Re: A Republican I could almost be talked into torturi...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/2006 5:07:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Arabs saved civilization while my European ancestors were wallowing inthe muck of the Dark Ages.

I know I said I wasn't going to comment here again, but this is just too much.

Arabs did NOT save civilization. They were a completely separate culture from Europe and therefore did not preserve any aspect of European civilization.

The Dark Ages were also not as "dark" and barbaric as typically thought. It was a period of instability as Europe suffered from the multiple blows of the fall of the Roman Empire, attacks by Eastern Barbarians and the population migrations caused by people moving to get away from them and climate change that damaged agriculture.

It was a bad time, but not totally wild and savage with Europe gong back to the Stone Age. Much of civilization and technology survived and was used, particularly by the Catholic monks.

The real problem was one of politics. With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the nobles fought for control and power. This hindered advancement for some time.

However, this was little different from what was going on in the Arab world. There was no single, monolithic Muslim power. The Muslims fought amongst each other every bit as much as the Europeans did. Their royal courts had the veneer of civilization, just like the Europeans did. They had merchants, just like the Europeans, and the two often cooperated.

The Arabs also had a thriving slave system, taking slaves from as far as Sudan and further into Central Africa, to sell them in Arabian markets. There was also a strong trade in women as well. This slave trade still continues to this day, almost 200 years after it was banned in Europe.

Bear in mind also that within 100 years of Mohammed's death, Islam had spread from Arabia, across North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain). This was not a peaceful spread, but one by the sword. It took Christianity over 400 years to become anything less than a cult and then only by the conversion of a Roman Emperor because they didn't not spread by forced conversion.

Bear in mind also that it was in 732 that the Muslims were turned back from France at the Battle of Tours. They very nearly took Paris and all of France. This was not a peaceful excursion but an invasion. At the same time, the Arabs were pushing into Eastern Europe and the Balkans reaching almost to present day Austria before being pushed back. Even then the Balkans were subject to practically annual invasions by the Turks and they were forced to pay in tax in the form of young boys who were raised to be Muslim fanatics called the Jannisaries, the Elite Turkish troops who spearheaded invasions of the Christian lands.

The First Crusade, which is all anyone talks about, didn't happen until 1095, more than 300 years AFTER the Battle of Tours. The object of the Crusade was to make the Holy Land Safe for Christian Pilgrims, not kill all the Muslims. This was a limited objective war for a small area of land. The Muslims, on the other hand, wanted all of Europe.

About the time the "dark ages" of Europe were ending, the Arabs entered their own dark age. This was as time when sciences froze in place and religious orthodoxy was all that mattered. It was at this point that Muslim Civilization stopped advancing and it is where they are still mired today, in spite of the Western invented technology they have.

But saying the Arabs saved civilization hold absolutely no water. The Chinese had civilization too that they preserved, as did the Japanese and Koreans. The Arabs didn't save their civilizations any more than they saved ours.

Saying those who now seek to destroy us once saved us speaks more to a contempt of one's own culture than anything else.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus has NOT been repealed. It is still in effect for US and foreign citizens. It does not apply and never did apply to enemies captured on the battlefield nor does it apply to spies and saboteurs, which is what the terrorist cells in the US are. These people are not citizens nor foreigners of lawful intent. It makes more sense to treat those people under military codes, because they intend to carry out attacks in the US, that treat them according to civilian law. We tried that and we ended up with all those attacks in the 1990s and 9/11. If a military code had been applied, then several of the 9/11 hijackers, who actually had been arrested shortly before the attack, could have been retained longer for questioning and 9/11 might not have happened or at least not been as bad.

As for torture, ask out Vietnam POWs about it. It works. In the military, they teach classes on how to resist, but they point out that everyone will break eventually. Every single POW from Vietnam broke and told the enemy everything they wanted to know: the truth not just stories to make it stop. You think an interrogator can't compare notes from other prisoners and other sources to tell if the subject is lying? Of course they do, just like civilian police do. Now, if it is a choice between messing up known terrorist or letting another 9/11 happen, then I vote torture.

However, I do think that torture and even the "harsh" means that are allowed will be banned by the new Congress. I also believe this will leave us wide open to more terror attacks, possibly even nuclear or biological. That is going to happen one of these days, sooner if we aren't tough. I'm just glad I live in a small town, even if it is near a major military base. Probably targets for a nuke of biological attack would be a major city like New York. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and destroyed cities.

P.S. I do agree that this topic is getting too heated. I will permit one response to my post and then I am going to shut it down.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/15/2006 5:07:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Arabs saved civilization while my European ancestors were wallowing inthe muck of the Dark Ages.

I know I said I wasn't going to comment here again, but this is just too much.

Arabs did NOT save civilization. They were a completely separate culture from Europe and therefore did not preserve any aspect of European civilization.

The Dark Ages were also not as "dark" and barbaric as typically thought. It was a period of instability as Europe suffered from the multiple blows of the fall of the Roman Empire, attacks by Eastern Barbarians and the population migrations caused by people moving to get away from them and climate change that damaged agriculture.

It was a bad time, but not totally wild and savage with Europe gong back to the Stone Age. Much of civilization and technology survived and was used, particularly by the Catholic monks.

The real problem was one of politics. With the collapse of the Roman Empire, the nobles fought for control and power. This hindered advancement for some time.

However, this was little different from what was going on in the Arab world. There was no single, monolithic Muslim power. The Muslims fought amongst each other every bit as much as the Europeans did. Their royal courts had the veneer of civilization, just like the Europeans did. They had merchants, just like the Europeans, and the two often cooperated.

The Arabs also had a thriving slave system, taking slaves from as far as Sudan and further into Central Africa, to sell them in Arabian markets. There was also a strong trade in women as well. This slave trade still continues to this day, almost 200 years after it was banned in Europe.

Bear in mind also that within 100 years of Mohammed's death, Islam had spread from Arabia, across North Africa to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain). This was not a peaceful spread, but one by the sword. It took Christianity over 400 years to become anything less than a cult and then only by the conversion of a Roman Emperor because they didn't not spread by forced conversion.

Bear in mind also that it was in 732 that the Muslims were turned back from France at the Battle of Tours. They very nearly took Paris and all of France. This was not a peaceful excursion but an invasion. At the same time, the Arabs were pushing into Eastern Europe and the Balkans reaching almost to present day Austria before being pushed back. Even then the Balkans were subject to practically annual invasions by the Turks and they were forced to pay in tax in the form of young boys who were raised to be Muslim fanatics called the Jannisaries, the Elite Turkish troops who spearheaded invasions of the Christian lands.

The First Crusade, which is all anyone talks about, didn't happen until 1095, more than 300 years AFTER the Battle of Tours. The object of the Crusade was to make the Holy Land Safe for Christian Pilgrims, not kill all the Muslims. This was a limited objective war for a small area of land. The Muslims, on the other hand, wanted all of Europe.

About the time the "dark ages" of Europe were ending, the Arabs entered their own dark age. This was as time when sciences froze in place and religious orthodoxy was all that mattered. It was at this point that Muslim Civilization stopped advancing and it is where they are still mired today, in spite of the Western invented technology they have.

But saying the Arabs saved civilization hold absolutely no water. The Chinese had civilization too that they preserved, as did the Japanese and Koreans. The Arabs didn't save their civilizations any more than they saved ours.

Saying those who now seek to destroy us once saved us speaks more to a contempt of one's own culture than anything else.

The Writ of Habeus Corpus has NOT been repealed. It is still in effect for US and foreign citizens. It does not apply and never did apply to enemies captured on the battlefield nor does it apply to spies and saboteurs, which is what the terrorist cells in the US are. These people are not citizens nor foreigners of lawful intent. It makes more sense to treat those people under military codes, because they intend to carry out attacks in the US, that treat them according to civilian law. We tried that and we ended up with all those attacks in the 1990s and 9/11. If a military code had been applied, then several of the 9/11 hijackers, who actually had been arrested shortly before the attack, could have been retained longer for questioning and 9/11 might not have happened or at least not been as bad.

As for torture, ask out Vietnam POWs about it. It works. In the military, they teach classes on how to resist, but they point out that everyone will break eventually. Every single POW from Vietnam broke and told the enemy everything they wanted to know: the truth not just stories to make it stop. You think an interrogator can't compare notes from other prisoners and other sources to tell if the subject is lying? Of course they do, just like civilian police do. Now, if it is a choice between messing up known terrorist or letting another 9/11 happen, then I vote torture.

However, I do think that torture and even the "harsh" means that are allowed will be banned by the new Congress. I also believe this will leave us wide open to more terror attacks, possibly even nuclear or biological. That is going to happen one of these days, sooner if we aren't tough. I'm just glad I live in a small town, even if it is near a major military base. Probably targets for a nuke of biological attack would be a major city like New York. Personally, I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and destroyed cities.

P.S. I do agree that this topic is getting too heated. I will permit one response to my post and then I am going to shut it down.

[Guest guest]

I hope my post isn't too late. I guess I just wanted to say 2 very

Naive things. If we were honest as people and countries what we

really wanted and what was best for people(and I guess what is best

for one people isn't really considerate to another and that is the

real problem) then this would be a non issue.

and 2 I think we should all just be honest about what we are saying.

I prefer to work toward a solution, while trying to be considerate to

the other/opposing party. Maybe this doesn't equate but when I deal

with people, I expose my actual objective, and I listen to their

constraints/ issues and then I solve for X.

Why is that too much to expect from a country. It likely comes down

to values. what I value may not be what Don values, or anyone else

for that matter. when I disagree with someone the think that doesn't

ever work is to start cursing, because that solidifies their and my

inability to compromise. So I guess I do live in a fantasy world but

honesty although sometimes very uncomfortable is better that

subversion. Don just so you know I actually was tortured for many

years. actually I have heard several members alude to this very

thing. Perhaps to varing degrees. To save the lives of those I love

I would simply die, it really isn't a question and so again torture

doesn't matter. It may work but only when it really doesn't cost you

anything like in a war where unseen people whom don't risk their

lives expect their secrets to be kept. Those in war are already

tortured because they are in a war

[Guest guest]

:

Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies torture

and genocide how?

Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous and

stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

one.

So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN people?

Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to do.

Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we had

no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just to

be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the inability

to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign policy

success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that last

part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just like

totalitarians rather than democrats.

Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them to

serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30 years

to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral and

unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

dollars.

Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an *efficiency*

argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

" breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

only reliable outcome to it.

It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme in

the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the wooden

idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of Perfect

Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons can

ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those held

at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may see

them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

normally call such people " victims. "

Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should hook

you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

Don

[Guest guest]

Again I think if one hates Their home country so much and there is an

alternative to here that one would feel more comfortable, then one

should pick themselves up and go there, and join their

brothers/sisters. one might be suprised because of a lack of personal

experience that the fantcised country may not treat them as a welcome

addition. Blank country with it's corruption, unfair policies, et al

still seems better to other countries (too me)Please do not read into

this as I have not visisted all countries and done empiracle testing

(that I have visited.) Ethnic background and all I have never deluded

myself that the grass was greener someplace else. I guess I think I

can work on my own patch to turn it greener right from here

[Guest guest]

:

Ooohhh, goin' Topsy-Turvy on me, eh? I think you may just have me..

Of course no one would want to sponsor a " terrorist " . But the point

here is that YOU don't know who's a terrorist and who's an innocent

civilian. So you don't get to pick who gets tortured and who gets to

vote.

You seem like a really smart guy. And I STILL would not trust you to

make such weighty decisions. Why should I trust folks much less

informed or well-intentioned than you?

Usually, people who have not been tortured favor torture. And because

of their lack of " reflexivity " (empathy doesn't quite fit the chasm),

they can't put themselves in the place of others. Like those legion

among the Bushies who have never even fought in a war, yet REALLY like

the idea of perpetual war, as long as it comes to sending YOUR TAX

MONEY AND YOUR KIDS (but don't you worry about them; their money is

all tied up in tax shelters, and their kids are safely tucked away at

Yale).

I merely suggest they get the treatment first, to enlighten their

policy statements. So, are you volunteering? If so, which part do you

wanna play? Torturee? Or Torturer? I'm gonna guess it's the latter...

Don

>

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2006 5:26:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> And, as I suggested in my first post, anyone who favors torture should

> proudly say so, then step right up and offer to be tortured themselves

> to make sure they still favor their abstract position statement.

>

>

>

>

> I will turn this around. There are those who favor our current enemy

and

> would like to see them released from our prisons. Very well. Let

those people

> sign a parole for one of an enemy of their choosing. From then on,

if their

> parolee participates in an attack on the US or other country, the

holder of the

> parole will be charged right along with the parolee and face the same

> penalties.

>

> Since a number of those released from Gitmo or other prisons were

captured

> on the battlefield and, after their release, were caught there

again, I doubt

> there would be many takers.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

Ooohhh, goin' Topsy-Turvy on me, eh? I think you may just have me..

Of course no one would want to sponsor a " terrorist " . But the point

here is that YOU don't know who's a terrorist and who's an innocent

civilian. So you don't get to pick who gets tortured and who gets to

vote.

You seem like a really smart guy. And I STILL would not trust you to

make such weighty decisions. Why should I trust folks much less

informed or well-intentioned than you?

Usually, people who have not been tortured favor torture. And because

of their lack of " reflexivity " (empathy doesn't quite fit the chasm),

they can't put themselves in the place of others. Like those legion

among the Bushies who have never even fought in a war, yet REALLY like

the idea of perpetual war, as long as it comes to sending YOUR TAX

MONEY AND YOUR KIDS (but don't you worry about them; their money is

all tied up in tax shelters, and their kids are safely tucked away at

Yale).

I merely suggest they get the treatment first, to enlighten their

policy statements. So, are you volunteering? If so, which part do you

wanna play? Torturee? Or Torturer? I'm gonna guess it's the latter...

Don

>

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2006 5:26:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> And, as I suggested in my first post, anyone who favors torture should

> proudly say so, then step right up and offer to be tortured themselves

> to make sure they still favor their abstract position statement.

>

>

>

>

> I will turn this around. There are those who favor our current enemy

and

> would like to see them released from our prisons. Very well. Let

those people

> sign a parole for one of an enemy of their choosing. From then on,

if their

> parolee participates in an attack on the US or other country, the

holder of the

> parole will be charged right along with the parolee and face the same

> penalties.

>

> Since a number of those released from Gitmo or other prisons were

captured

> on the battlefield and, after their release, were caught there

again, I doubt

> there would be many takers.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mininm:

Actually, I have the same approach. It's an attempt at building

concensus, and working toward a " win-win " solution. It may be

considered naive among some Machiavellians, but it is considered a

best-practice modern negotiating strategy.

But I've found that many people aren't evolved enough to use or

appreciate such strategies. They'd rather negotiate with brute force.

Often, a first option for the for the lazy, unimaginitive and cruel.

I also suggest that's how " The Roadmap " got derailed. The less-evolved

hardliners on both sides were committed to pushing their leaders

toward mutual dehumanization (many decades of abuse often makes folks

very bitter, and wanting revenge... worse than a junk-yard dog, as the

song says. And that's the loose-loose strategy we have now.

Again, I am sorry to hear of your abuse and torture. I know I was

sorry to go through my own. That's probably why we agree on the

uselessness and immorality of torture. It's a shame that any others

have to experience it to be opposed to it. Hence, my offer.

Don

>

> I hope my post isn't too late. I guess I just wanted to say 2 very

> Naive things. If we were honest as people and countries what we

> really wanted and what was best for people(and I guess what is best

> for one people isn't really considerate to another and that is the

> real problem) then this would be a non issue.

> and 2 I think we should all just be honest about what we are saying.

> I prefer to work toward a solution, while trying to be considerate to

> the other/opposing party. Maybe this doesn't equate but when I deal

> with people, I expose my actual objective, and I listen to their

> constraints/ issues and then I solve for X.

>

> Why is that too much to expect from a country. It likely comes down

> to values. what I value may not be what Don values, or anyone else

> for that matter. when I disagree with someone the think that doesn't

> ever work is to start cursing, because that solidifies their and my

> inability to compromise. So I guess I do live in a fantasy world but

> honesty although sometimes very uncomfortable is better that

> subversion. Don just so you know I actually was tortured for many

> years. actually I have heard several members alude to this very

> thing. Perhaps to varing degrees. To save the lives of those I love

> I would simply die, it really isn't a question and so again torture

> doesn't matter. It may work but only when it really doesn't cost you

> anything like in a war where unseen people whom don't risk their

> lives expect their secrets to be kept. Those in war are already

> tortured because they are in a war

>

[Guest guest]

Mininm:

Actually, I have the same approach. It's an attempt at building

concensus, and working toward a " win-win " solution. It may be

considered naive among some Machiavellians, but it is considered a

best-practice modern negotiating strategy.

But I've found that many people aren't evolved enough to use or

appreciate such strategies. They'd rather negotiate with brute force.

Often, a first option for the for the lazy, unimaginitive and cruel.

I also suggest that's how " The Roadmap " got derailed. The less-evolved

hardliners on both sides were committed to pushing their leaders

toward mutual dehumanization (many decades of abuse often makes folks

very bitter, and wanting revenge... worse than a junk-yard dog, as the

song says. And that's the loose-loose strategy we have now.

Again, I am sorry to hear of your abuse and torture. I know I was

sorry to go through my own. That's probably why we agree on the

uselessness and immorality of torture. It's a shame that any others

have to experience it to be opposed to it. Hence, my offer.

Don

>

> I hope my post isn't too late. I guess I just wanted to say 2 very

> Naive things. If we were honest as people and countries what we

> really wanted and what was best for people(and I guess what is best

> for one people isn't really considerate to another and that is the

> real problem) then this would be a non issue.

> and 2 I think we should all just be honest about what we are saying.

> I prefer to work toward a solution, while trying to be considerate to

> the other/opposing party. Maybe this doesn't equate but when I deal

> with people, I expose my actual objective, and I listen to their

> constraints/ issues and then I solve for X.

>

> Why is that too much to expect from a country. It likely comes down

> to values. what I value may not be what Don values, or anyone else

> for that matter. when I disagree with someone the think that doesn't

> ever work is to start cursing, because that solidifies their and my

> inability to compromise. So I guess I do live in a fantasy world but

> honesty although sometimes very uncomfortable is better that

> subversion. Don just so you know I actually was tortured for many

> years. actually I have heard several members alude to this very

> thing. Perhaps to varing degrees. To save the lives of those I love

> I would simply die, it really isn't a question and so again torture

> doesn't matter. It may work but only when it really doesn't cost you

> anything like in a war where unseen people whom don't risk their

> lives expect their secrets to be kept. Those in war are already

> tortured because they are in a war

>

[Guest guest]

I've been keeping out of this, although I started to comment several

times but never sent the messages... A couple of point....

1. Torture is not an effective way to obtain intelligence

information, although it is a highly effective way to obtain

confirmation of an opinion that you already believe to be true

(regardless of whether that opinion is in fact true or not.) Example

the " Holy Inquisition " when accused you would be threatened and

torture until you confessed or they killed you...

There are ways to obtain accurate information... drugs, brainwashing,

and other others but they take time and require skilled personnel and

are not as sadistically gratifying as beating on or humiliating

someone the can be done by any one that believes that they have a

moral right to do it...

2. The single thing that is most likely to bring down any social

order is " Certainty " ... that their dogmatic view of the world is the

only correct one and they stop learning and evaluating their belief

system... It lead to the fall of the Egyptians, the Babylonians,

Greece, and Roman, Aztec, Inca, Mayan, etc... It lead to the Dark

Ages in Europe, the stagnation of the cultures of Islam, China; the

Inquisition; the Protestant Reformation; the rise and fall of the

Third Reich... When people truly believe they have the one and only

correct view of the world they feel justified in doing any brutal,

sadistic, Draconian thing that promotes their " alleged " truth.

Ender

[Guest guest]

I've been keeping out of this, although I started to comment several

times but never sent the messages... A couple of point....

1. Torture is not an effective way to obtain intelligence

information, although it is a highly effective way to obtain

confirmation of an opinion that you already believe to be true

(regardless of whether that opinion is in fact true or not.) Example

the " Holy Inquisition " when accused you would be threatened and

torture until you confessed or they killed you...

There are ways to obtain accurate information... drugs, brainwashing,

and other others but they take time and require skilled personnel and

are not as sadistically gratifying as beating on or humiliating

someone the can be done by any one that believes that they have a

moral right to do it...

2. The single thing that is most likely to bring down any social

order is " Certainty " ... that their dogmatic view of the world is the

only correct one and they stop learning and evaluating their belief

system... It lead to the fall of the Egyptians, the Babylonians,

Greece, and Roman, Aztec, Inca, Mayan, etc... It lead to the Dark

Ages in Europe, the stagnation of the cultures of Islam, China; the

Inquisition; the Protestant Reformation; the rise and fall of the

Third Reich... When people truly believe they have the one and only

correct view of the world they feel justified in doing any brutal,

sadistic, Draconian thing that promotes their " alleged " truth.

Ender

[Guest guest]

" Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should hook

you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

Don "

This remark is personal and off. This is what I feared would

happen if this discussion continued - I ask that this subject be

dropped now.

>

> :

>

> Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

torture

> and genocide how?

>

> Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

and

> stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> one.

>

> So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

people?

> Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

>

> You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

do.

> Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

had

> no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

to

> be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

inability

> to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

policy

> success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

>

> Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

last

> part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

like

> totalitarians rather than democrats.

>

> Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

to

> serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

years

> to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

and

> unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> dollars.

>

> Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

*efficiency*

> argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> only reliable outcome to it.

>

> It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

in

> the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

wooden

> idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

Perfect

> Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

can

> ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

>

> Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

held

> at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

see

> them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> normally call such people " victims. "

>

> Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

hook

> you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

>

> Don

>

[Guest guest]

" Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should hook

you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

Don "

This remark is personal and off. This is what I feared would

happen if this discussion continued - I ask that this subject be

dropped now.

>

> :

>

> Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

torture

> and genocide how?

>

> Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

and

> stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> one.

>

> So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

people?

> Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

>

> You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

do.

> Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

had

> no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

to

> be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

inability

> to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

policy

> success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

>

> Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

last

> part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

like

> totalitarians rather than democrats.

>

> Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

to

> serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

years

> to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

and

> unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> dollars.

>

> Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

*efficiency*

> argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> only reliable outcome to it.

>

> It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

in

> the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

wooden

> idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

Perfect

> Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

can

> ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

>

> Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

held

> at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

see

> them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> normally call such people " victims. "

>

> Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

hook

> you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

>

> Don

>

[Guest guest]

:

Thanks again for your input. Again, that was my attempt at using

humor in a passionate subject. The implication being that only a real

sadist would favor torture. We should roundly oppose it.

I would recommend that you save your moral outrage for torture, and

those who favor it, sponsor it, or employ it. That's where it belongs.

That was my issue in the first place: some forum members seemed to be

lazily talking about a candidate's " abortion " platform, rather than

his irresponsible and immoral support for torture. Let's take War

Crimes before personal politics, please.

Only those who have not experienced torture can favor torture. And

only those who have not experienced war can favor war. Both are from

the same cowboy/ Wayne/romantic notions of toughness. It's a lazy

way to both " manhood " and " security. "

I believe if you examine the issue more thoroughly, you'll see

that--particularly to those who have been abused and

tortured--stupidly supporting it or enabling it is the most " personal

and off " thing of all.

Don

> >

> > :

> >

> > Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

> torture

> > and genocide how?

> >

> > Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> > All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

> and

> > stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> > EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> > Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> > Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> > fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> > one.

> >

> > So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

> people?

> > Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> > lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

> >

> > You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> > internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

> do.

> > Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

> had

> > no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

> to

> > be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> > prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

> inability

> > to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> > Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

> policy

> > success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

> >

> > Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> > evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> > accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> > they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> > peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

> last

> > part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

> like

> > totalitarians rather than democrats.

> >

> > Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> > But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> > to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

> to

> > serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> > Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

> years

> > to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

> and

> > unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> > or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> > dollars.

> >

> > Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

> *efficiency*

> > argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> > can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> > " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> > the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> > works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> > only reliable outcome to it.

> >

> > It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> > someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

> in

> > the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

> wooden

> > idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

> Perfect

> > Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

> can

> > ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

> >

> > Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> > tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> > destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

> held

> > at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> > Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

> see

> > them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> > normally call such people " victims. "

> >

> > Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> > human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

> hook

> > you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

> >

> > Don

> >

>

[Guest guest]

:

Thanks again for your input. Again, that was my attempt at using

humor in a passionate subject. The implication being that only a real

sadist would favor torture. We should roundly oppose it.

I would recommend that you save your moral outrage for torture, and

those who favor it, sponsor it, or employ it. That's where it belongs.

That was my issue in the first place: some forum members seemed to be

lazily talking about a candidate's " abortion " platform, rather than

his irresponsible and immoral support for torture. Let's take War

Crimes before personal politics, please.

Only those who have not experienced torture can favor torture. And

only those who have not experienced war can favor war. Both are from

the same cowboy/ Wayne/romantic notions of toughness. It's a lazy

way to both " manhood " and " security. "

I believe if you examine the issue more thoroughly, you'll see

that--particularly to those who have been abused and

tortured--stupidly supporting it or enabling it is the most " personal

and off " thing of all.

Don

> >

> > :

> >

> > Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

> torture

> > and genocide how?

> >

> > Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> > All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

> and

> > stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> > EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> > Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> > Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> > fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> > one.

> >

> > So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

> people?

> > Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> > lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

> >

> > You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> > internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

> do.

> > Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

> had

> > no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

> to

> > be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> > prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

> inability

> > to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> > Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

> policy

> > success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

> >

> > Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> > evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> > accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> > they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> > peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

> last

> > part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

> like

> > totalitarians rather than democrats.

> >

> > Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> > But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> > to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

> to

> > serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> > Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

> years

> > to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

> and

> > unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> > or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> > dollars.

> >

> > Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

> *efficiency*

> > argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> > can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> > " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> > the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> > works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> > only reliable outcome to it.

> >

> > It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> > someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

> in

> > the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

> wooden

> > idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

> Perfect

> > Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

> can

> > ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

> >

> > Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> > tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> > destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

> held

> > at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> > Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

> see

> > them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> > normally call such people " victims. "

> >

> > Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> > human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

> hook

> > you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

> >

> > Don

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Beth, Co-Admin (argument from authority is always popular):

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that your home page appears to

prohibit only the following:

" A) The pros and cons or politics of illegal drug use. Exceptions:

Discussions of addiction and recovery or personal struggles with

illegal drug use.

Blatant sexual discussions (fetishes, positions, etc.)

Exceptions: Asexuality as it pertains to relationships. Aspie

sexuality.

C) Abortion. Exceptions: Aspie Eugenics. "

Based on your post here, y'all may wish to add " D) Personal Insults "

for clarity and consistency sake. But that's a hard one to enforce.

Because sometimes what is insulting to some may be a fair description

to others (think, for instance, of the racial slur " N " word in use as

a term of endearment among some African-Americans).

And I did not then and nor do I now think my comment was a personal

insult. It's certainly neither a " blatant sexual discussion. " So, I

don't think that I've violated any rules. So, I think you are jumping

the gun by threatening " consquences " at this stage.

Here's a common high-level process for group policies: (1) negotiate

and publish your policies; (2) then, consistently and fairly enforce

them; (3) THEN prosecute their violations. If policies are updated,

add step (4) start again from step (1). You seem to be skipping right

to step (3). That's unreasonable and unfair, something I got enough of

in NT Corporate culture.

Here's the logical flow:

Sadism =/= inslut.

Torture = sadism.

Supporting torture = supporting sadism.

Doing torture = performing sadistic war crime.

I think most true sadists have the sense to leave their fetishes in

their bedrooms--or dungeons, or hope chests, or whatever else they may

use. I think it's a description of someone's personal preference, and

not an inherent insult. Perhaps those who hold it an insult may have

some personal bias against sadism, and are otherwise projecting it

into the discussion now?

I'm merely suggesting when sadism stops being a properly contained

personal fetish and instead mascarades as Christian-Democratic public

and foreign policy is when it should be problematic for all of us.

Therefore, I'd strongly suggest another new prohibited topic: " (E)

Support for torture or other crimes against humanity. " If this

existed and was enforced (unlike the non-eugenics Abortion topic of

the original Republican candidate posts), I wouldn't have to object so

strenuously when someone supports torture.

Finally, some folks are more confortable with conflict than others.

Discussing and struggling through shared values in a large part of

getting along. It's part of step (4) to (1) above. It let's you know

if everyone is on the same page going forward.

Don

> >

> > :

> >

> > Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

> torture

> > and genocide how?

> >

> > Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> > All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

> and

> > stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> > EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> > Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> > Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> > fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> > one.

> >

> > So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

> people?

> > Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> > lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

> >

> > You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> > internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

> do.

> > Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

> had

> > no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

> to

> > be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> > prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

> inability

> > to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> > Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

> policy

> > success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

> >

> > Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> > evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> > accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> > they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> > peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

> last

> > part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

> like

> > totalitarians rather than democrats.

> >

> > Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> > But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> > to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

> to

> > serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> > Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

> years

> > to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

> and

> > unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> > or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> > dollars.

> >

> > Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

> *efficiency*

> > argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> > can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> > " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> > the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> > works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> > only reliable outcome to it.

> >

> > It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> > someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

> in

> > the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

> wooden

> > idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

> Perfect

> > Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

> can

> > ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

> >

> > Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> > tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> > destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

> held

> > at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> > Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

> see

> > them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> > normally call such people " victims. "

> >

> > Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> > human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

> hook

> > you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

> >

> > Don

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Sponsored Link

>

> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -

Calculate new house payment

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Beth, Co-Admin (argument from authority is always popular):

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that your home page appears to

prohibit only the following:

" A) The pros and cons or politics of illegal drug use. Exceptions:

Discussions of addiction and recovery or personal struggles with

illegal drug use.

Blatant sexual discussions (fetishes, positions, etc.)

Exceptions: Asexuality as it pertains to relationships. Aspie

sexuality.

C) Abortion. Exceptions: Aspie Eugenics. "

Based on your post here, y'all may wish to add " D) Personal Insults "

for clarity and consistency sake. But that's a hard one to enforce.

Because sometimes what is insulting to some may be a fair description

to others (think, for instance, of the racial slur " N " word in use as

a term of endearment among some African-Americans).

And I did not then and nor do I now think my comment was a personal

insult. It's certainly neither a " blatant sexual discussion. " So, I

don't think that I've violated any rules. So, I think you are jumping

the gun by threatening " consquences " at this stage.

Here's a common high-level process for group policies: (1) negotiate

and publish your policies; (2) then, consistently and fairly enforce

them; (3) THEN prosecute their violations. If policies are updated,

add step (4) start again from step (1). You seem to be skipping right

to step (3). That's unreasonable and unfair, something I got enough of

in NT Corporate culture.

Here's the logical flow:

Sadism =/= inslut.

Torture = sadism.

Supporting torture = supporting sadism.

Doing torture = performing sadistic war crime.

I think most true sadists have the sense to leave their fetishes in

their bedrooms--or dungeons, or hope chests, or whatever else they may

use. I think it's a description of someone's personal preference, and

not an inherent insult. Perhaps those who hold it an insult may have

some personal bias against sadism, and are otherwise projecting it

into the discussion now?

I'm merely suggesting when sadism stops being a properly contained

personal fetish and instead mascarades as Christian-Democratic public

and foreign policy is when it should be problematic for all of us.

Therefore, I'd strongly suggest another new prohibited topic: " (E)

Support for torture or other crimes against humanity. " If this

existed and was enforced (unlike the non-eugenics Abortion topic of

the original Republican candidate posts), I wouldn't have to object so

strenuously when someone supports torture.

Finally, some folks are more confortable with conflict than others.

Discussing and struggling through shared values in a large part of

getting along. It's part of step (4) to (1) above. It let's you know

if everyone is on the same page going forward.

Don

> >

> > :

> >

> > Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

> torture

> > and genocide how?

> >

> > Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The Man for

> > All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a dangerous

> and

> > stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled for

> > EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare decisis.

> > Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> > Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate, and the

> > fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on that

> > one.

> >

> > So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

> people?

> > Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and their

> > lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

> >

> > You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> > internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing to

> do.

> > Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because we

> had

> > no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway-- " just

> to

> > be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> > prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

> inability

> > to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and torture.

> > Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

> policy

> > success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

> >

> > Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors obtain

> > evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> > accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment where

> > they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> > peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to that

> last

> > part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act just

> like

> > totalitarians rather than democrats.

> >

> > Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys would.

> > But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent people

> > to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting them

> to

> > serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live in

> > Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for 30

> years

> > to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal, immoral

> and

> > unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu Grahib,

> > or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send our tax

> > dollars.

> >

> > Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

> *efficiency*

> > argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible, there

> > can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " . But

> > " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the breaking is

> > the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It only

> > works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's the

> > only reliable outcome to it.

> >

> > It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then treat

> > someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common theme

> in

> > the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

> wooden

> > idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

> Perfect

> > Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the neocons

> can

> > ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

> >

> > Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few dozen

> > tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead and

> > destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies? Those

> held

> > at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like the

> > Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You may

> see

> > them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I believe we

> > normally call such people " victims. "

> >

> > Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

> > human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

> hook

> > you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

> >

> > Don

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Sponsored Link

>

> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -

Calculate new house payment

>

[Guest guest]

" Thanks again for your input. "

Mmmmmmmm I have not really given my input on this subject and nor do

I wish to.

" Again, that was my attempt at using humor in a passionate subject. "

I was quite aware what it appeared to be, however I could say

something directed at you and then put a ;-) at the end - it would

still be a personal commment.

I have seen far too many in this world hide agression under the form

of supposed humour - I am not saying that is what you are doing - but

it could easily be interpretted that way.

" I would recommend that you save your moral outrage for torture... "

that is an assumption on your part - I am not saying whether I have

moral outrage or not - and am not saying what for either, although I

am not fond of people being discourteous to one another as you may

have guessed (I hope).

I can see that the issue is important to you - exactly what to you

hope to achieve discussing it here? Some people tend to have strong

views and I have observed many heated debates and rarely do those

with strong views change them.

> > >

> > > :

> > >

> > > Another interesting selective history. Again, that justifies

> > torture

> > > and genocide how?

> > >

> > > Try to take the long view here. Think of More in " The

Man for

> > > All Seasons. " The canceling of the Writ for ANYONE is a

dangerous

> > and

> > > stupid precedent which could eventually allow it to be canceled

for

> > > EVERYONE. That's why we have the legal doctrine of stare

decisis.

> > > Things that are very settled law should not be opened up like

> > > Pandora's box. You don't seem to realize it, but your fate,

and the

> > > fate of your scary " terrorist " boogie-men, are tied together on

that

> > > one.

> > >

> > > So, you're OK with canceling long-standing rights for CERTAIN

> > people?

> > > Who decides? Rich, spoiled chicken-hawk draft-dodgers and

their

> > > lying country-club cronies? Perhaps you, eh?

> > >

> > > You seem to like history. Today, we generally agree that the

> > > internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was a stupid thing

to

> > do.

> > > Why? Because they were all secret Imperialists? No, because

we

> > had

> > > no evidence they were, and treated them all as guilty anyway--

" just

> > to

> > > be safe. " Now, add to that mix specific suspicions, but no

> > > prosecutorial evidence, no notice of the crimes accused, the

> > inability

> > > to face one's accusers or mount any reasonable defense, and

torture.

> > > Sure, sounds like a real recipe for intel-gathering and foreign

> > policy

> > > success. Real " hearts and minds " stuff.

> > >

> > > Under our rule of law, we insist that cops and prosecutors

obtain

> > > evidence fairly, test that evidence with a Grand Jury, give the

> > > accused a notice of their alleged crimes, have an arraignment

where

> > > they plead, a trial where evidence is evaluated, judgment by

> > > peer-reviewed verdict, and THEN a sentence. By skipping to

that

> > last

> > > part for ANYONE under our control or major influence, we act

just

> > like

> > > totalitarians rather than democrats.

> > >

> > > Sure, cops talk to multiple sources, just like MilIntel guys

would.

> > > But cops are also on the record for getting multiple innocent

people

> > > to confess, coercing their coordinated testimony, and getting

them

> > to

> > > serve long prison terms, all by the miracle of torture (I live

in

> > > Chicago, and there was a special squad that did just that for

30

> > years

> > > to innocent African-Americans). Such activity is illegal,

immoral

> > and

> > > unethical in your small town, here in Chicago, at GITMO, Abu

Grahib,

> > > or anywhere else we preach democracy, human rights, and send

our tax

> > > dollars.

> > >

> > > Perhaps most dangerously still, you're trying to make an

> > *efficiency*

> > > argument for torture. Because torture is legally indefensible,

there

> > > can be no such justification. Of course, anyone might " break " .

But

> > > " breaking " is not the issue. What info comes OUT OF the

breaking is

> > > the issue. Reliable " intel " does NOT come out of torture. It

only

> > > works to dehumanize both the torturee and the torturer. THAT's

the

> > > only reliable outcome to it.

> > >

> > > It's a bit like totemism: you wanna become an animal? Then

treat

> > > someone else like an animal first. Or, I understand a common

theme

> > in

> > > the OT prophets was that pagans become as dumb and mute as the

> > wooden

> > > idols they worship. If we keep worshiping at the false Idol of

> > Perfect

> > > Safety, we'll become as clever as a hobby horse... one the

neocons

> > can

> > > ride like Bonobo apes all the way to election day.

> > >

> > > Finally, you wrote, " I'd be much more comfortable with a few

dozen

> > > tortured enemies over tens of thousands or more American dead

and

> > > destroyed cities. " But who are these mysterious " enemies?

Those

> > held

> > > at GITMO for over 3 years without any charges whatsoever? Like

the

> > > Canadian and German nationals who were recently released? You

may

> > see

> > > them as acceptable human sacrifices to your Idol. But I

believe we

> > > normally call such people " victims. "

> > >

> > > Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other

people's

> > > human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I

should

> > hook

> > > you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Something else to remember is that if you were a POW and released

while the war was still on, you would go back into ranks and fight

the enemy too.

One thing to keep in mind is that these people who attack us don't

believe they are robotically programmed by religious fanatics. They

believe in what they are doing. So they will strike again if they

have the chance.

I do feel however, that they should be sorted through as swiftly as

possible and released promptly if they are discovered to be innocent.

And I do not believe that torture at known or unknown prisons should

take place.

Tom

Administrator

There are those who favor our current enemy and would like to see

them released from our prisons. Very well. Let those people sign a

parole for one of an enemy of their choosing. From then on, if their

parolee participates in an attack on the US or other country, the

holder of the parole will be charged right along with the parolee

and face the same penalties.

Since a number of those released from Gitmo or other prisons were

captured on the battlefield and, after their release, were caught

there again, I doubt there would be many takers.

[Guest guest]

" Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

hook you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! " "

Again, I am reading these posts in the order they have arrived. So

if everything has already been smoothed over, please forgive me.

I have no qualms with people taking sides on issues. My problem

arises with statements like the above which are a direct barb people

from the opposing sides.

1) Insults suggest that the arguments carry no weight on their own,

else the arguments would be sufficient to silence the person with

the alternative viewpoint.

2) While it can be argued that the opposing side is too obtuse to

understand arguments, that is still no reason to go insulting

people. Continuing to insult people is rather close to non-Aspie

social conventions.

3) If you resort to insults because you cannot support your own

arguments or cannot annunciate them properly, taking out your

frustration on others is not permissible.

4) Lastly, consider that you can argue logically and correctly and a

person will simply choose to disagree with you for whatever reason

and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Accepting this

makes it easier not to hold grudges and move on.

This is EXTREMEMLY difficult to do when talking about an issue that

is vitally important to you, and I do know that in some

cases " rules " or " social ettiquette " or insulting others seems to

take a back seat to what is vital.

For you, the issue seems to be torture. For me, it is abortion.

THAT, truth to tell, is why I have the rule that the topic of

abortion is prohibited on this board. Because once we start talking

about it, I go crazy with it until the members get sick of it.

It's also why I am forgiving of other people who break board rules

and why I allow people second and third chances. If I cannot obey my

own rules, why flatten others for doing it just once?

What I am saying is, whenever you make your points, delete comments

such as the one I have cited above, if you would, and stick to the

argument itself.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Again, as I have said, I am reading these posts in order, and so , I

just wanted to say that if this sort of thing is still going on by

the time I catch up, you will find yourself booted out Don.

And remember, I happen to agree with your view on torture, but in

the interest of sparing members from abuse and abusive language, I

would have to throw you out if my warnings are not heeded.

Tom

Administrator

Re: A Republican I could almost be talked into torturi...

:

Ooohhh, goin' Topsy-Turvy on me, eh? I think you may just have me..

Of course no one would want to sponsor a " terrorist " . But the point

here is that YOU don't know who's a terrorist and who's an innocent

civilian. So you don't get to pick who gets tortured and who gets to

vote.

You seem like a really smart guy. And I STILL would not trust you to

make such weighty decisions. Why should I trust folks much less

informed or well-intentioned than you?

Usually, people who have not been tortured favor torture. And because

of their lack of " reflexivity " (empathy doesn't quite fit the chasm),

they can't put themselves in the place of others. Like those legion

among the Bushies who have never even fought in a war, yet REALLY

like the idea of perpetual war, as long as it comes to sending YOUR

TAX MONEY AND YOUR KIDS (but don't you worry about them; their money

is all tied up in tax shelters, and their kids are safely tucked

away at Yale).

I merely suggest they get the treatment first, to enlighten their

policy statements. So, are you volunteering? If so, which part do you

wanna play? Torturee? Or Torturer? I'm gonna guess it's the latter...

Don

[Guest guest]

I've gotten fed up with other forums where anything goes. My idea

was to create a forum where people could talk about anything they

want (except for the topics listed on the home page) where their

views could be heard without getting slammed.

Tempers will inevitably flare.

I recognize that.

People are different.

But keeping a lid on arguements that go out of hand has actually, in

the case of this group, caused some respect to occur between members

even though those same members might still hold opposing viewpoints.

Tom

Administrator

(Perhaps I've been skimming over the postings too quickly- but from

what I've seen it seems to me the postings have been remarkably

civil compared to other forums, though definitely there are a lot of

strong emotions going on!)

Heph

[Guest guest]

Thanks for stepping in . And for those not in the know,

is an admin, as is , Beth, Raven, Wendi, and myself.

Tom

Administrator

" Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

hook

you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

Don "

This remark is personal and off. This is what I feared would

happen if this discussion continued - I ask that this subject be

dropped now.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for stepping in . And for those not in the know,

is an admin, as is , Beth, Raven, Wendi, and myself.

Tom

Administrator

" Since you're so comfortable casually dispensing with other people's

human, legal and civil rights, I know a cruel dominatrix I should

hook

you up with. " Oh, Villy. Youhf bin a baad, baad boy! "

Don "

This remark is personal and off. This is what I feared would

happen if this discussion continued - I ask that this subject be

dropped now.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for stepping in Beth.

And it occurs to me that , who is also an admin, stepped in

somewhere along the line. Thanks .

Tom

Administrator

I second that, we don't do personal insults in this forum. It is not

allowed, I will second on this decision, if the actions continue

there will be consequences. We all try to get along here.

Beth

Co-administrator