OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[KSMountain]

You know, lunchabee, even if the White House were destroyed, that still would have been almost 8 years ago, and there STILL would be people whose memories have softened to the point that their partisan concerns now trump their security concerns. We should be asking “What is Obama doing to secure the ports, or loose nukes? (say in Pakistan)”, not “Oh boy is it going to be fun to watch Cheney finally get punished for his, uh, overzealousness, in trying to protect our country.”

If on 9/12 you showed someone today’s CNN headlines where all the talk is about how much we’re going to punish the folks who interrogated the planners, or set the interrogation policy – I’m sure most folks (of any politcal persuasion) would at first be pretty surprised. And then I think some folks would think it pretty sad. I guess others could say “this reflects the best of America”, but really, are we in such good shape that we can afford the luxury of this self-flagellation?

I’m not saying that all decisions taken in the heat of the moment are good. They’re not. But the guy who pasted the long diatribe, unquestioned, where some Guantanamo captive alleged he was smeared with menstrual fluid… uh, hmmm, how much non-menstrual blood flowed on 9/11? Do you think a mom of a dead child would be glad to be rubbed with menstrual blood to have their kid back? In addition to indulging in your disgust with the ex-president, I think it is good to keep some perspective on these things.

To beachlover, I’m not one of those who said “‘We should torture because they deserve it'”. My argument would be: “We as a society have a legitimate need for, and right to, information from individuals who have a proven desire and ability to kill thousands or more”.

I do agree with your point that if we have signed treaties to not torture, and those treaties are applicable to the people and techniques we’re talking about, then yes, we should either withdraw from the treaties or not engage in these activities. I don’t know that that is the case, though. There seems to be a little disagreement there.

beachlover’s original question was: “Are the rest of you outraged?” and “Should we go back and punish the higher-ups?”. My answers would be “no” and “no”.

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Chris Scoreboard Johnston]

I am with that as long as you agree to let us try Barry as a traitor at the same time the interrogators are tried, he certainly is equally guilty of that crime if not more so.

TG post right on again as usual

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[Parabolica]

What I’m trying to figure out reading this thread is where (and if) the realpolitiks/apologists (take your pick) draw the lines. If we are not a nation of laws, if we accept that the government does nasty things we would rather not hear about (but accept as being necessary for our own good), are there limits?

1800’s
Sure, maybe government troops get a little out of hand and kill Indian women and children, but this is war. It’s what the nation needs to grow. And these are savages.

1940’s
We must round up Japanese citizens and put them in camps. This is war, after all. Proof? Are you joking, man?

1950’s -1970’s
We had no choice except to overthrow a few third-rate governments. It’s the commies are or us. Democratic elections will mean nothing if commies are elected. Murders, disappearances, death squads? Get real. Our country will do what it has to.

Is there anything that the US Gov’t might do in the name of protecting our security that you would rule out? Anything so vile, that you would not snort “Ah well, these things are done for us. Better to just accept or not think about them.”

Is there any law you think is so fundamental, so defining of what is American, that it cannot be broken without exposing our nation as a lie? Or do you think it is all just a show, a pretense we present to the world, so we can screw other people over who take us seriously.

If it is a matter of scale for you, where does the scale tip? If citizens have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t care if their phone calls and emails are intercepted by the government. A little torture is ok, but not targeted assassinations ? Are concentration camps totally out of the question in your view of the US, or would we be better just to not talk about them.

And those in charge, whom you trust to break our laws wisely, did the overwhelming, demonstrated competence of the Bush administration fill you with total assurance that everyone in Guantanamo (or our secret prisons) is guilty without a doubt? That no innocent person was tortured, that all evidence obtained was real and actionable, not the dreck pouring out of people who just wanted to make the pain stop?

Are you cool with Obama intercepting our emails and phone calls? You know, government does nasty thing, and it is for the good of the country.

See, I can understand those of you that think this country, its laws, and dreams are a sham. That we are no better than Russia or Burma. But I get the feeling that some of you actually believe in freedom and laws and the Constitution. Those are the people I am curious about. If there is a line for you, where do you draw it?

[blahblahblah]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”?

Hahaha actually I wasn’t. That’s pretty interesting that they’ve actually coined a word for this stuff. The film westerns are interesting to think about — even though they didn’t have torture scenes, what they almost always had is the good guy that knows right from wrong and does what he has to do, even if it might involve bending a law or two. I guess the whole Jack Bauer “24” thing ties into the same mythology — these darned bureaucrats just don’t understand! A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to keep this town safe!

Maybe this whole torture thing in the media is just a new twist on an old theme. Although Dirty Harry didn’t torture people, he was pretty nasty to the bad guy, and he didn’t bother himself with little details like due process or the courts. Of course in the movies, Eastwood’s judgement is always right, and when Charles Bronson goes off on the bad guys in one of his “Death Wish” movies, he never gets the wrong man. It’s too bad life isn’t always like the movies!

[blahblahblah]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”?

Hahaha actually I wasn’t. That’s pretty interesting that they’ve actually coined a word for this stuff. The film westerns are interesting to think about — even though they didn’t have torture scenes, what they almost always had is the good guy that knows right from wrong and does what he has to do, even if it might involve bending a law or two. I guess the whole Jack Bauer “24” thing ties into the same mythology — these darned bureaucrats just don’t understand! A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to keep this town safe!

Maybe this whole torture thing in the media is just a new twist on an old theme. Although Dirty Harry didn’t torture people, he was pretty nasty to the bad guy, and he didn’t bother himself with little details like due process or the courts. Of course in the movies, Eastwood’s judgement is always right, and when Charles Bronson goes off on the bad guys in one of his “Death Wish” movies, he never gets the wrong man. It’s too bad life isn’t always like the movies!

[blahblahblah]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”?

Hahaha actually I wasn’t. That’s pretty interesting that they’ve actually coined a word for this stuff. The film westerns are interesting to think about — even though they didn’t have torture scenes, what they almost always had is the good guy that knows right from wrong and does what he has to do, even if it might involve bending a law or two. I guess the whole Jack Bauer “24” thing ties into the same mythology — these darned bureaucrats just don’t understand! A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to keep this town safe!

Maybe this whole torture thing in the media is just a new twist on an old theme. Although Dirty Harry didn’t torture people, he was pretty nasty to the bad guy, and he didn’t bother himself with little details like due process or the courts. Of course in the movies, Eastwood’s judgement is always right, and when Charles Bronson goes off on the bad guys in one of his “Death Wish” movies, he never gets the wrong man. It’s too bad life isn’t always like the movies!

[blahblahblah]

CONCHO: Are you familiar with the term “carnography”?

Hahaha actually I wasn’t. That’s pretty interesting that they’ve actually coined a word for this stuff. The film westerns are interesting to think about — even though they didn’t have torture scenes, what they almost always had is the good guy that knows right from wrong and does what he has to do, even if it might involve bending a law or two. I guess the whole Jack Bauer “24” thing ties into the same mythology — these darned bureaucrats just don’t understand! A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to keep this town safe!

Maybe this whole torture thing in the media is just a new twist on an old theme. Although Dirty Harry didn’t torture people, he was pretty nasty to the bad guy, and he didn’t bother himself with little details like due process or the courts. Of course in the movies, Eastwood’s judgement is always right, and when Charles Bronson goes off on the bad guys in one of his “Death Wish” movies, he never gets the wrong man. It’s too bad life isn’t always like the movies!

[Author]

Posts