Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Since it will take Wanker 35 years to catch up, I think what he was saying is that we should not be giving the people on the ground discretion as to whether they can beat the crap out of someone for information (or sodomize him, or whatever), not that "shit is going to happen." club/hank seemed to be proposing that the individual soldiers make the call. wanker was pointing out that perhaps people pulled in from the National Guard are not terribly well-equipped to make such calls.

It seems like it should not be first thing in the morning where you are, unless you are in Hawaii on vacation or something, but I think they have plenty of coffee there.

Thanks, Sis.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like it should not be first thing in the morning where you are, unless you are in Hawaii on vacation or something, but I think they have plenty of coffee there.

It's always first thing in the morning wherever I am.

And I think the point is that the people at Abu Ghraib (sp?) were not given that discretion. But, war being a bloody unorganized mess, they took it anyway. And, are in the process of being punished. There's a large moral difference between authorizing a thing, and failing to stop a thing. They're being treated the same here, because it's convenient for the partisan argument.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's always first thing in the morning wherever I am.

And I think the point is that the people at Abu Ghraib (sp?) were not given that discretion. But, war being a bloody unorganized mess, they took it anyway. And, are in the process of being punished. There's a large moral difference between authorizing a thing, and failing to stop a thing. They're being treated the same here, because it's convenient for the partisan argument.

Actually, I never argued that the military wasn't starting to clean the mess up. I also wasn't pointing out the fact that before they started cleaning up, they spent a lot of effort trying to argue that it was okay. I could have made that point. I could even point out that our Glorious Leader nominated one of the torture apologists for Justice of the Supreme Court, thereby creating one of the adminsitration's Supreme Ironies. I could have made those points. But that would have been partisan.

I was merely expressing dismay at the fact that so many posters here seem to think that civil rights and basic human dignity are for us here at home only. At least at this point in time, when such niceties are inconvenient to the Mission.

I expected better of us. I now know I was wrong.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's always first thing in the morning wherever I am.

And I think the point is that the people at Abu Ghraib (sp?) were not given that discretion. But, war being a bloody unorganized mess, they took it anyway. And, are in the process of being punished. There's a large moral difference between authorizing a thing, and failing to stop a thing. They're being treated the same here, because it's convenient for the partisan argument.

Bullshit. This should not be a partisan issue. Those acts of barbarism have damaged our national prestige and our claim to be a civilised society. It will have a negative impact on our foreign policy for years to come and created unnecessary risks for our current and future soldiers. I'm not out for W's hide on this, so quit feeling like you have to defend the administration. Let's admit that there was a problem and fix it, and fix it as openly as possible to repair some of the damage that's been done. This is not what's happening, as the piece posted by gatti indicates.

eta: From this week's The Onion:

American Torturing Jobs Increasingly Outsourced
WASHINGTON, DC—AFL-CIO vice president Linda Chavez-Thompson, representing the American Federation of Interrogation Torturers, released a statement Monday deriding the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, under which American torturing jobs are outsourced to foreign markets. "Outsourcing the task of interrogating terror suspects to countries like Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia is having a crippling effect on the Americans who make a living by stripping detainees nude, shackling them to the floor, and beating the living shit out of them," Chavez-Thompson said. "And specialists within the field—corrosive-material chemists, ocular surgeons, and testicular electricians—are lucky to find any jobs at all. How are they supposed to feed their families?" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended extraordinary rendition, saying the program will create jobs in the long run by fostering a global climate of torture tolerance.

http://www.theonion.com/

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Bullshit. This should not be a partisan issue. Those acts of barbarism have damaged our national prestige and our claim to be a civilised society. It will have a negative impact on our foreign policy for years to come and created unnecessary risks for our current and future soldiers.

Bullshit. This is entirely a partisan issue. Everyone who hates us for Abu G already hated us for Iraq, and for Afghanistan, and probably for France. No minds were changed; all that happened was a new label was provided. In the grand scheme of things, this is a talking point for one party, and nothing more. The day we as a nation adopt the morals of the Abu G guards, call me. Until then, this is a small group of people given too much discretion who fucked up badly.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I could even point out that our Glorious Leader nominated one of the torture apologists for Justice of the Supreme Court, thereby creating one of the adminsitration's Supreme Ironies. I could have made those points. But that would have been partisan.

Hmm. No partisanship here. Did you read what he wrote? The legal doc that you are calling an apologia for torture? Obviously not, which is what leaves you free to engage in this lowest form of demagogic sloganeering. No blood for oil!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
War sucks. It never ceases to amaze me how people who would find things outrageous in other contexts can so easily dismiss them when they occur in the context of war.

Well, at least you're in good company. Even the Supreme Court was willing to suspend the very principles we were fighting to defend in the Japanese internment camp cases.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Except when it's convenient not to.

With the War on Terror, we suspend those very principles in all sorts of cases, even here in the United States. Just ask Mr. Padilla -- oops, that's right, we can't talk to him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bullshit. This is entirely a partisan issue. Everyone who hates us for Abu G already hated us for Iraq, and for Afghanistan, and probably for France. No minds were changed; all that happened was a new label was provided. In the grand scheme of things, this is a talking point for one party, and nothing more. The day we as a nation adopt the morals of the Abu G guards, call me. Until then, this is a small group of people given too much discretion who fucked up badly.

And that new label is torturers? Nice.

You keep dismissing this as a small thing, no big deal. I see this as a very serious issue, though not a political one necessarily. One way to remove any hint of partisanship from this would be for the party in power to demand a full investigation and accounting of this sordid mess. Is it so hard to do the right thing when you control all three branches of government?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bullshit. This is entirely a partisan issue. Everyone who hates us for Abu G already hated us for Iraq, and for Afghanistan, and probably for France. No minds were changed; all that happened was a new label was provided. In the grand scheme of things, this is a talking point for one party, and nothing more. The day we as a nation adopt the morals of the Abu G guards, call me. Until then, this is a small group of people given too much discretion who fucked up badly.

Many people who are blind nonetheless can understand that others can see.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Many people who are blind nonetheless can understand that others can see.

Meth is bad for you.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bullshit. This is entirely a partisan issue. Everyone who hates us for Abu G already hated us for Iraq, and for Afghanistan, and probably for France. No minds were changed; all that happened was a new label was provided. In the grand scheme of things, this is a talking point for one party, and nothing more. The day we as a nation adopt the morals of the Abu G guards, call me. Until then, this is a small group of people given too much discretion who fucked up badly.

I think when I take a shit, for you it would be a partisan issue.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think when I take a shit, for you it would be a partisan issue.

Well, if you would stop doing it here . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Meth is bad for you.

You can't change my mind about meth. But that's only because in this case I already agreed with you.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hmm. No partisanship here. Did you read what he wrote? The legal doc that you are calling an apologia for torture? Obviously not, which is what leaves you free to engage in this lowest form of demagogic sloganeering. No blood for oil!

Actually, I did read it. And what's more, quit ducking the point of my post. You are claiming that a little torture is no big deal. Where the fuck does that come from?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I was merely expressing dismay at the fact that so many posters here seem to think that civil rights and basic human dignity are for us here at home only. At least at this point in time, when such niceties are inconvenient to the Mission.

I expected better of us. I now know I was wrong.

But you are missing my point. Our civil rights and basic human dignities at home are neither guaranteed nor written in stone. It is up to us to defend them.

I started off this discussion saying that I was torn on the issue because the stakes in war are so high that a win at all costs attitude may be necessary. Let me throw this back at you. Would it be better for us to not torture, even if that meant losing the fight and, in turn, our civil rights and basic human dignities?