BoatBanter.com - Yeah, I know "plonk"

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)

- - Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

Yeah, I know "plonk"

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:39:46 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

A gross distortion. You need to take a look at something beyond those
left
wing blogs, Not At All. If you had done so you would have discovered
that
your courageous Congress after dithering for several years dealt with
the
issue like a hot potato, finally deciding in 2006 to provide retroactive
legal protection to those U.S. personnel who engaged in or directed the
activity.

I will credit Obama with the political guts to step up to the plate and
say
that if a few thousand or a few hundred thousand Americans get killed as
a
result of prohibiting the activity, he takes responsibility for that
result.

It's a fact...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html

I missed the part of the article about what our courageous Congress did in
2006. Perhaps you can direct me to that part.

I'd suggest talking to your fellow Republicans.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"

wrote in message
...
The particular action at hand is simply the same rationalization used by
despots since time immemorial. Namely, the ends justify the means.
Immoral acts, performed for moral ends, are justified. Using this method
of "reasoning", it is perfectly moral and ethical for a mother to, say,
kill and eat her parents if that is the only way to save herself and her 5
children. No problems with that right?

A very poor example. In fact, the mother would likely choose to aputate one
or two limbs from her parents, then smoke the meat until it becomes ham.
Neither parent would die, and they'd all eat well for a few weeks. To kill
both parents would be a total waste.

Yeah, I know "plonk"

wrote in message
...
Oh, and your refutation of "torture" equating to "cruel"? Did I miss
that? Twist and squirm all you want Dave, the subject was "Torture",
irrespective of which techniques comprise that term. Stephen says he
sanctions "Torture", not just waterboarding, and that violates a
constitutional prohibition. Time to wake up and smell the 18th century.
Was that too many syllables for you?

Keith

Let's look at it this way:

The prohibition is against "cruel and unusual punishment." It can be either
cruel OR unusual, but not both. As long as we do it all the time, it's not
unusual at all, and so therefore we can be as cruel as we like.

Winning hearts and minds, one at a time.

Yeah, I know "plonk"

On Mar 9, 11:32*am, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:07:06 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

wrote:
Stephen Trapani *wrote:
I'm sure you would agree that *if* you obtain information that prevents
slaughter of innocents by dunking someone in water a few times, you have
not done something wrong, you have done something good.

No, actually I woould not agree that torture is "good" under any
realistic circumstances.

You can construct all sorts of theoretical justifications; but the
facts are pretty clear... torture does not yield useful or reliable
intel. OTOH it's great if you want to convert a few heretics before
you burn them; but fortunately most of the civilizedworld has out
grown that.

.... I am not arguing that all torture is okay, I'm arguing
that there is such a thing as torture that is okay.

And that's what makes you sick in the head.... or at least not
civilized enough to be making serious decisions that affect the rest
of our society.

Well, by all civilized standards, allowing the slaughter of innocents to
protect the rights of a killer is sick in the head, isn't it? Clearly
you have taken your rationalizing on the issue so far that it makes no
sense anymore. Common with herd mentality issues like this.

The problem with Doug's argument is that it relies upon labeling as a
substitute for thought. Rather than dealing with the specific question you
pose, he labels your proposal "torture," and deems that sufficient to
foreclose further discussion of the policy question.

What do -you- call holding somebody's head under water until he
"almost" drowns?

And please note that

1- US 'interrogaters" using waterboarding and other "harsh" or
"pressure" methods have in fact killed many of their captive subjects.
pThis makes debating whether or not it's "really torture" or just all-
good-fun prankmanship rather backward. When pranksters kill people
accidentally, it's called "1st degree murder."

2- killing the subject certainly limits the amount of info gained, eh?

3- there are/were a lot of "methods" used besides waterboarding,
including an indoor form of crucifixion. What fun!

4- I have said nothing at all against using INTELLIGENT methods of
gaining info, such as playing scratchy Elvis songs at 120 decibels
(such as was used to flush out Noriega). Although the best method is
to turn the interrogee into a collaborator, that takes time... and a
lot more skill & intelligence than torture.

I will credit Doug with possibly adding a substantive claim that
waterboarding doesn't work. I say "possibly" because again rather than
making that specific claim he invokes the T word to claim that "torture"
doesn't work

Well, it doesn't. The only people who say it does are Bush/Cheney
propagandists.... at least nowadays. In the past, torture had it's
enthusiastic adherents.

And trying to say that crucifixtion & waterboarding are not "torture"
is a not a red herring, it's a big fat lie. Of course, you're very
comfortable with that as a basic tactic.

Lastly, let's take a look at the premise that by NOT torturing
captives, we are "allowing" terrorists to carry out their planned
attacks... a very very misplaced moral responsibility.

Of course, for a group that is openly hoping that millions more
Americans will lose their jobs & homes, will suffer medical
misfortunes they can'tafford, and that as a result President Obama's
popularity will wane, isn't really out of place hoping that terrorists
will attack & kill thousands of Americans so they can blame Obama for
that too.... doesn't really have much of a sense of morality OR
responsibility, do they?

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"

Actually, it is. Last year I received a fairly prestigious award for it.

Marty wrote:
Oh well, I hadn't realized that your middle name is "Jax", tell me, did
you also write a definitive tract on the subject?

Aww heck, you beat me too it!

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On 9 Mar 2009 13:57:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:27:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

While you may personally agree with this approach, it is
nevertheless antithetical to the US constitution.

Sigh...went right over your head too, eh.

Sigh...arguing against reality is a tough sell unless you're a preacher,
eh.

The careful reader would have noted that I haven't expressed any view as
to
whether waterboarding has produced useful information. I have simply
observed that trying to stick the generic label "torture" on the procedure
doesn't advance the ball toward resolving the fact question.

Unfortunately there seem to be few careful readers present. Else I
wouldn't
have to provide the Cliff Notes.

Waterboarding was prosecuted as torture and as a war crime by the
United States Government.

The "Guvmint" has already established that it's torture, Dave.

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.

I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

The stories of "brain washing" in Korea were not, I suspect, cut from
whole cloth.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"

And, it's well-documented that it doesn't work.

Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
I would disagree with you.

In one case I witnessed the individual who "confessed" admitting that
he was beaten until he confessed, in a second, an individual who
stated he witnessed the act said that it worked and several
descriptions I have read of WW II British agents in Occupied France
specifically state that the Germans gained sufficient information from
partisans that they were able to capture others in the group.

As well there are fairly well documented cases in Russia of people
who, for some reason, confessed to outlandish crimes and were
executed. Generally attributed to torture.

In short the "it doesn't work" argument needs a lot of qualification
to be wholly correct.

Oh, I don't think so.

Crime confessions obtained by torture, where the primary proof of
guilt is the confession, doesn't make the info accurate. Only that you
punished somebody for a crime. That covers the Russian incident you
refer to...

As for the Nazis, well they may have caught some partisans by using
info gained by torture, but they did not eradicate the Resistance...
in fact the Resistance grew steadily. And in the end, who won?

So yeah, the evidence seems very strong that torture doesn't work....
thanks Bruce!

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"

Dave wrote:
result.

It's a fact...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201170_pf.html

I missed the part of the article about what our courageous Congress did in
2006. Perhaps you can direct me to that part.

I didn't miss the part where you said, "A gross distortion. You need to
take a look at something beyond those left wing blogs, Not At All" in
response to Jon's allegation that the US had prosecuted those who
engaged in water boarding for torture...

Nice arabesque, well not really. Actually a rather clumsy obfuscation.

Cheers
Martin

Yeah, I know "plonk"