Powered by TypePad

« The Flim Flam Man | Main | Long John Edwards - Pirate Of the Caribbean »

May 23, 2007

Comments

MDP

Hanged.

Rick Ballard

The Brits rule on pirates taken in the act was that they be given a summary (drumhead) court on the ship taking them with those unable to convince the ships master that they were pressed crew (unwilling participants) being hanged immediately following the hearing. Lincoln proposed to do precisely that with the privateers operating on letters of marque issued by the Confederacy but gave up the idea when Davis promised that Union POWs would be selected by lot and hanged in retribution.

I believe that highwaymen's treatment was dependent upon the jurisdiction. Early in the war Fremont was in Missouri and having a bit of trouble with irregulars and proposed hanging them after a drumhead court but Davis promised the same reprisal method. The practical outcome was that surrender by irregulars not wearing uniforms wasn't recognized - no prisoners, no problems.

If President Bush were to take Lincoln as his model regarding executive conduct during a time of conflict, then Kleiman would be sitting in a prison cell wondering when (or if) he were going to receive any hearing whatsoever. Lincoln didn't wear kid gloves when handling seditionists and traitors.

huski

Not so abstract or improbable if you count the members of our volunteer military who sign up for service that requires SERE training

bdcook

The problem with the argument that because we may - or may not - use the same techniques that the Soviets DID use makes us all morally equivalent is in the nature of the victims. Where the NKVD-types used it systematically on their own citizens who had violated excessively broad articles of the law [Article 58 covered political crimes] interpreeted for the express purpose of controlling a population through terror. If the US is using these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, it is on captured foreign fighters engaged in a war against us while remaining unburdened by uniforms and intermixing with the civilian population.

PeterUK.

It would be interesting to hear from the opposers of enhanced interrogation just what they would permit beyond,
"Good Morning,I'm your interrogator for today,any complaints,food OK?"

"You object to Corporal Kawinski,because she is a woman?"

"OK,we'll have her reassigned".

"Anything else?"

"Right,what do you know about the bomb"?

"Yes .I understand the Great Satan should be wiped off the map,believe me anything to oblige,but it's against regulations"

"So you don't know anything about the bomb? OK I'll take your word for it.Please fill in the complaints form,have a nice day".

seamus

It is interesting how the Conservative movement has moved so easily toward Authoritarianism, and away from Libertarianism. Is it really a good idea to give our Military or Intelligence branches the the power to torture people? The same type of fallible human beings who run FEMA and the Gonzales Justice Department, and the Rovized GSA? Some of the people that ended up in Abu Graib and Guantanamo most assuredly are innocent, wrong place, wrong time. As a free Democracy we should not license this type of activity. It's corrosive to us. Any information obtained via torture is suspect. Probably useless. The ticking time bomb scenario is a terrible and most unlikely example to use to design a policy to abide by. We must assume that this is another power that will be abused and mis-used. Isn't that the lesson from history?

Great Banana

Of course, the problem with this debate is that they assume waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are "torture" and proceed from there. I don't beleive any of those things are torture. Extremely uncomfortable, yes. Slightly painful, maybe. torture? No. AS I said on the last thread, I have been subject to sleep deprivation and extremely cold conditions. While not enjoyable, they are hardly torture.

Now, even on these techniques, nobody is calling for their use willy-nilly on any and all prisoners. Even these techniques, which I don't believe are torture, are used sparringly on prisoners who the U.S. believes has very valuable info. So, the U.S. and we sado-masochists on the right, are hardling advocating rounding everyone up for a good torture-o-thon.

I think in reality, most people, even us sado-masocists on the right, are against actual torture. But, these people who start from the position that every technique they disagree with is torture, are arguing in bad faith to begin with.

They point to U.S. laws that say you can't be cruel or cause mental anguish. In reality, one could argue just about anything, including imprisoning people, is cruel and causes mental anguish (trust me, in civil litigation people sincerely claim extreme mental anguish over the silliest stuff). By the anti-waterboarding crowd's absurd logic, we can't even interrogate or imprison people for fear that they will feel "tortured".

they are unwilling to have a debate on the issue, preening about America's loss of the "moral high ground", which in itself is ridiculous. The idea that a) the U.S. has not used these techniques or worse through its history already; b) that any other country (and even more specifically the islamofascists we are fighting) really cares whether we use these techniques or not aside from PR purposes; c) that it will affect the outcome of the war; or d) that it will destroy our national psyche, are all idiotic arguments. As others have observed, we survived slavery, jim crow, using atomic weapons, firebombing civilians, and many other moral outrages in the past - all of which are much, much worse than the alleged moral outrage of waterboarding or sleep deprivation. Thus, that argument is not only extremely weak, it is easily demonstrated as wrong.

If the best argument your side has is that you believe waterboarding and sleep deprivation (not the vague and abstract "torture") are immoral, then say so, and explain why. Don't claim that america itself is going to collapse if we don't stop using the techniques.

I'm sure those of you on the left scoffed (and rightly so) when people like Rev. Falwell said that God was going to take america down because of abortion and gays. Now you are basically making the same argument about torture. It was not persuasive by Falwell and is not persausive by you.

If you have an argument as to why we should not use these techniques - outside of your moral preening, let's hear it. Thus far, I have heard no such argument. The only possible rational argument would be that we shouldn't use the techniques because then our own soldiers will be subject to such techniques. In this case, that argument is useless as we know that the enemy will subject our soldiers to much, much worse wether we use these techniques or not. Indeed, the enemy we are fighting does not abide by any laws of war, Geneva Conventions, international law, nor even what the West generally considers tradional morality. Thus, such an argument is not remotely persausive.

To say merely that such techniques are against the law, begs the point. The law is vague and prohibits things like cruel treatment or causing mental anguish. Again, anything can be made to fit into that definition.

Great Banana

Seamus,

Would that you held the position about limiting government more generally, and not just on this issue.

I think you are arguing a straw-man. Nobody is arguing for every member of the military or CIA to have authority to use waterboarding any time they see fit. I agree that such techniques should be used sparingly, and there should be a process in place to ensure that such techniques are not abused.

Again, you beg the question by simply claiming such techniques are "torture". I don't agree with you that they are, and I don't believe most people over here do. So, simply calling it torture and saying we shouldn't allow torture, is not arguing or making a rational point.

seamus

To test the principle, imagine a Government run by your political opponents. Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish? We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone. Our Intelligence Officers and Soldiers are compromised by this approach. Drawing a clear line and holding our citizens to it, helps us in the war, it does not hinder us.

Rick Ballard

"The ticking time bomb scenario is a terrible and most unlikely example to use to design a policy to abide by."

The ticking time bomb scenario is occuring in Iraq right this minute. The IA,the IP and US forces have suspects in hand right now. Some of them were taken in flagrante delicto, shovel in hand with more IEDs in the trunk of their car. While your putrid sensibilities may be offended by the thought of potential abuse, Brown Eyes, a rational human being would decide that ol' Achmed the Assassin ought to receive a brisk and thorough interrogation on the very likely probability that he will readily disgorge information that will save lives.

The "lesson from history" is that unless a state monopolizes the use of violence, it isn't a state and that the means used to gain the monopoly will vary according to the level of threat extant in the instant.

Your willingness to sacrifice innocents in pursuit of political objectives is truly pathetic. As, of course, are you.

Great Banana

Seamus,

Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish? We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone.

the problem with this argument is that despite your paranoia, none of this is true.

thus, your question is nothing but a straw-man with no persuasive affect.

Again, instead of paranoid rantings, please feel free to offer debate as to why a) you consider sleep deprivation or waterboarding torture; and b) why you think they should not be allowed (and without the moral preening, but with real arguments).

seamus

I do think waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture. Chaining someone to a wall, and making them stand for hours and days sounds like torture to me too. Sullivan and Dejerian spell out what constitues torture quite eloquently. There is clarity on what constitutes torture. Yes, I'm against it. No, I don't want us to lose the war on terror. I'm a Catholic, an American, a Democrat. I love this country too. I don't think that forswearing torture weakens our nation or makes me un-American, or is aiding and comforting the enemy. Just the opposite.

Daddy

How about some more made up Abe Lincoln quotes:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus I..." darn it, can't use that one since he suspended it to help win the War.

How's about,

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for overriding the First Amendment by shutting down newspapers I..." darn it, can't use that one either since he did it to help win the War.

Let's see, let me try:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for shutting down any particular citizens Constitutional right to freely participate in elections or the democratic process I..." Darn it all, 'believe he did that too to win the War, didn't he.

Gosh, if Old Honest Abe was so intent on wining a war and preserving The United States of America that he'd override the Constitutional rights of individual American citizens, sorta' makes you wonder what he might have considered doing to non-citizen combatants. Let's try 2 other made-up quotes and see which one sounds more logical.

"President Lincoln, we caught Abullah here in a firefight on the battlefield with RPG's and AK-47's, and with secret plans to explode nuclear weapons in 10 American cities on the 4th of July. Shall we give him the third degre Sir, in order to try to smoke out his acomplices thereby saving lives?"

(Lincoln Option A) "What an impertinant question General Grant. Give this non-citizen, non-uniformed, non-Geneva convention combatant his 3 squares a day at Gitmo, a plastic wrapped Koran, and an ACLU Lawyer at taxpayer expense. Then tell General Sherman to burn down every living thing in a 10 mile swath for 110 miles straight on his march through to Atlanta.

(Lincoln Option B) "General Grant, Do whatever is necessary to win this war as quickly as possible so that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth."

Jane

I'm sure those of you on the left scoffed (and rightly so) when people like Rev. Falwell said that God was going to take america down because of abortion and gays. Now you are basically making the same argument about torture.

That's what happens with people who stand for nothing except hating Bush. Hypocrisy simply knows no bounds on the left these days.

So seamus, can we put you in the camp who would let your children be murdered rather than torture someone to find out who is holding them?

Appalled Moderate

TM:

The problem wth defining your position on torture in terms of snarking at the snark of other bloggers is that it is difficult to determine what your position is. Now my understandng of it is that you are generally comfortable with the law passed in 2006 with McCain's acquiesence -- that the military continues to not have the ability to apply "enhanced interrogation techniques/torture", but the CIA does have this ability, so long as it is (in Bill Clinton's memorable abortion formulation) safe, legal and rare.

Now the question I think you need to wrestle with, if you are going to continue a debate on substance (as opposed to whether certain bloggers are civil and logical in their screeds) is, if torture is available, whether it's really going to be rare. I know my own thoughts, back when this bill was being discussed, was keeping it illegal, but having any enforcement take into account the nature of the threat and the people we were dealing with. I question whether you can publically change a law back to where it was, and not really enforce it, without having word of all of this leak out, and continue the damage to our soft power that all this had previously. I also figure that the tendency at the CIA, given the law is on the books, would be to expand the nummber of people its used againse, because that is the nature of the way people behave.

None of this is good, really. It's much easier being an absolutist.

Oh well, just random thoughts on a hard issue.

boris

it is difficult to determine what your position is

Not this again. TM has made his position perfectly clear. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

keeping it illegal, but having any enforcement take into account the nature of the threat

Frak that. If interrogation of terrorists is necessary, make it policy. None of this “do your evil in secret” crap. That results in disparate and selective exposure by political operatives. As we have seen during this conflict over and over. Funny how much stayed “secret” for BJ.

boris

imagine a Government run by your political opponents

Aha, the perfect expression of projection. What it's really all about. Waterboarding wouldn't bother them half so much if it was an administration they "trusted" to use good sense, like the CLintons.

PeterUK.

"It is interesting how the Conservative movement has moved so easily toward Authoritarianism, and away from Libertarianism."

Conservatism has never been Libertarianism,but the greatest Authoritarians since the French Revolution have been on the Left.One has only to look at the liberal left stifling of freedom in the name of Political Correctness as of this moment.

"Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish?

You have extended the debate to detention,I didn't think it would take you long.Essentially you are extending the legal protection of citizens to non-citizens.
No doubt you will give "oversight" to usual political Jackals.


"We have set up a shadowy, lawless, zone. Our Intelligence Officers and Soldiers are compromised by this approach. Drawing a clear line and holding our citizens to it, helps us in the war, it does not hinder us."

There has always been a "shadowy,lawless zone",this is not new.What is new is the desire to drag it into the daylight and make political capital out of it.The NSA surveillance,the SWIFT programme,rendition, all areas where the enemy have been assisted by the liberal preeners,almost looks like deliberate sabotage.

cathyf
Some of the people that ended up in Abu Graib and Guantanamo most assuredly are innocent, wrong place, wrong time.
Some of the people that we've killed in battle are most assuredly innocent, too. A huge a direct cause of innocent civilian deaths in battle is the war criminals who put them in harm's way by fighting out of uniform from civilian homes and businesses. They are the ones who have set up the lawless zone, and you are aiding and supporting them in your campaign to grant them the rights and privileges of POWs.

Look, the traditional privileges of war are that soldiers get to rape, pillage and loot the civilian population as they go by, and that any enemy soldier that the civilians overpower is fair game limited only by their imagination. In the mid-nineteenth century, exhausted and horrified by the brutal degradation of nearly continuous war for decades, Europeans made a treaty, a quid pro quo. In exchange for soldiers protecting civilians, all parties would protect captured soldiers. POWs aren't allowed to be interrogated at all -- forget torture, asking with nothing more than "please" is a violation of the GC.

I think that the best argument against torture is one that I see McCain making that doesn't seem to be appreciated, which is that whether it is torturing an unlawful combatant who deserves it, a lawful-combatant POW, a civilian, or a bug you caught in your backyard, torturing any living creature is soul-destroying degradation for the torturer.

But make no mistake -- just because we don't take one jihadi a week, cut off his tongue, arms and legs, and drop his naked torso onto a fire ant hill in the blazing sun, and then broadcast his 2-3-day slow death on live pay-per-view doesn't mean that this is something worse than the punishment which unlawful combatants have earned. No, we refrain from this because we can't do it without injury to our own souls.

Great Banana

Seamus,

I do think waterboarding and sleep deprivation are torture. Chaining someone to a wall, and making them stand for hours and days sounds like torture to me too.

Well, I disagree. Now explain by stating something other than "it sounds like" torture to you. Give me reasons why sleep deprivation (which I have experienced) is torture? Why is a cold room torture? Why is making someone stand for long periods of time torture? Simply stating it is is not an argument.


Sullivan and Dejerian spell out what constitues torture quite eloquently. There is clarity on what constitutes torture.

Asserting something is true and it being true are two different things. They have NOT spelled out what constitutes torture, but have offered vague wording about "mental anguish". I agree that there is clarity on what constitutes torture. Electric shock, severe beatings, pulling fingernails - these things are torture. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, long periods of standing - these are clearly not torture. SEE Clarity!!!

Yes, I'm against it. No, I don't want us to lose the war on terror. I'm a Catholic, an American, a Democrat. I love this country too. I don't think that forswearing torture weakens our nation or makes me un-American, or is aiding and comforting the enemy. Just the opposite.

I never argue or intimated that. Another straw-man argument.

As I have attempted to point out several times, aside from moral preening and bald assertions, I have yet to see an argument about a) why you consider water boarding or sleep deprivation torture or b) why such techniques should not be sparingly use.

Again, assertions are not arguments.

Sue

give our Military or Intelligence branches the the power to torture people?

Have you people lost your mind? The correct question should be do we want to take away the power. It has always been there, but never discussed. Mostly because the conservatives realized it is a useful tool and the left liked the president using it. But wait. Maybe I should have said you liked it if it wasn't done by a citizen of the US. Just so long as the president authorizing it made sure it was done by citizens of another country. The rendition program was authorized by Clinton, for those of you still unclear as to whether torture was condoned by the last administration. And you (those of you who suffer from BDS) were strangely silent when you liked the president. Bush has merely put a stamp of approval on something Clinton did under the cover of darkness.

Sheesh....

Sue

To test the principle, imagine a Government run by your political opponents. Are you comfortable with them being able to declare anyone an enemy combatant, being able to detain them indefinitely without a fair hearing, and then to apply aggressive interrogation techiniques (this would be torture), with no oversight for as long as they wish?

Surely some members of the republican party were aware of Clinton's rendition program. But you didn't read about it in the NYTs. I believe that answers the question you asked.

Maybeex

think that the best argument against torture is one that I see McCain making that doesn't seem to be appreciated, which is that whether it is torturing an unlawful combatant who deserves it, a lawful-combatant POW, a civilian, or a bug you caught in your backyard, torturing any living creature is soul-destroying degradation for the torturer.

I can accept that, depending again upon the definition of torture. Putting someone in a cold room, blasting loud music at them, or even water-boarding shouldn't be soul-destroying.

Shoving rats in body cavities for kicks would be soul-destroying.
But what of killing people? Under normal circumstances, that would be much more soul-destroying than making someone stand up for a long period of time, no?

I think whatever you feel justified to do is less soul-destroying than something you feel you shouldn't do. But there are many things we do in war that a civilian shouldn't do. God Bless our soldiers, I hope they don't feel their souls are being destroyed.

boris

I don't want us to lose the war on terror

Oh yeah? BS, you claim it's already lost.

boris

or even water-boarding shouldn't be soul-destroying

Seems pretty low risk since we train our own troops using those techniques.

It would be a little strange for those who oppose any government policy based on the existence of souls to worry about the CIA waterboarding terrorists possibly destroying their own.

seamus

International Law defines torture as : "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Waterboarding and sleep deprivation are ways to finesse this definition, and of course, reasonable people may disagree. I put these methods in the torture category. I think it's in our interest to be "absolutists" against it. I'm against it whether it's applied by the Bush Adminstration, or the past or future Clinton Adminstrations, or whatever. I think it's a bad idea to give the government consent to torture. They may do it anyway, but I think it's wrong and actually weakens us. Our strength will defeat the terror, not our weakness, not appealing to our baser instincts.

Sue

I think it's a bad idea to give the government consent to torture.

Yeah. It is much better to turn your captives over to countries you know use real torture and claim the high moral ground in doing so. We should name that program the Clinton I Did Not Torture Enemy Combatants But It Depends on the Definition of Did.

Great Banana

Seamus,

See, I can accept that argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I don't think using waterboarding will "weaken us" and don't believe it is "appealing to our baser instincts."

But, at least you admit that "reasonable people may disagree." That is what has been lacking the most on your side of the argument (not necessarily you - just others on your side of the argument).

This is of course a slippery slope argument, for either side. We argue that your side is defining torture down further and further to the point where any interrogation or even imprisonment is "torture" and your side believes that allowing waterboarding and other techniques will lead to more and more agressive methods.

I think it is good to have the debate and draw a fairly bright line as to what is and is not acceptable, I just disagree with you as to where the line is.

Semanticleo

Fascinating.

You guys really think you have everyone over a barrel on this def of 'torture' thing, don't you?

Remember when the SC was deciding 'obscenity' cases?


Justice Byron White's Definition: "no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity."

Justice Brennan's Definition, The Limp Dick Test: "no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the 'limp dick' standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection."

Justice Stewart's Definition, The Casablanca Test: " . . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it." In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his 'Casablanca Test'."


As to torture, I think Stewart's is the one
I subscribe to.

This 'waterboarding' technique is the one you all seem to be most pleased with. But at Belgravia, the venerable Mr Turner cited
the difference between mock execution (Deer Hunter Style) as separate and distinct from
WB. The apparent distinction is the fact that WB merely produces 'panic'.

What is the origin of the panic? Survival
instinct? How is that different from the fear of bullet in brain? (I expect all kind of exceptions to Cecil's distinction amongst the folks here. But I do throw it out there.)

Whats the diff?

Rick Ballard

"I hope they don't feel their souls are being destroyed."

That's a tertiary concern. I'm kind of stuck on doing what's necessary to preserve their (and the Iraqis) lives and keeping them (and the Iraqis) from being maimed. Somehow I imagine that the troops hierarchy of concerns would be somewhat similiar to mine. (BTW - very nice ironying this morning - no wrinkles in that one)

boris

Waterboarding an illegal enemy combatant to exctract life saving intel is not covered by your quote.

No confessions are obtained, no punishment is administered.

Waterboarding is not painful and does not cause suffering. The reflex panic it induces does not hurt, it simply makes it difficult or impossible for the subject to form the willpower or mental coherence to resist the interrogator or construct a lie.

The panic is reflex. It is not based on "fear of being killed".

boris

Suppose a legally armed citizen is confronted by a knife wielding criminal assailant. The citizen brandishes his gun ...

Should the citizen say “drop your weapon or I’ll shoot” ???

No, that would be threatening the criminal’s life, TORTURE !!!

The only option available to the citizen is to shoot the assailant where he stands.

Great Banana

You guys really think you have everyone over a barrel on this def of 'torture' thing, don't you?

Remember when the SC was deciding 'obscenity' cases?

No, the point is that we are stating that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and cold rooms are not torture. We ask others to explain why they believe such techniques are torture.

the point that I am making about the definition is that the definitions others point to are so vague as to be almost meaningless. by the definition of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" almost anything can be argued to be torture.

The whole point is to come up with what can be used and not be used. My argument against those on the other side of this debate is that they are attempting to skip the entire debate by merely asserting that waterboarding, et al. is "torture" and therefore we can't do it.

In other words, your side of the debate is claiming to be Justice Stewart, being the person who gets to define what is and is not torture and the rest of us should just shut up. That is not a debate, nor is it an argument.

Semanticleo

GB;

You can't have it both ways. If you are making the determination WB is 'not torture'
you must also be applying Stewart method.

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define
it.

Other Tom

Pardon me for going so far off-topic, but I found this such an inspirational read that I wanted to bring it to the attention of everyone here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010083

boris

GB's point is that any definition of torture that would include WB is too vauge to be meaningful or useful. A valid point.

That is not the same as simply asserting "such and such IS torutre".

Too semantic for you?

Sue

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define it.

It has already been defined. Enhanced interrogation technique.

clarice

An unusually good discussion based on logic, history and law. I, however, give greater weight to externals and in that note observe that Angelina Jolie's new film on the Pearl murder is being released. In it the sympathetic Paks torture the perps to find out where to find Pearl and what happened to him.
As Angelina and the character she plays (Marianne Pearl)are very good looking and appealing, I predict the argument against "torture" is going to lose ground. What chance does moral preening have against the needs of sexy sweeties?

Semanticleo

"An unusually good discussion based on logic, history and law. I, HOWEVER, GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO EXTERNALS"

Tongue in cheek? Hope so.

Great Banana

Cleo,

GB;

You can't have it both ways. If you are making the determination WB is 'not torture'
you must also be applying Stewart method.

Otherwise, it is necessary for you to define
it.

Touche. I think you have a point there.

I think the difference is that I am arguing about specific techniques, which I state are not torture, i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold rooms, even long periods of standing. The other side simply states those techniques ARE torture, and as their only argument, point to a very vague definition of torture that makes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" torture.

My argument is that sleep deprivation does not cause severe pain or severe mental anguish, nor does coldness, nor does long periods of standing, nor doew waterboarding.

Now, we will have to argue over what "severe" means.

I think it is easier to point to specific techniques and say - that is torture or that is not torture - and come up with a fairly bright line set of procedures that are allowed and those that are not allowed.

Your side of the argument wants to simply state that such-and-such IS torture and therefore verbotten (sp?). I want to argue about why they believe waterboarding, sleep deprivation, et al., are torture.

But, instead of being willing to argue the point, we are called names and the implication, if not outright expression, is that we are evil brutes. And arguments are used like - we'll lose our souls if we allow torture. Again, 1) that begs the question of what is torture, and 2) I don't believe we would necessarily lose our souls even if we engaged in real torture - not that I am advocating for the use of real torture.

PeterUK.

There are reports thatIran is planning attacks on Europe nuclear plants.

Our liberals are vociferous concerning the consequences of using enhanced interrogation technique,but like all principles of the liberal left are coy about the consequences of NOT using such techniques.
So please would they state what they are willing to endure,on behalf of all of us,to maintain their principles?

Bill in AZ

OT - Goodling testifies that McNulty is a lying sack o'... er... wait, forgot to turn off my MSM translator...

McNulty's explanation, on Feb. 6, "was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects," Monica Goodling told a packed House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings.

She added: "I believe the deputy was not fully candid."

various sources...

Jeff Dobbs

Other Tom, thanks for the link to that article.

seamus

Can we win the war on terror without resorting to torture and/or enhanced interrogation techniques? I dare say, yes. Are these techniques essential to us? I dare say, no.

As per Stewart's "I know it when I see it." Imagine if these techniques were applied to you or one of your loved ones. That's a mighty good way to test the principle. We need to take a clear stand against, it helps us as a civilized nation. In the long run, our tolerance of torture will undermine our effort, not enhance it. We won't win the war with brute force alone. Our "good guy" example will help us win friends and influence neighbors. Maybe that's preening. I agree, as a free Democracy it's essential to have this debate without demonizing the other side. Romney's and Guiliani's catering to the pro-torture crowd certainly puts the debate front row and center for the coming election.

Semanticleo

GB;

We all make assumptions about the intent of the other side.

Given the typical imaginary scenario of a terrorist having info about a nuke or the location of captured G.I.s, I don't give a rodent's sphincter about which technique
gets results while providing cover, legally,
in the World Court.

The above is applicable, in my estimation,
when there is Probable Cause to believe
there is actionable info which can be obtained in good faith.

My concern is the
slippery slope which gets ample lubrication
when people make the call on when to apply
the 'enhanced techniques'. It is all too easy to apply the technique without some sense of proportion when it becomes accepted practice. Elsewhere I heard the derogation,
'safe legal and rare' but find some prudence
in the outline thereof.

clarice

Most people are incapable of thinking in hypotheticals. Now seeing Angelina Jolie desperate to find out what happened to her darling husband--that they can understand.

Truly. She's doing more to okay harsh treatment of jihadis at war with us than we can ever hope to.(Just as Jane Fonda killed the most environmentally friendly energy source, nuclear power.)

boris

It is all too easy to apply the technique without some sense of proportion ...

Ah yes, another version of how we can't trust Bushitler with such license, only leaders with good sense like the Clintons.

SunnyDay

Monica Goodling is fantastic!! On c-span 3

topsecretk9

OT, but duh huh?

Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty knew about extensive White House involvement in the firings of U.S. attorneys before he provided inaccurate information about the issue to Congress, a former senior Justice aide testified this morning.

Monica M. Goodling, speaking publicly for the first time about her role in the prosecutor firings, also said McNulty urged her not to attend a private Senate briefing, saying that her status as White House liaison would raise questions among lawmakers about possible White House involvement in the dismissals.

"I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of the White House's involvement," Goodling testified at the House Judiciary Committee, which has granted her immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony...

Schumer's little gambit with McNulty backfired.

topsecretk9

OH...Bill in AZ caught it!

Great Banana

Cleo,

I think we are more in agreement than not on this issue - which appears to be a first.

Seamus,

As per Stewart's "I know it when I see it." Imagine if these techniques were applied to you or one of your loved ones. That's a mighty good way to test the principle.

No, it is not. First, if my loved ones are engaged in terrorism, then they would likely deserve such techniques. Second, if using those techniques on one of my loved ones would save many lives, I would say go for it. Third, there are plenty of things done in war that I wouldn't want to happen to my loved ones, such as death, but that I still support doling out to the enemy.

We need to take a clear stand against, it helps us as a civilized nation. <.i>

Against what? Waterboarding? Sleep deprivation? Does that mean the U.S. Navy should stop its use of the watch system that I was subjected to? That new parents be allowed to sleep? How does it "help us as a civilized nation?" that is nothing more than a trite cliche.

In the long run, our tolerance of torture will undermine our effort, not enhance it. How so? Please explain. If you can make this into a persuasive argument, you might get me to agree. Simply stating it, however, does not make it true.

We won't win the war with brute force alone.

Nobody said otherwise.

Our "good guy" example will help us win friends and influence neighbors.

it never has in the last 30 years, why do you think it will now? Nations have interests, not friends. France does not go against us b/c we are not "moral" enough, but b/c they think it is in their interest to do so. This belief that other countries count on "morality" for deciding whether or not to support the U.S. is foolish at best. Certainly, we are not going to win over islamic countries where wife beating is encouraged, honor killings are allowed and stoning gays is legal by not using waterboarding. That kind of argument is nonesense on stilts.

I agree, as a free Democracy it's essential to have this debate without demonizing the other side. Romney's and Guiliani's catering to the pro-torture crowd certainly puts the debate front row and center for the coming election.

I think it will also, and I welcome the debate. Hopefully we can debate the actual merits of the issue.

Great Banana

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh italics off!

topsecretk9

Also, this raises a question...McNulty was not granted immunity, so does the committee look away from his misleading them? It is a conundrum. /sarcasm off

SunnyDay

Dem senator, responding to MG: "let me unnnnnnnh unnnnnnh unnnnnnnh let me unnnnnh, let me accept, unnh let me accept that answer....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

danking

For you TM, I'd suggest either the soft cushions or the comfy chair.

It will be an eye-opener to see the French definition of torture when one of their nuclear facilities gets bombed. Then again, they'll probably adopt their African (North and Central) torture definition for use back home.

topsecretk9

Someone should look at the 93 replaced UAT during Clinton's DOJ massacre and see how many replaced had an R next to their name...ba dump bump.

SunnyDay

Attacking her faith now. She graduated from Regent law school.

SunnyDay

Gallery is getting noisy.

SunnyDay

It is a conundrum. /sarcasm off
*****************

unhuh. Maxine wants to ask ROVE. ROVE needs to get there post haste

PeterUK.

"We won't win the war with brute force alone."

Worked with Germany and Japan.

SunnyDay

lunch break.

I hope this is not the end of Monica Goodling's career in public service. What a shame they portrayed this woman the way they did.

Expect this to fade out of the news except for the need for ROVE to testify.

Maxine tried to make Monica say ROVE should testify.

Vail Beach

The origin of this discussion is the Lincoln quote, which I think is completely inapt. Detainees arrested for involvement in terrorism are at least suspected of criminal activity and/or making war against our citizens and military. The question of whether or not to torture them is entirely based on who we think they are and what we think they know.

Slaves were chosen to be slaves indiscriminately. To have been a slave in the US was never a choice of the slave, nor the result of any suspected wrongdoing. At the time Lincoln was president, I believe 100 percent of American slaves became slaves solely because their parents were slaves.

In the torture debate, we're not talking about interrogating people at random. There has to be a reason. Certainly, we could be wrong -- undoubtedly, if we permit our government to conduct enhanced interrogations, we will see it happen that the wrong person is being subjected to it. That's one of many reasons why we don't torture, but instead use techniques to inflict stress and exhaustion, from which the subjects can recover 100 percent rather quickly.

topsecretk9

It's so stupid and such a waste of time...here's hoping they keep it up!

---I hope this is not the end of Monica Goodling's career in public service. What a shame they portrayed this woman the way they did.--

Too bad she's not a Democrat, these situations usually enhance their resume.

SunnyDay

Monica says Sampson lied, McNutly lied and that was why she took the 5th.

So, what's the headline?

"Officials Describe Interference by Former Gonzales Aide"


Roger

Souls. This would probably be the first thing to sell. It had value like thinking. All this would have to be sold off to protect the individual being tortured. The person would then become the perfect human, no dreaming or seeing or thinking or souls; God's perfection in creation. So, we go back to perfection of God's creation, but the religious side of this would ask who did this. Satan, of course, putting humans back to God's perfection before Lucifer's damning. The torture would require a religious person to have this done to the human and explain why dems did this to a Republican during Clinton's cleansing. So, we have the perfect human rising up from a tortured past with the help of God, the Church and democrats. The perfect human is the answer to the torture and we are all better now, really, being Republican was wrong. The service was appreciated.

As far as the Great Banana; sure he's not the Banano? He supposedly lost his soul to the deep ocean and we are all supposed to be sad.

Good ling. Maybe they all missed the changes in legislation at the time as Fitzgerald was appointed and Plame immediatly filed law suits because he(AG and all AGs legislation changes) is a criminal conspircay investigator. His job would have been to prosecute a bad agent if he found one. Unfortunately, he passed, and let his good friend down( the guy who's is perfect, beyond reproach), but the changes in the intelligence community should be obvious. CIA analysts were moved to DoD/NSA as language specialists, Tenet's excuse for hiring them. The Director's took the fall for all that limo and escort stuff and Plame had alot to do with it; her dad was Air Force like all the director's doing the move and also NSA; explaining her problem with NSA and using those assets on demestic groups like her reitred pals who formed all those groups.

Air Force seems to be the one's doing the cover ups and taking care of CIA. Those are called 'Founders' and really started Golf, ask tiger Woods, but are they the same as the Navy? Maybe we should ask about enhanced torture and the Abu thing? Maybe this is the way out for CIA, but not for the Air Force or Navy because that type of thing is allowed on Amercians to move someone deeper into a cover and region. Maybe it's really just escort stuff or parties the CIA had and the retired Air force guys continue to take care of those CIA jobs, better than any Congressman can and maybe that's as it should be, unless, of course, the base is Unamerican like enhanced torure on Americans in America.

There are alot of types of torture and Clinton said it's okay to sue, but no one can go to court to get damages. It's the dems other world we all had to learn about and put up with. Of course, we can't demonize the other side because it is Lucifer and they really want Satan, but he actually shows up with people and has things done, but, hey, the torturers may find they are actually working for Lucifer and not Satan. The pursuit of evil usually has the end the same. Of course, we all may find Satan in the end, but that would be the end.

TexasToast

then Kleiman would be sitting in a prison cell wondering when (or if) he were going to receive any hearing whatsoever. Lincoln didn't wear kid gloves when handling seditionists and traitors.

As Kleiman is neither of these, I doubt he would be sitting in any cell. Opposition to a war in a democracy does not make one a copperhead, seditionist or a traitor, no matter how much Rick wishes it were so.

Rick Ballard

TT,

Lincoln wasn't particularly fastidious concerning identifying seditionists. Neither I nor you can say with certainty whether Kleiman would have made the grade and I should have used a modifier rather than making the flat assertion.

Perhaps the Clinton locution concerning punching a hole in an infants skuull in order to vacuum its brain out should be used? Just declare torture "safe, legal and rare" and moveon?

After all, we really don't want to chance "coarsening" this marvelously gentle society.

Other Tom

I think Rick's point was that, in Lincoln's eyes, Kleiman surely would have been regarded as at least a seditionist, and perhaps a traitor. And I think Rick is correct in his thinking, as innumerable examples attest. I'll cite just one: a former Ohio congressman, campaigning against the war in an election, was ordered kidnapped and exiled to the confederacy.

For my part, I am quite certain that Kleiman is neither of these, and I don't understand Rick to be contending otherwise. I am content simply to have Kleiman exposed as a fool, and I think Tom Maguire has done that job with great aplomb, and with a generous assist from Kleiman himself.

Pofarmer

McNulty's explanation, on Feb. 6, "was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects," Monica Goodling told a packed House Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings.

She added: "I believe the deputy was not fully candid."

Well, at least now there's no doubt why Goodling thought the whole thing was a perjury trap.

What will the MSM say?

Gonzales incompetent will be part of the headline, I am sure.

Can somebody explain again to me how McNulty was involved in the Fitz deal?

whadda sack of xxxxx

boris

Opposition to a war in a democracy does not make one a copperhead ...

Once war is engaged via democratic choice, continued opposition in the form of encouraging the enemy, disparaging the administration, leaking secrets to undermine policy, publicly making false accusaions are incompatible with responsible citizenship.

Far too many have crossed the line in this conflict. If you have no admonishment to expend on them, STFU about our choice of terms for the craven.

Pofarmer

Are any of the Libs here gonna remind me what war we won by fighting the nicest?

SunnyDay

Amen, pofarmer.

I'm collecting headlines for a laugh. no point in fuming, it won't change a thing except my blood pressure.

Other Tom

My memory was a bit faulty. Here is what happened:

"...Clement Vallandigham, the leader of the Peace Democrats (Copperheads)...was arrested in May, 1863 and accused of treason. Found guilty by a military commission, he was sentenced to imprisonment. Soon afterwards Lincoln intervened and commuted his sentence to banishment behind the Confederate Army front lines."

Noteworthy facts: (1) US citizen (2) arrested on US soil (3) charged with treason for campaigning agains the war (4) tried by military commission (5) all under the jackboot of Lincolnitler.

Pofarmer

You speak the truth Boris.

Once the vote is taken, if you don't like it, sit down and shut up, you had your say, get over it.

The same dynamic is now taking place at the state level.

A Dimocrap legislator actually called a bill passed by both houses and signed by the Governor, a "Piece of shit, Bill, perhaps the biggest piece of shit bill ever passed by this Legislature."

I think that's going too far.

Other Tom

"Can we win the war on terror without resorting to torture and/or enhanced interrogation techniques? I dare say, yes. Are these techniques essential to us? I dare say, no."

Well, Seamus, you can dare say anything you like, since you have Bush as the commander-in-chief instead of, say, Lincoln. But your questions and your answers to them, even if we were to take them as correct (George Tenet certaily does not), tell us nothing at all about whether torture or enhanced interrogation should be used in a given instance if it were likely to save innocent lives. That seems a worthy goal whether we win or lose the war on terror. Certainly the innocents who were spared by the practice would think so, as I dare say you would if you were in their number.

Enlightened

Word is our three missing soldiers have been found dead - tortured and mutilated, and tossed into a river like so much garbage.

Let's hope it's not them.

Sure ain't waterboarding is it?


Enlightened

OT - How about those Democrats huh?

We have a doozy of a story in the SF Bay Area. You just cannot make this stuff up.

"She (Migden- CA Senate) kept saying, 'You can't talk to me like that, I'm a state senator,'" he said. "She was kind of wobbly. She didn't seem alert. She was not acting normally."

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_142204651.html

The buzz is she was not working at the time of the crash, and by saying she was, she is avoiding the penalties of an at fault accident on her personal insurance. Since she alleges she was "working" - us lucky taxpayers in CA get to pay for this crap.

Seixon

Not content with answering the ticking bomb scenario, the lovely people over at Greg Drasrasjdhaskdjashdan's site have pressed me to say that I would rape a child in order to save someone's life. I would. Not that I'm particularly concerned with having to do so any time soon... but I would. Rape is a lesser evil than the death of a person, and I can put aside my dignity, and the sensibilities of a child for 2 seconds to save a life. I'm sure the child would understand in the future, when the person who's life we saved told them how brave they were to endure that for their sake.

I don't think they expected me to answer this way, they might have thought they had me pegged, so now they're just throwing cow dung all over the place in an infantile thrash fest.

I find it sad that they even came up with the sickening scenario as an attempt to avoid answering the simple ticking bomb scenario.

They will do anything to get out of answering it because it haunts them that they would ever have to choose the lesser of two evils.

PeterUK.

Enlightened,
The latest is, one body has been found.
I would like to know what consequences will our liberals allow all of to suffer for their principles? So for none of them will answer this question.

boris

lesser evil than the death of a person

Is this not the standard for late term abortion? Viable baby is killed to avoid risk to the mother.

You could have answered with your own question ... what about partial birth abortion of a baby girl to save the life of the mother?

Enlightened

Hey PUK - I think it is as bad as we hoped it would not be:

"He added, “the bodies bore marks of torture with their heads smashed. They wore the U.S. military-style uniform.” The source said “The two bodies were handed over to the U.S. forces at the location where they were found.”

Intriguing snippet:

"To limit the chance of rumors and information being sent back the United States, AP reports, military bases in the area have been put on an Internet blackout, preventing e-mail messages from being sent from the area."


http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2905

TexasToast

OT
Vallandigham was arrested and tried by the illustrious General Burnside, for violating the Department of the Ohio’s “General Order No. 38”, which stated:
"The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department. Persons committing such offenses will be at once arrested with a view of being tried. . .or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends. It must be understood that treason, expressed or implied, will not be tolerated in this department."
Burnside had also declared that, in certain cases, violations of General Order No. 38 could result in death. Burnside had put real teeth behind Boris’ request to STFU, n’est-ce pas?
Ahh!. Those were the days, weren’t they guys? ;)

Seriously, according to McPherson (and others), “…Lincoln was embarrassed by Burnside’s arrest of Vallandigham, about which the president learned in the newspapers.” (at page 597, if you are interested). Lincoln decided that more damage would be done by repudiating Burnside than upholding him. What Lincoln did not want was a dispute with the “War” Democrats in Albany about whether the war was about suppressing rebellion in the south or was instead a war “’ … to destroy free institutions in the North.’” Thus, the commutation and exile were Lincoln’s way out of a political problem – hardly the adoption of a policy of the suppression of the speech of “traitors”. In fact, Vallandigham was later nominated by the Democrats for Governor of Ohio, which resulted in Lincoln’s famous letters on civil liberties in wartime. These letters make it quite clear that Lincoln’s position was that the rebellion constituted such a great threat to the nation’s existence that civilian courts were “utterly incompetent” to deal with that threat. The courts later disputed even that.

This is hardly the case today. Iraq, an existential threat? AQ, an exixtential threat?

Please.

Enlightened

Oh, they just talk the big talk because they can hide behind an anonymous blog site.

I'm thinking the families of these three young men are probably not conflating slavery and the alleged condition of their loved ones.


Jeff Dobbs

Sorry, injecting a little electoral politics in here...

Did you see the ABC report Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran? Of course, there are those in the IC for whom the authorization of a covert action is taken as authorization to make the action overt.

Via Geraghty, we learn that Mitt has spoken out against ABC.

No doubt, given opportunities to do so, other repub candidates will do the same.

Ah, but here's an interesting question, Fred has a relationship with ABC radio delivering radio commentaries and blog entries.

Does he do anything regarding that relationship?

Enlightened

HR - There's some buzz going around that this time Brain Ross should get fired.

Could get interesting re: Fred- huh?

Rick Ballard

"Iraq, an existential threat? AQ, an exixtential threat?"

Since the moment in which the child rapist finished his apologia, islam has been an existential threat to civilization. The degree of threat waxes and wanes according to the availability of resources to the muslims but the actual underlying threat is inherent to the murder/suicide cult.

Do you know where the anthrax came from? Can you jerk your head from your fundament for the time sufficient to ponder what the result of a mass mailing of anthrax would do to the civilization you seem so uninterested in defending?

Muslims have the means to destroy civilization and some of them have the will to do so. Maybe we'll get them walled off before they are successful and maybe we won't. We damn sure won't with half the population playing Emily Litella.

Jeff Dobbs

Well, Brian Ross is less important to nail than his source(s). But I have long since given up on much headway in that effort

And as Andy McCarthy pointed out on the Corner this morning, it was just last month that we were treated to this:

CIA Director Michael Hayden is claiming success at stopping media leaks from the spy agency under his predecessor, including revelations of secret prisons for terror suspects.

An in-house policy of open communication between Hayden's office and the agency's workforce has effectively reduced employee frustrations blamed for prompting unauthorized disclosures in the past, the four-star Air Force general said in a C-SPAN interview to be aired on Sunday.


Hell, in the reign of W's fascisist tyranny, the government sure is sloppy at tapping reporters' phones. Trample some damn civil liberties already...

Seixon

boris,

Trust me, comparing torture to partial birth abortion would be counter-productive with these folks, as they already have more than enough feelings invested in the torture debate. They have feelings invested in partial birth abortion too, so it would just overflow exponentially.

I'm trying to get them to understand that their opposition to ever using torture is irrational and caused by mere emotions they have been brainwashed to have.

danking

Have the Democrat Presidential Candidates been asked the "ticking time bomb/torture" question in their debates yet?

Seixon

danking,

Well, since they are too scared to appear on FOX for a debate, no. You see, staying on the Democratic channels protects them from having to answer such horrendous things as the lesser of two evils question.

hoosierhoops

Not content with answering the ticking bomb scenario, the lovely people over at Greg Drasrasjdhaskdjashdan's site have pressed me to say that I would rape a child in order to save someone's life...
______________________________________
Well Seixton..that has got to be the dumbest question I have ever heard..Even to pose a question like that sits on the fringes of humanity..
Now concerning the ticking bomb scenero..
If or when that may ever happen I think our gov't will go to whatever length needed to find the critical information..so why the days-long discussion of this? ( wwld ) (what would lincoln do)
Look, lets make this simple..If something like a ticking bomb requires discovery then go ahead and do what it takes to save lives.. If that is not on the agenda then the captured terrorist should be tried and hung..in a timely fashion..This gitmo stuff with coddling murderers pisses me off..there is no reason for these folks to be in gitmo for 3-5 years allowing the charges of torture of lawyers being involved..
Again, simply, if you were an unlawful combatant you get tried and hung..If you were a leader of unlawful combatants you get whats coming to you to extract information..sorry about that KSM..you lose.
Anything a 'foot-soldier' knows can be found on the web so torture need not play a part in holding them.
I know it's a simple view..but it beats the heck out of what we have been doing for 5 years..IMO

boris

Hey Tex, wanna be anti war? knock yourself out.

Wanna admonish us for using terms like "copperhead" or "treason" for people who actively (and illegally) undermine a democratic choice to make war on terror? And yet have nothing to say about them?

STFU.

Other Tom

You seem to be much more than a bit confused, Texas Toast. You excuse what happened on Lincoln's watch because he was "embarrassed?" You excuse it because it was his way out of a political difficulty? (Would that you would grant such a boon to the current commander-in-chief.)

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here: Under Lincoln, a US citizen was arrested, tried and convicted by a military tribunal for expressing his views. Under Bush, nothing remotely of the kind has occurred.

Under Bush, TT, what analogous outrage would you offer?

You tell us that "Lincoln’s position was that the rebellion constituted such a great threat to the nation’s existence that civilian courts were 'utterly incompetent' to deal with that threat. The courts later disputed even that." Your point, I suppose, is that in light of the position subsequently taken by the courts, Lincoln was an even more outrageous sado-fascist than Bushitler? If not, then what exactly is your point? Do I take it that you would be satisfied if Bush were now to say that the civilian courts are incompetent to deal with the Al Qaeda threat?

In any event, please tell us concisely just what Bushitler depredation comes closest to the arrest, trial and imprisonment of the hapless Vallandingham? We're on tenterhooks here...

boris

it's a simple view

And yet an officer was court marshalled for discharging his weapon to scare a captured illegal combatant into revealing the location of an ambush. His action saved lives of his men.

Continued denial of the lives lost due to ninny preener stupidity is simply craven. Honest debate would stipulate that an effective policy for coercive interrogation saves lives.

Enlightened

Oh Brother. Speaking of ninny preeners. Perhaps Cindy Sheehan needs a new lover.

"I cannot participate in a judicial process where the prospects of a fair trial are negligible, and more crucially, where the death penalty is a possibility,' writes James Loney who was kidnapped in Iraq in 2005"

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/216533

hoosierhoops

I'm sorry Boris..I was speaking of gitmo..
Battlefield actions are alot different and require different tacks..My son just spent 7 days in the field training for iraq and returns home for 5 days this weekend..
I am going to really talk to him about how the marines are training him to deal with these 'situations'. I'll post next week about what our boys and girls are being trained to do in this most difficult of days.

Pofarmer

AQ, an exixtential threat?

Well they would certainly like to be. .

Tell ya what, let's just give the Islamofascists Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Khazakhistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Yemen, etc, etc, etc, and see? What? Not good? The hell you say. Because that's what giving up in Iraq will do.

Rick Ballard

"I'll post next week about what our boys and girls are being trained to do in this most difficult of days."

We don't have any "boys" or "girls" under arms. The men and women volunteers who make up our armed forces tend to look disfavorably upon those seeking to infantilize them. Your son might be able to fill you in on that aspect, too.

That is, if he in fact exists. What was his unit again? Brigade or similiar level is fine - no need to identify the company. BTW - deployments aren't military secrets, the DoD publishes them regularly.

hoosierhoops

Rick: retract your fangs..
Everyone from the CIC on down calls the military 'our boys' so cool it.
Jordon is in the 3/5
that means he is in the 3rd battlion 5th marines 1st marine division, He is at camp pentleton..and yes pics are available per request..
he is being deployed to iraq in Sept. which I've said about a hundred times here..
Maybe you are having a bad day...sorry about that..are we cool now?

Other Tom

Can anyone find an instance in which Abe Lincoln used the phrase "existential threat?" I herewith offer to eat my hat upon learning of such an instance. Far too pussified for the Great Emancipator (under whose direction and at whose pleasure General Burnside served, by the way).

If Burnside's actions were so sado-fascist, Texas Toast, why didn't Lincoln issue an immediate pardon for Vallandingham? Why wasn't Burnside summarily fired?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame