectrum.

There are probably more. Physicists tell us that the universe has more than the four dimensions we know in the space-time continuum, so the political model most likely does too.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree there is Authoritarian tendancies on both sides but it has always been that way, since the nation began, and since neither side has won - I think we are doing pretty well maintaining balance.

neoconservative to isolationist

I would use "Expansionist to Isolationist".

To broaden our continuum in Congress would require more parties... Thats not going to happen. Our ideologies are bottlenecked by similarities in order to form groups and pass legislation.

For instance, we could have 100 people write the same law and we would end up with 100 different versions. We would then have to comb through them all, pick out the reoccurring precepts, and then re-write a condensed version that all 100 can sign onto. Nobody will get everything they want but the majority opinions will have the most weight and the minority opinions will likewise be represented.
---------------------------
Please comment on something from an earlier post of mine that seemed to go unnoticed:

With 16,000 innocents being released at the rate of 50 a day - it will take just 320 days to release all the innocent prisoners. Less than one year!

SCOTUS wants ONE judge doing all the cases - To finish in ONE YEAR that judge would have to have 98 hearings a day - 365 days a year.

It may sound un-American to say a trial is a bad thing but in this case, I feel the innocent detainees would be better served by the military proceedings rather than the slow, inefficiencies of our Court system.

Lets say some innocent farmer is picked up for any old reason under the sun and sent to a detention center - The Military checks up on these things and releases people found to have been wrongly incarcerated. That takes some time to do but far less than shipping that detainee to America, holding a series of court hearings (you know court takes multiple sessions), then years and millions of dollars later (the whole time away from their families) the farmer is finally found innocent, flown back home and released to his family that has now had to go without him for years longer than they otherwise would have had to.

While you consider yourself a pragmatist, your support of this decision looks more like an idealogical stance. Once you look at this realistically with all the logistical complications, this decision looks like a nightmare to people who are actually innocent and wrongfully detained.

I'm sure you have your own analogy or example that might explain why this decision is pragmatic, so I look forward to hearing it.