| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 04:38:11 AM
|
| That's a smoke curtain, New Hinda. Everybody knows the puppet master behind the reptilians is Cthulhu, and He is in turn under control of the Stonecutters. |
 |
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2007 : 4:19:13 PM
|
I have fairly limited internet time right now, so just a short post. But if you're looking for an example of obsfucation and justification, Zombiewhacker, look no further than your own post. When I brought up Libby, you went into a litany of sins committed by Clinton, which is a complete non sequitur predicated on the fact that if I'm opposed to Bush, I must be a deeply partisan cheerleader for the democrats. In fact, I think Clinton did plenty of slimy, shady stuff. Leadership in the US has been in a pretty sorry state for the last 30 years; some days I honestly think Nixon was the least corrupt modern president. And presidential pardons are dumb, dumb, dumb. But the immediate issue is that Bush commuted the sentence of a man who obstructed justice in order to protect his own administration, and possibly himself. Of course it's naive fantasy to believe that someone who has power over the justice system will ever allow it to be used against himself, but doesn't it annoy you just a tad to see someone thumbing their nose this openly at the country they're supposed to be leading?
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2007 : 11:33:47 PM
|
In my initial post, I reflected on the hypocricy that many protestors around the world continually engage in; namely, the obsessive hatred of George W. Bush to the near-exclusion of all else.
Wen Jia-Bao is Premier over the biggest totalitarian government in the world, the People's Republic of China, which oppresses the rights of over a billion men and women. Chinese women are forced to abort children, prisoners' organs are harvested for sale, workers are exploited, abused, and yes, occasionally even tortured. China occupies Tibet and threatens Taiwan, et cetera et cetera. I realize this is not news to any of you; we've all heard the litany of abuses and human rights violations before.
Yet I guarantee you that 99% of your average Anti-G-8/International ANSWER/Amerikkka protester types couldn't name China's premier on a bet. Wouldn't recognize Wen Jia-Bao's name (nor that of China's president, Hu Jintao). Wouldn't recognize their photographs. And if they knew, probably wouldn't even care all that much. But the policies of the dreaded twenty-third letter of the alphabet? Them's fighting words!
That was my original point, and this anti-Bush tirade some of you have been inspired to engage in only strengthens my argument.
Neville, go to the political section of your local book store. Prankster, go to yours. Then please report back: which books cover more shelf real estate... anti-George Bush books or anti-Omar al-Bashir books? The Sudanese government has murdered millions and millions of blacks over the past two decades. It's one of the last governments on Earth that still practices black slavery. Yet how many people even know al-Bashir's name? Ever see European protestors burning al-Bashir in effigy? Betcha even if they did, the number of anti-al-Bashir demonstrations worldwide has been dwarved by the number of times that Voldermort Bush has been demonized by protestors, the media, and the world elites.
This was my original point, and nothing offered here has diminished my point in any way.
Now, onto your more specific points, which need to be addressed.
Firstly, Neville keeps dredging up the spectre of Abu Ghraib. I asked several times for Neville to provide proof that the abusers at Abu Ghraib were acting on the direct orders of the Bush administration. He provides none. Instead, he cites allegations of human rights abuses at other detention centers. Alright, let's address those:
Re: Amnesty International and the Guardian reports:
The problem with these reports is there is no corroboration. The detainees claim they were tortured and that for you is self-sufficient. No whistleblowers, no photographic evidence, nothing. Just their word.
We know that abuse at Abu Ghraib happened because we have the evidence. We know the names of the perpetrators involved: Specialist Charles Graner, Private Lynndie England, Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, Colonel Thomas Pappas, et al. Does the report you've highlighted name names? No. Provide any proof that these detainers were in fact tortured at the hands of the US? No.
Now is it possible these detainees are telling the truth? Of course. But you've got to back these accusations up with something more substantial than what you've shown.
Re: ABC News
Ironically, the Brian Ross report you cite backs up what I said. The most abusive interrogation technique Ross lists is waterboarding. The other techniques: the "attention grab", "attention slap", the "belly slap", the "long time standing" and the "cold cell" wouldn't qualify as torture anywhere in the universe outside of maybe the land of Oz, where even splashing water in somebody's face can mean instant death.
Re: Counterpunch
Counterpunch is a crackpot site run by the arch-Stalin and Mao admirer (and America-hater extraordinaire) Alexander Cockburn. You might as well be linking to David Duke's site, or to the Institute for Historical Review. Amnesty International, okay, fine. But Counterpunch?!! Come on.
You also fail to address my other point. You claim one of the reasons the world despises Bush is because Bush introduced the practice of rendition. But then I pointed out to you that it was the Clinton administration that introduced rendition, not the Bush administration. So how come the world ignores the role Clinton played, continuing to assert his "good" intentions while demonizing Bush?
EricB likens me to the 9/11 Truthers who blame Bush for the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. His evidence? I stated that Clinton bombed Bosnia for political gain. (Shudder!) Again, I cited former Clinton strategist Dick Morris as a source. Morris claims he and other advisors persuaded Clinton to get tough on Bosnia as a ploy to influence the US 1996 election. Again, I'm waiting... anything to say, EricB? If you can debunk Morris' claim, by all means, go for it. Otherwise...
EricB also, in complete wide-eyed innocence, claims Clinton's motives for bombing Sudan were as pure at the wind-driven snow. I countered that many terrorist attacks were carried out (and others planned) both before and after the bombing on Sudan. How come the only time Clinton felt the urge to respond militarily was also the one time he was in the hotseat for Monicagate? I'm still waiting.
Likewise, Prankster, in typical fashion, ignores almost every point I make and focuses on the one area where he thinks he can score a point: Scooter Libby! I say, "What about Brian Ross' contention that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammed prevented a terrorist attack on Los Angeles?" Prankster's answer: zip. I ask Prankster to provide proof that Bush is "every bit as bad" as Putin. Prankster's answer: silence. I ask him to show me where I obfuscated in any of the points I made above. His response: Scooter Libby!
Um... Prank... I never mentioned Scooter Libby until you did. So basically, you accused me of obfuscating on a point I never made. I mean, gee whiz, we can talk about Libby if you like, but I hardly see what the (Jabootu!) that has to do with any of my previous arguments.
Another post forthcoming.
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/11/2007 02:50:02 AM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 02:00:46 AM
|
The following argument is worthy of its own post, so I have decided to address it separately. It regards the prickly issue of pre-war intelligence. Neville in particular has continually misstated my position.
quote:
And really, if by this time you don't accept the Iraq invasion was carried out under false premises, you've been living under a stone for the past few years.
Yes, based on what we know now, it appears allegations about Iraq's WMD program were wrong on every point. That doesn't mean the Bush administration lied.
EricB falsely stated that Clinton didn't bomb Bosnia. Was EricB lying? No, he was in error.
Likewise, the Bush administration was in error. In fact, I have argued, and will argue again that, if anything, the Bush administration itself was misled. Don't believe me? Think I'm obfuscating? Well, I'll lay my cards on the table, then we'll see who's bluffing. Here we go:
(cracks his knuckles, takes deep breath)
After David Kay/Charles Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group failed to produce any evidence of an existing WMD program (and only a few stockpiles of working WMDs), the U.S. government convened several inquiries into where the Bush administration went wrong.
Among these commissions were:
The Senate U.S. Commission on Intelligence, chaired by Pat Roberts (R) and John D. Rockefeller (D). Additional Democrats on the commission included Democrats Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Dick Durbin, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, and Barbara Mikulski.
A separate but related Senate commission investigated the Iraqi National Congress and how their activities influenced US intelligence. This again was a bi-partisan committee with Roberts and Rockefeller acting as co-chairs. Democrats on this committee consisted of Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski, and Russ Feingold.
Another Senate Roberts-Rockefeller committee more closely investigated WMD claims, with Democrats Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski, and Feingold all participating.
Yet another bi-partisan committee examined the Bush administration's handling of WMD intelligence. This one was headed by Democrat Charles Robb and Republican Laurence Silberman, and included such Democrats as Richard Levin, Lloyd Cutler, and Patricia Wald.
I will be referring to these and other committee reports throughout this post, because their findings are germaine.
The arguments some of you seem to be continually making is, of course Bush lied about the intelligence... how could he not? For some reason it has never dawned on any of you that perhaps the intelligence agencies were the ones who got it wrong, and Bush was simply repeating what he honestly believed was correct information.
Let's take Niger foe example, since that seems to be the hot button issue that always tweaks the anti-Bush brigade.
According to the Roberts-Rockefeller Report on Intelligence, on September 2002 the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) published an assessment that "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake." The DIA report detailed Iraq's attempts to procure yellowcake from the African countries of Niger, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia. (p. 48) The assessment never stated that such transaction had gone through, only that yellowcake uranium had been sought (which is entirely consistent with the infamous sixteen words in Bush's State of the Union Address).
Around this same, British intelligence was also looking into allegations that Iraq was seeking to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa. For this, we turn to the UK's own self-inquiry into its intelligence failures, the Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, hereafter referred to as simply the Butler report in referrence to its chair person, Lord Butler of Brockwell.
First, it needs to be borne in mind that British intelligence was already assessing that "Iraq has a chemical and biological weapons capability and Saddam is prepared to use it" and "Saddam is prepared to order missile strikes against Israel,with chemical or biological warheads, in order to widen the war once hostilities begin." (Butler Report, p. 83).
Additionally, British intelligence was asserting that "Iraq could produce significant quantities of mustard agent within weeks; significant quantities of the nerve agents sarin and VX within months (and in the case of VX Iraq may already have done so). Production of sarin and VX would be heavily dependent on hidden stocks of precursors... Iraq could produce more biological agents within days." (Ibid., p. 84)
So where did the UK stand on the issue of yellowcake and Niger?
quote:
In early 1999, Iraqi officials visited a number of African countries, including Niger. The visit was detected by intelligence, and some details were subsequently confirmed by Iraq. The purpose of the visit was not immediately known. But uranium ore accounts for almost three-quarters of Niger's exports. Putting this together with past Iraqi purchases of uranium ore from Niger, the limitations faced by the Iraq regime on access to indigenous uranium ore and other evidence of Iraq seeking to restart its nuclear progamme, the JIC judged that Iraqi purchase of uranium ore could have been the subject of discussions and noted in an assessment in December 2000 that:
"...unconfirmed intelligence indicates Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium." (p. 122)
So US intelligence agencies were not the only ones who believed that Saddam was putting his feelers out to the yellowcake market in Africa. And what did the Butler commission ultimately make of the US and the UK's assertions?
quote:
We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attermpts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also the the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
was well-founded. (p. 123)
Further:
quote:
From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attmepts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of aquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this. (p. 125)
But, ah, you say, what about the infamous forged Niger documents. Surely the existence of said docs is proof of Bush depravity, no?
No.
The Butler report found that: "The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. (p. 125)"
So who forged those documents? Surely, Bush-Cheney-Rove played a nefarious role in disseminated the docs, yes?
No.
Remember when I said the US government intelligent itself was misled? This is a case in point. The person who first attempted to foist the Niger documents on US intelligence was Rocco Martino, an Italian who had worked for both SISMI and DGSE. SISMI is the Italian intelligence service. DGSE is French intelligence. Here, the story gets even screwier, for when this story broke in Europe (it was ignored in the US by most major new agencies with the exception of Newsday) fingers started being pointed in every direction as to who was ultimately to blame. For the record, the actual forgers were identified as Adam Maiga Zakariaou and Laura Montini, two members of the Niger embassy. The whole story is very convuluted, and I won't pretend to make sense of it here. But you can Google for more background using the names I've provided.
But surely, you argue, the CIA knew the documents were forged and passed that information onto Bush? Yes and no. Yes, the CIA eventually got around to reviewing the documents and determined them to be forgeries. They just never bothered to tell Bush before he made his State of the Union Speech:
quote:
The CIA had still not evaluated the authenticity of the documents when it coordinated on the State of the Union address, in which the President noted that the “British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Although there is some disagreement about the details of the coordination process, no one in the Intelligence Community had asked that the line be removed. At the time of the State of the Union speech, CIA analysts continued to believe that Iraq probably was seeking uranium from Africa, although there was growing concern among some CIA analysts that there were problems with the reporting. (Robb-Silberman report, p. 78)
The point I wish to make is this: foreign governments foisted the Niger documents on the US, and the US was duped. That's a fact. People who think that Bush lied on this issue simply don't know what they're talking about.
Which brings us to the Iraqi National Congress. The DGSE and SISMI weren't the only one peeing in George Bush's ear and telling him it was raining. The Roberts-Rockefeller report on the INC found that many falsehoods had been fed to US intelligence agencies by INC members themselves. One informant, referred to redacted reports as "Source Five", told the Defense Intelligence Agency that he saw "Saddam meeting with a man, who Uday Hussein identified as bin Ladin. Uday told Source Five he was there to discuss training of some of his people in Iraq. Source Five passed a DIA administered polygraph in which the source was questioned about provided reports, including the report on having seeing bin Ladin meeting with Saddam." [my emphasis](p. 90) This information was never corroborated, but neither was it disproved.
Roberts-Rockefeller, in one of their conclusions, found that "False information from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) -affiliated sources was used to support key Intelligence Community assessments on Iraq and was widely distributed in intelligence products prior to the war." Additionally, "the Iraqi National Congress (INC) attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." (p. 113). Presumably, then, Source Five was one of many prevaricators. For more information, read the committee's report. In any event,an Iraqi refugee claimed to have seen Saddam meeting with Bin Laden. That refugee then passed a lie-detector test. So if that information gets passed up the food chain and Bush ends up believing it, does that make Bush a liar?
Speaking of which...
I also mentioned that Curveball came to the US from German intelligence. None of you have challenged that assertion. And for good reason. You can't. Curveball was not a US intelligence asset. But, you argue, shouldn't the CIA been able to determine Curveball was a liar by themselves? After all, that's what they're paid to do, isn't it? Problem is: the CIA never met Curveball.
quote:
A CIA BW analyst told Committee staff that a Department of Defense (DOD) detailee who provided technical advice on CURVE BALL '... thought that the guy might be an alcoholic and that bothered him a lot.' The detailee who provided technical advice to the CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) on BW matters met CURVE BALL in May 2000 in order to administer (REDACTED). The detailee is the only American intelligence official to have met CURVE BALL before Operation Iraqi Freedom. [emphasis mine]" (Roberts-Rockefeller on Intelligence, p. 154).
Similarly, Robb-Silberman found that "One of the most painful errors, however, concerned Iraq’s biological weapons programs. Virtually all of the Intelligence Community’s information on Iraq’s alleged mobile biological weapons facilities was supplied by a source, codenamed Curveball, who was a fabricator." Curveball played a "prominent a role in the Intelligence Community’s biological weapons assessments." Ultimately, Robb-Silberman charged that the Defense Department "abdicated their responsibility to vet a critical source" and that the CIA analysts "placed undue emphasis on the source’s reporting because the tales he told were consistent with what they already believed" and finally that Intelligence Community leaders "failed to tell policymakers about Curveball’s flaws in the weeks before war.[my emphasis]" (Robb-Silberman, p. 48).
But go ahead. Keep perpetrating the conspiracy theory that Bushco simply made everything up.
Roberts-Rockefeller on Iraq and al Qaeda also confirm that "(i)n the fall of 2001, the Czech intelligence service provided the CIA with reporting based on a single source who stated that September 11 hijacker Muhammed Atta met with the Prague-based IIS Chief, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Am, in April 2001." (Roberts-Rockefeller WMD and Links to Terror, p. 95)"
Also:
"In Iraqi Support for Terrorism [an internal intelligence assessment - ZW] the CIA noted that 'various reports put Atta in Prague on at least four occasions between late 1994 and the spring of 2001.' The CIA could confirm only two of the visits-in December 1994 and June 2000-but neither of the trips matched the date of the meeting between al-Am and Atta alleged by the Czechs. (Ibid, p. 95)"
Now my assertion is not that this intelligence is accurate. In fact, the Czech intelligence finding could be completely false. My point, again, is that this what other intelligence agencies were telling the US. Ironically, in this case, the Czechs were even more convinced of an al Qaeda-Iraq meeting than the CIA, which was more skeptical.
So now we have the CIA and DIA (US), British intelligence, French and Italian intelligence, and Czech intelligence all disseminating faulty and in some cases completely false information. Want more? Here's what the Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies (an Australian committee report) had to say about the role our friends Down Under played in this fiasco:
"While these US and UK views were stronger than many others, including Austalia's, it is noteworthy that prior to the coalition's military action against Iraq on 19 March 2003, the only government in the world that claimed Iraq was not working on, and did not have, biological and chemical weapons or prohibited missile systems was the Government of Saddam Hussein. [emphasis mine]" (p. 22)
"ONA (Office of National Assessments) and DIO (Defence Intelligence Organisation), along with the rest of the international community, failed to judge accurately the extent and nature of Iraq's WMD programmes. And both agencies assessments about Saddam's intent and capacity to use WMD against US forces, or against those countries who allowed their territory to be used by the US in the event of a US-led invasion, were not borne out." (p. 25)
Anyway, you get the idea. The notion that before the Iraq war the US alone was arguing for the existence of WMDs and a Saddam-al Qaeda nexus is complete, unadulterated bunk.
But what about... Hans Blix? Surely he, Guardian and Protector of Truth and the Universe, will surely back the conspiratorial notion of Bush as Lone Gunman.
Um... sorry, to disappoint. In fact, he even confirms the assertion that French intelligence believed Iraq to have an active WMD program, pace France's premier, Jacques Chirac.
"Chirac said France did not have any 'serious evidence' that Iraq retained proscribed weapons. Having met with people from French intelligence and listened to them, I registered with keen interest that Chirac did not share their conclusions on Iraq [my emphasis]. The intelligence services sometimes 'intoxicate each other,' he said. Personally, he did not believe that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. ("Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, p. 128)"
French intelligence told Blix they believed Saddam had WMDs, but Chirac didn't believe them. Okay, looks like Chirac was right for the most part. But my contention still stands: the DGSE, like Bush and his intelligence agencies under him, believed Saddam had WMDs.
Now, were the French in complete lockstep with US intelligence agencies? No. As Blix later points out, the DGSE "seemed unsure, for instance, about mobile biological weapon production facilities." (Ibid., p. 194) No, of course not. That intelligence came from Germany.
So why all the confusion? How could so many intelligence outfits prove so wrong? Blix surmises based on his experiences:
"A common denominator of the failures, it appears, was a deficit of critical thinking... The assertion that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been so oft repeated that it was taken for granted in most of the world. The intelligence communities themselves should have provided the critical thinking but, like others, they seem to have gotten carried away, As I have said, intelligence agencies prefer to err on the alarmist side, because they will normally not be criticized for overstating threats but will be severely criticized for mnimizing dangers or not identifying them -- as happened before the 1991 Gulf War when they, like the IAEA, lacked knowledge about Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
"Like most others, we at UNMOVIC certainly suspected that Iraq might still have hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons. However, we were not asked by the Security Council to submit suspicions or simply to convey testimony from defectors. Assessments and judgements in our reports had to be based on evidence that would remain unconvincing even under critical international examination." (Ibid, p. 264)
In short, no matter what you think about the rightness or the wrongness of the war, cut the Bush Lied People Died crap. Please.
For. God's. Sake.
|
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 07/11/2007 02:19:57 AM |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 05:14:26 AM
|
Well, you won't believe me but I think your sources are very convincing. But (you knew that would appear at some point, didnt't you?) I'm sure that for every convincing source that Saddam had WMDs there were several others that said the opposite. You have to consider too that this was second hand information, and U.N. inspectors, who had been in Iraq during the months prior to the invasion negated the existance of WMDs or even the attempt to create them. As for that "the assertion that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been so oft repeated that it was taken for granted in most of the world"... well, that wasn't exactly the case. I only remember the U.S. and the U.K. buying that. Other countries turned later in favour of the invasion, but I can't say wether they believed in the U.S. reports or they just though it would benefit them politically.
As a supporter of this administration, I do understand that the claims that Bush lied on purpose annoy you to no end... but I can't change what I think of the matter. I can't prove it, of course, but I have the strong feeling Bush took advantage of the post 9/11 situation to push his own agenda regarding Iraq. I'll be the first to admit I haven't any evidence (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but it seems pretty logical to me. And yes, I am aware of how subjective that is. |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 07:23:57 AM
|
Look Zombie, I find angry political arguments wearying and I'm sorry I got involved in this. No, I wasn't trying to argue that all of Clinton's reasons for his military actions were "clear as driven snow" (which when you think about it isn't very clear at all, visibility is terrible in blizzards) just that there was probably more to it than that he was just trying to save his reputation. Sure maybe some of that figured into it (as I'm sure it figured in many of Bush's foreign policy actions, Karl Rove was a very influential figure in his administration and I doubt he was at cabinet meetings for his foreign policy expertise) but I'm just sick of the wholsale demonization of Clinton from American conservatives. Sure the guy was a sleazeball, hell I didn't even vote for him in 2006, but I think making him out to be this evil, self absorbed monster is taking it a bit far (partucularly when it is applied to his actions in the Kosovo War, like the proper thing would have been to give Milosovic a free hand there?). And for the record I find the left's demonization of Bush wearying too. Though I dislike Bush passionately I think the Michael Moore and Ted Rall crowd take it way too far, particularly Rall with that ugly Generalisimo image that appears in his cartoons.
As far as the remark on the 9/11 stuff. I didn't really mean you personaly just that generally I find much of the anti-Clinton hysteria comparable to the current anti-Bush hysteria. I don't think either of them is as "evil" as their passionate detractors make out though neither are going to give Lincoln or Washington a run for the money in the greatness sweepstakes either.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 7:47:14 PM
|
"'Clear' as driven snow?" Oy, American politics screws with my brain. I give up.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 4:30:23 PM
|
Zombie, as I stated very clearly in my post, I don't have much internet time these days (right now included), and your argument requires a detailed reply with cited quotes, etc. I still plan to respond, possibly tonight, but I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate, and this can't be a priority (so I guess I shouldn't have waded into this argument in the first place, but it'll keep).
I brought up Libby because this is a "flame thread"--I guess I should have kept it a seperate argument, though it is relevant as an example of the kind of duplicity in which the Bush administration dabbles, which IS one of the topics under discussion here.
And very briefly: there are a lot of ways to interrogate people which get more reliable results and don't involve doing something morally reprehensible that erodes our credibility and turns the world against us. I have no doubt waterboarding can accomplish certain short-term objectives. Nuking Afghanistan four years ago probably would have accomplished some useful short-term objectives, too. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. I'm honestly driven to despair at how many people are defending these practices. By the way, whatever the US's torture practices, they also sponsor renditions to countries that perform the kind of acts you DO acknowledge as torture...but again, I'm going to have to save that for a longer post. Dammit.
By the way, it's "PURE as the driven snow", which makes a lot more sense.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 03:20:32 AM
|
*bump*
Since I last posted, there have been a few developments in this arena. One, the name of CURVE BALL has finally been released. His name is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, and confirming what I posted earlier, he was a source for German's intelligence agency and not the CIA.
Also it turns out that despite all the hair-pulling over alleged widespread abuse during terrorist interrogations, the US has only waterboarded three prisoners during the entire War on Terror, one of them being Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9-11, and none have been waterboarded in almost two years.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html
Not that this news will be any source of relief to people like Prankster, who analogize running water over KSM's face to dropping nukes on Afghanistan.
Happy turkey day! |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 2:26:21 PM
|
Pro-torture arguments always remind me of this:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsFfBB2W7IA[/url]
And that's about as much as anyone can usefully say on the subject.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 3:04:14 PM
|
| Torture in every form is abominable, no matter what Jack Bauer might say. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 3:47:32 PM
|
(Sigh) OK, I know this is a mistake, but I'm going to do it anyway, just to put a bow on this stupidity.
Waterboarding is torture. It was certainly found to be so during WWII, when the US charged several Japanese officers with inflicting it on US troops, including one Yukio Asano, who was sentenced to 15 years hard labour, which appears to have been the standard sentence.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html[/url]
The fact that it's clearly been used throughout the 20th century does not make it OK. The number of people who have been waterboarded in the War on Terror (so far) is irrelevant. The fact that it was on an approved list of techniques, as per Zombie's link, is germaine only insofar as it shows the depths to which this administration is willing to sink. It's a morally loathsome thing to do, and I am genuinely freaked out that so many people are defending it these days. This isn't like faith-based initiatives or affirmative action or even abortion, where there are clearly decent people of conviction on both sides, and I can respect someone I don't agree with.
I might be more easygoing if it was a purely abstract question--a "who would you eat first?" kind of thing--but this is very clearly something that has a real-world impact. We're not talking about people in an extreme situation doing things under "cover of night", having to make an extreme moral choice, and being charged with it 20 years later. We're not talking about the nonsensical Jack Bauer situations that this debate always seems to lead to, and to which my link above is referring. We're talking about torture as policy, about something that's going to be given the OK from above, to be used as public policy. It has immense significance, far beyond getting info from a suspected terrorist today, and saying "The US is always going to be disliked, so we should just do what we like" doesn't begin to cover it.
I don't focus on the fact that torture doesn't seem to be a very effective method of extracting information very much, because to me that's not even the point, but looking at it for just a second: it's clear that the information achieved through torture is frequently unreliable, so it really doesn't matter if you occasionally extract useful information via torture. Common sense should indicate that information with, let's be generous and say a 75% accuracy rate, is not particularly useful information. That might be adequate if it was the only form of information extraction available, and if there were no repercussions, but it's not and there are.
The Madrid bombers were caught and prosecuted without the use of torture. The 1993 WTC bombers were caught and prosecuted without the use of torture. Lots and lots of criminals have been caught and had their operations foiled without torture. It seems to me that the only instance in which torture could ever be both useful AND the only possible recourse is in the 'ticking time bomb' scenario so beloved of the right--and even then you'd have to deal with false confessions and dubious information.
You know what torture is really good for? Extracting confessions. That's not really much help in stopping bomb plots. The evidence that it's ever done so is murky and vague, like the Los Angeles plot that Zombie sites above. There's so much we don't know about operations like this: was there a ticking clock? Was all the info KSM gave accurate? What exactly was accomplished? Zombie cites Brian Ross, so here's a link to one of his stories: [url]http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866[/url]. Almost all the info comes from unnamed sources within the CIA, dealing with (presumably) classified operations, and even there there appears to be some fairly intense debate going on over just how effective torture is. I don't find "trust us, there's been good things accomplished via torture" to be a very compelling argument, especially given the insistance by folks like Larry Johnson, cited in the article, that more psychological methods of interrogation are far more reliable and effective forms of extracting information. (If it even needs to be said, I obviously have no problem with threats, cajolery, and psychological manipulation of suspects.)
More to the point, though, torture is just morally wrong and has an immense long-term cost in a war that's fought--or ought to be fought--using information, diplomacy, gamesmanship and "hearts and minds". The US has gotten by without legalizing or even condoning torture for 200 years. Sure, it's been perpetrated in that time, and that's horrible. But it was illegal and immoral, it was usually kept secret when done, and in general it's been seen as something to do away with whenever possible. But now we have people openly arguing in favour of getting rid of the legal and moral stigma attached to at least one form of torture, not to mention the reactionary "They're terrorists, we oughtta be able to do what we like to them" type of arguments. Has everyone gone insane?
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 6:56:00 PM
|
Actually, in regards to this last matter we are really not that far apart. I don't want waterboarding to be standard operating procedure either, and certainly never to extract confessions. Waterboard me for thirty seconds and you'll get me to admit I'm Tallulah Bankhead.
Now if you were to argue that the so-called "Jack Bauer" scenario (in this case, the bomb plot on LA) occurs only .0000000001% of the time, then I only want to see waterboarding employed .0000000001% of the time.
Prankster is correct in asking what exactly were the circumstances surround KSM's interrogation. Ross has stated (via his source) that every other available interrogation technique had been already tried and failed before the CIA fell back to employing the waterboard. (In other words, they had run out of options.)
(I should also point outthat Brian Ross has revealed in interviews that his CIA insider source is someone who is opposed to waterboarding. If Ross is credible, this wasn't some Bush spinmeister, this was a waterboarding opponent grudgingly admitting that there was at least one case where the technique proved effective... and ended up saving perhaps thousands of lives.)
P.S. For the record, 24 is a stupid show and I haven't watched it since its first season. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2007 : 11:16:28 PM
|
I just think it would be nice if we could begin from the assumption that torture is bad and we shouldn't do it, and if someone found themselves in the nightmarishly extreme position of having to choose to torture someone, that we could analyze that later on a case by case basis instead of trying to giving people an advance wink and a nod. I made joking reference to cannibalism above, but the truth of the matter is, there's a vast difference between actually having your plane crash in the Andes and finding yourself forced to do anything neccessary to survive, and writing an op-ed column trying to pre-emptively excuse cannibalism, just in case you find yourself trapped in an elevator with me and finding yourself a mite peckish. If it's the former, well, I may not be in a position to judge. But too many people seem to be writing the op-ed column these days.
And again, I'm not convinced that even the 0.00001% situation ever actually occurs in real life. I can't think of a historical example, can you? I'm concerned, instead, that the various "tough guy" approaches the Bush administration has been adopting, including torture, are deliberately chosen to send a message to the enemy--which, I think, is absolutely the wrong approach, aside from being morally dodgy. It wins sympathy for the terrorists, encourages them to fight to the death or blow themselves up instead of engaging in straightforward combat, and makes it harder to reach some kind of accord.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2007 : 2:06:43 PM
|
With all my heart I believe that torture and war is bad. But there are people in this world (Who I do not have to name, they know who they are) who don't believe as we do. I wish that SOMEONE (Looks "left") would enlighten them because they have already convinced us.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked