Tweet
Ramo...sounds right up the right's alley. It's perfect! 
-=Vel=-
-=Vel=-
-
While there are lots of quibbles I have with this statement, it is a relatively sophisticated argument (versus the simplistic one that Obama is making) -- ultimately you must treat all detainees as if they had Geneva Convention protections because as a practical matter you could not stop your military from inadvertently not following the Geneva Conventions when it is applicable or not following domestic law when they are operating on American soil.Originally posted by Ramo View Post
But realize that this is an argument on grounds of practicality and the discussion then will follow about the practical aspects of harsh interrogation. The result of the discussion may be that harsh interrogation is so valuable that it also is to be used, so long as legalistic rules are followed.Last edited by DanS; April 22, 2009, 16:27.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
While there are lots of quibbles I have with this statement, it is a relatively sophisticated argument (versus the simplistic one that Obama is making) -- ultimately you must treat all detainees as if they had Geneva Convention protections because as a practical matter you could not stop your military from inadvertently not following the Geneva Conventions when it is applicable or not following domestic law when they are operating on American soil.
1. I'm not conceding that it is legal to torture grand unified war on terror suspects. Law (i.e. the UN Convention Against Torture and the Federal Anti-Torture Statute) beyond the GC prohibits it.
2. What I'm saying is that explicitly allowing the authorities to engage in torture when its use may be debatable (the ticking time bomb scenario that Hollywood is such a fan of) leads to its use when it's completely unreasonable (183 times in a month) because humans are conditioned by their environment. If you engage in brutal interrogation techniques - and it is considered socially acceptable with explicit legal endorsement, you become conditioned to use them. Excessively. As I was saying, see the Stanford Prison or Milgram experiments.
But realize that this is an argument on grounds of practicality and the discussion then will follow about the practical aspects of harsh interrogation. The result of the discussion may be that harsh interrogation is so valuable that it also is to be used, so long as legalistic rules are followed.
Yes, and the empirical experience that we have does not lead us to that conclusion. It's why the police station down the street isn't water boarding suspects, throwing their heads into "flexible" walls, placing them in solitary for ridiculous amounts of time, etc. Unless you're in some ****hole like North Korea."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Ramo, while I admire your (and others) attempts to change their minds, you must know that the righties on this site, like the righties elsewhere CANNOT admit they're wrong on this issue, because if they do, then it opens up all sorts of nasty doors to consequences they can't afford to face. It's a fight you're never gonna win, bro.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong on this; no rational individual could do otherwise when grappling with an issue as dependent on subjective measures and cloaked in secrecy as this one is. I am approaching the issue rationally, however, unlike Arrian and yourself, so at least my methodology is sound, even if my conclusions might not be.
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
Drake, you can be deliciously funny at times. I like that about you.
Of course, I doubt that was your intent, but humor is humor. You gotta take it where you can find it.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
I don't really understand the Republicans. If y'all are going to make a case for the restrained use of state power, you can't stand for torture. It just doesn't make any sense.
I suppose this is the upside to Glenn Beckism. At some point, they can't trust a commie Muslim with insidious plans regarding relatively mundane organizations like FEMA with discretion to use torture on "enemy combatants." Right?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Drake, you can be deliciously funny at times. I like that about you.
If only you would be so interesting...KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
If y'all are going to make a case for the restrained use of state power, you can't stand for torture.
People who support the restrained use of state power can't also support the restrained use of enhanced interrogation techniques on enemies of the state?KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
The Eisenhower days are long gone, Ramo. Welcome to the new Right.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Whatever euphemism you choose to attribute to it, it's a technique that was designed to produce false confessions. Cuddly wuddly question time is not consistent with limited government.People who support the restrained use of state power can't also support the restrained use of enhanced interrogation techniques on enemies of the state?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Whatever euphemism you choose to attribute to it, it's a technique that was designed to produce false confessions.
I love it when you break out lefty talking points that I already read on several blogs. Did you get this one from Matt Yglesias?KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
Yes, because if something is written in two different places, it must be wrong.
Jane Mayer's excellent reporting for the New Yorker, actually (much of which is in her excellent book, "The Dark Side"). She broke the rendition program. I've quoted her a number of times here.
Quick, get some talking points from a WSJ opinion piece.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Seriously, Arrian, if torture has a moral cost and a practical benefit, why is ONLY the moral cost relevant? Why is it impermissible - monstrous, even - to even consider weighing the cost against the benefit?Originally posted by Arrian View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View PostWhatever euphemism you choose to attribute to it, it's a technique that was designed to produce false confessions.
I love it when you break out lefty talking points that I already read on several blogs. Did you get this one from Matt Yglesias?
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"Comment
Comment