"Two Republican no votes — and opposition from Senator John McCain of Arizona, the victim of torture in Vietnam who was not present for the vote — were more than offset by Democrats, most of whom represent states that Mr. Trump won in 2016," the NYT reports.
One of the most impressive female firsts in American history.
१७ मे, २०१८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५५ टिप्पण्या:
255 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»A triumph for women’s liberation!
Arizona only gets to have one Senator. It should be unconstitutional.
Can anyone comment on the reported fact that she was a protege of Brennan? Anyone know what her politics are? She is being praised on the Right, but what do we actually know about her?
How did McCain cast that vote ?
I remember when Pete Wilson came on a hospital gurney to cast a deciding vote when he was a Senator.
Did McCain pair with a Democrat ? That would be appropriate.
Why is it impressive. Women are aa'd into management all over.
Even impressive things aren't impressive. She did all this and is only a girl, is the message of the impressive.
Two Republican no votes — and opposition from Senator John McCain of Arizona
Virtues were signaled I guess.
It always seems a little futile to try to convince another person what torture is and what it isn't in your view. Being sanctimonious and morally superior just feels so damn good.
The yoni winds up in charge. No Laurel.
LLR Chuck no longer has to pretend he was supporting her and he can immediately flex to attacking her daily.
Impressive for a girl
http://www.shorpy.com/node/23388
read the comments
Michael K: "How did McCain cast that vote?"
McCain probably gave Harry Reid his proxy, who promptly transferred it to LLR Chuck's beloved Dick Durbin.
Old habits are hard to break....
McCain was tortured because he tried to Bomb Them Back to the Stone Age™
He was a bad man.
How did McCain cast that vote ?
He didn't cast a vote. He was merely "opposed" it said.
It's amazing how many things we celebrate as amazing firsts for women---- when they happen in Democratic administrations.
Isn't McCain dead yet? He is no Cato.
I am sorry, I must have missed the Stormy Daniels connection in this story.
The CIA glass ceiling is officially shattered!
You've come a long way, Baby. (Ad for Virginia Slims in the late 1960s).
"A triumph for women’s liberation!"
And a defeat for the rule of law.
Helped by those crazy leftist (sic) Democrats!
"I am sorry, I must have missed the Stormy Daniels connection in this story."
Heh. The Left has Stormy, we have Gina.
No, I don't think anyone not deep in the inside knows whether this is a good appointment or not.
And its the CIA. Its difficult to say what counts as a good appointment there. There are no real public accomplishments or scandals or notoriety. Their friends and maybe even their enemies can't talk about what matters.
Not Brennan of course, but? All is in that darkness. I don't know how Senators are supposed to vet this sort of appointment.
And a defeat for the rule of law
Note to Robert Cook, “Rule of law,” like “unconstitutional,” or “the Geneva Convention” doesn’t strictly break according to what you like or don’t like.
"And a defeat for the rule of law."
Which is and always has been a fiction.
Can anyone comment on the reported fact that she was a protege of Brennan?
Yeah.....Is she just another insurance policy?? How far will Brennan fall?
"...but what do we actually know about her?"
That she participated in an illegal torture program and destroyed evidence (videotapes) showing torture of two persons.
That's all one needs to know to reject her from any government position, (and to prosecute her, but a lawless government won't prosecute its lawless members...unless those who act to uncover the government's lawlessness).
So if waterboarding and bashing someone's head against a wall is not torture and are useful interrogation techniques, why don't we have American police deploy them against suspected American criminals?
@Robert Cook sez:
And a defeat for the rule of law.
But President Bush told us the 9/11 assault on the World Trade Center was an "act of war."
And nearly the entire Congress voted to authorize the War.
And, during time of war, often the rule of law doesn't quite fit. Surely, if we can shoot our declared enemies (Osama Bin Laden), cant' we waterboard their ass too (Khalid Sheikh Muhammed)?
Breaking news:
In an attempt to divert attention from the on-going Stormy Daniels Scandal, the Republican Senate Confirmed Trump's CIA Director.
This is CNN. (Certainly Not News)
Now she needs to act like john mccain.
Tommorrow Endorse Torture and say your comments to the Senate Committee were just "campaign rhetoric"
And add: "Fuck You, McCain".
Another glass ceiling Republicans have broken through that will, in a future Democrat administration, be listed as one of their accomplishments. Of course.
One word -- WINNING!
@Bay Area Guy:
And, during time of war, often the rule of law doesn't quite fit. Surely, if we can shoot our declared enemies (Osama Bin Laden), cant' we waterboard their ass too (Khalid Sheikh Muhammed)?
Given that calculation, is there anything you believe the United States shouldn't do to suspected terrorists? Prolonged beatings or whippings, mutilation, electro shock, etc.?
"But President Bush told us the 9/11 assault on the World Trade Center was an 'act of war.'
"And nearly the entire Congress voted to authorize the War.
"And, during war time, often the rule of law doesn't quite fit. Surely, if we can shoot our declared enemies, such as Khalid Sheik Muhammed, we could waterboard his ass too, no?"
No.
9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a criminal act by stateless terrorists. This past decade and a half and still counting are "wartime" because we started the wars.
Congress didn't vote to authorize war...they voted to cede their authority to declare war and gave Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted whenever he wanted if he decided there was a basis to do so. Those who voted for this are all cowardls and are complicit in the crimes we have perpetrated following the AUMF.
The rule of law still pertains in wartime, but the government often ignores it and who is going to stop or prosecute them?
One can shoot an opponent on a battlefield who is trying to kill you, but to torture someone who is incarcerated, bound and helpless to resist is illegal and depraved.
I don't know how Senators are supposed to vet this sort of appointment.
Rand Paul asked about her possible role in the present Russiagate scandal.
I don't know if he ever got an answer. I guess that's why he voted No.
Enemy Combatants is no joke. They give us no quarter and deserve none back. ISIL loved to display POWs in iron cages to be burned to death in gasoline or drowned in a cage dropped under the water. And that is the opposition. So why would we give up using everyday Seal POW interrogation training? Is it really for our reputations in a Heaven that no one in this discussion actually believes in, or is it cheap shot politics by pretend heroes?
tradguy: " ISIL loved to display POWs in iron cages to be burned to death in gasoline or drowned in a cage dropped under the water. And that is the opposition."
That's only because horrible capitalists in the US refused to provide the appropriate heaters to keep the prisoners warm and so Robert Cook's pals on the terrorist front were unable to keep the prisoners "toasty warm" in any other way.
Stupid Americans! Right Comrade cookie?
"Why is it impressive. Women are aa'd into management all over."
I agree. I think the Democrats having CIA affirmative action for Liars and Communists was more impressive.
" why don't we have American police deploy them against suspected American criminals?"
Because this was done to foreign enemies of the US, that are in a war with you. You also tend to shoot such characters out of hand if they bother you enough, and don't mind too much if foreign bystanders are harmed in the process.
The opposite idea is absurd. I can see it now - the Marines land on Iwo Jima armed with subpoenas and handcuffs.
Communists had been discriminated for years at the CIA, before Brennan broke the Red Glass Ceiling.
@traditionalguy:
Well, for one, I don't want to live in a country where my president has the ability to unilaterally kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to secret prisons, torture them for information, and then dump them if they're not actually guilty of anything.
what is the big damn deal about waterboarding?
We waterboarded 3 people. 3 terrorists. geeez. nation of pussies if that's too much.
@J Farmer,
Given that calculation, is there anything you believe the United States shouldn't do to suspected terrorists? Prolonged beatings or whippings, mutilation, electro shock, etc.?
It's a reasonable question, but it shows how far you've lost sight of the issue confronting us after 9/11.
War is hell. You intentionally kill combatants (often young draftees), you unintentionally kill innocents (collateral damage).
Early on, after the Democrats voted to authorize both the War on Terror and the Iraq War, they did everything in their power to sabotage both. They kinda did the same thing in Vietnam. Vote for War, then sabotage it and pull out. So, I simply don't listen to the Left on anything relating to War. They have unclean hands on the topic.
Back to your question: I certainly want there to be acceptable rules of conduct, i.e., something along the lines of the Geneva Convention. I am against mistreating prisoners of war. But, when you're battling animal terrorists who target civilians, and don't wear uniforms, well, it's a bit asymetrical. I don't think Al Queda complied with the Geneva Convention either. So, in those unique modern-day circumstances, I just don't get too perturbed about water-boarding the terrorist mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
I could be wrong, though.
@buwaya:
Because this was done to foreign enemies of the US, that are in a war with you. You also tend to shoot such characters out of hand if they bother you enough, and don't mind too much if foreign bystanders are harmed in the process.
The opposite idea is absurd. I can see it now - the Marines land on Iwo Jima armed with subpoenas and handcuffs.
Right, because kidnapping someone in Germany based on secret evidence, taking them to a secret prison, and torturing until you're sure they're not guilty of anything, and then dumping them is exactly like the Marines landing in Iwo Jima.
No.
9/11 wasn’t an act of war, it was a criminal act by stateless terrorists.
Then I suggest you go back to the Geneva Convention for what is allowed when dealing with “stateless terrorists.” Bullet to the head clearly allowed.
Not to mention, Mullah Omar was giving this “stateless terrorist” shelter, basically giving him a letter of marque.
"Right, because kidnapping someone in Germany based on secret evidence, taking them to a secret prison, and torturing until you're sure they're not guilty of anything, and then dumping them is exactly like the Marines landing in Iwo Jima."
Worse was done in WWII. Much worse. To a degree and in such frequency that's hard to put across in comments. The secret war was just as brutal as the open one.
Just a vignette - Volckmann's guerrillas killed Ferdinand Marcos' father, a notorious collaborator, by hitching carabaos to his limbs to pull him apart.
@Bay Area Guy:
So, in those unique modern-day circumstances, I just don't get too perturbed about water-boarding the terrorist mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
I could be wrong, though.
Again, I think this points to the totally problematic effort of trying to fight a "war" against an enemy that is not organized and does not control any territory. It just does not make sense. I don't want the CIA to have the power to kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to a secret prison, and torture them. That is essentially a recipe for a president to fight perpetual war all over the globe.
@buwaya:
Worse was done in WWII. Much worse. To a degree and in such frequency that's hard to put across in comments. The secret war was just as brutal as the open one.
Just a vignette - Volckmann's guerrillas killed Ferdinand Marcos' father, a notorious collaborator, by hitching carabaos to his limbs to pull him apart.
So what? The Japanese committed mass rapes as part of their massacre in Nanking. Would that justify American soldiers doing the same to Japanese women?
You intentionally kill combatants (often young draftees), you unintentionally kill innocents (collateral damage).
But there are rules in war. You don't kill captives and you don't torture them. Torture is against the Geneva Convention (and not just for legitimate combatants, but for everyone). Also, regardless of the Geneva Conventions there is a treaty, to which we are a signatory, which bans torture, no exceptions.
Ramsey, another US officer and guerrilla commander, like Volckmann, under the control of South West Pacific Area command - under MacArthur, kept an insane teenage boy as a designated executioner, and torturer, of collaborators and deserters. He used a bayonet.
"Would that justify American soldiers doing the same to Japanese women?"
No, nothing "justifies" anything. I only point out what is customary in this sort of war.
Then I suggest you go back to the Geneva Convention for what is allowed when dealing with “stateless terrorists.” Bullet to the head clearly allowed.
Please provide a citation to the relevant section of the Conventions. I guarantee you you will not be able to provide it.
You are lying or completely ignorant (most likely both).
J Farmer,
Nice straw man.
Megan McArdle said it best: .“I don’t understand how anyone can XXXXXX” This kind of statement conveys layers of meaning.
The first layer is the literal meaning of the words:I lack the knowledge to figure this out.
But the second, intended meaning is the opposite: I am so vastly superior that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to such obviously wrong conclusions.
And yet the takeaway when I hear someone say this is a third meaning: I lack the empathy, moral imagination or analytical skills to attempt even a basic understanding of the people who disagree with me. In short, this argument says: "I'm stupid."
When I was just out of school, I interviewed with the CIA.
It was in an office building in Dallas, and you were buzzed-in to the office through a double-doored chamber. I remember I was interviewed by a woman, and I almost walked out after she told me....."There is a common kitchen appliance invented by the CIA, but I can't tell you what it is."
My bullshit meter pegged, and then I thought who could possibly work with such petty people?
I can understand why they don't send rejection letters.....cuz I'd wear it like a scarlet 'A'.
J. Farmer asserts: Well, for one, I don't want to live in a country where my president has the ability to unilaterally kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to secret prisons, torture them for information, and then dump them if they're not actually guilty of anything.
So, what country will you be moving to?
But there are rules in war.
Only up to a point.
Which means there are NO rules in war.
"But there are rules in war."
There are supposedly rules in war, that almost always are breached for perfectly understandable human reasons. Rules are fictions that are sustainable only if both sides agree to follow them - and this goes down to the lowest level of the forces under command. In fact and in universal practice the rules are enforced with laxity when at the sharp end, especially in retaliation for enemy violations.
US forces (and British ones) also regularly issued informal "no prisoners" orders. And secret outfits were laws unto themselves.
Obama all but issued a “no prisoners” order when he made such a big deal about closing down Gitmo without replacing it.
Hey its a discussion about torture.
Its 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2009 - all over again.
I hope the settle the matter this time.
Unlike the other 10,000 discussions.
Is there any way to really know if this is a good appointment?
It pisses off a lot of the right people, but that's really not enough.
I have stop saying really.
rcocean is right. Let's not talk about torture.
Let's celebrate the first female Director of the CIA, unlike our last DCI (Brennan), who was the first Communist Director of the CIA.
Progress!
Not wishing him ill but I am not going to miss phony John McCain.
I don’t see stateless terrorists on this list, but maybe you can find them further down (I didn’t)
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
...
How about you tell me where “stateless terrorists”(Robert Cook’s words) are covered.
I am glad she was confirmed.
I am glad McCain was not able to be present to spout his garbage on the Senate floor.
I hope McCain lives until June 1st.
Haspel did what Dem Senators needed her to do-denounce water boarding.
I do not care that the videos of water boarding were destroyed. They would have been used against Republicans even by the Dems in the Gang of 8 that never voted against these actions as they were briefed on them. (Follow Jason Beale on Twitter-former interrogator with many insights. He spoke of briefing the Gang of 8 and never heard word against the EIT)
Fascinating lady. Do they call her 'M' at Langley? Does her husband sleep with one eye opened?
Since the Taliban was well known to execute prisoners, I don’t think that even they would claim protection under the convention.
It’s more the white left that is screaming for these protections for the terrorists.
@tim in vermont,
Yeah, the general rule of law is that if you're caught without a uniform, you're a spy and get shot.
Fascinating lady. Do they call her 'M' at Langley?
In her case, just 'G'.
ISIS machine gunned prisoners in front of ditches. Do they get the protections? I could link pictures, but they are very disturbing.
"ISIS machine gunned prisoners in front of ditches."
Many thousands of them.
And those were people they were nice to.
They were much nastier to thousands more.
US forces (and British ones) also regularly issued informal "no prisoners" orders.
The Americans on Guadalcanal quickly learned that lesson.
In Europe, allied prisoners, once in camps, got pretty good treatment except the Russians and the Germans paid dearly for that.
For example, treatment of fractures was better in German camps than in Allied hospitals. The Kuntscher Nail was invented in Germany about 1940 and was used on prisoners. Not all were so treated. A family friend was a week in a boxcar getting to a camp and his femur fracture left him with a limp the rest of his life.
There were atrocities on all sides but I think the Japanese hold the record. I'm not aware of cannibalism by any other army.
9/11 wasn't an act of war, it was a criminal act by stateless terrorists. This past decade and a half and still counting are "wartime" because we started the wars.
Congress didn't vote to authorize war...they voted to cede their authority to declare war and gave Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted whenever he wanted if he decided there was a basis to do so. Those who voted for this are all cowardls and are complicit in the crimes we have perpetrated following the AUMF.
I'm not sure why some of you still give Robert Cook a shred of respect when he spews shit like this.
How about you tell me where “stateless terrorists”(Robert Cook’s words) are covered.
They are defined under the article 4 of the IV Convention. Torture is prohibited by Article 32. The prohibition against summary execution is in article 66
Since the Taliban was well known to execute prisoners, I don’t think that even they would claim protection under the convention.
It’s more the white left that is screaming for these protections for the terrorists.
Dakota Myers was disciplined in Afghanistan for shooting back at Taliban mortar men who were shelling the camp. He was told he was being disciplined for shooting at non-uniformed combatants. Of course, the Taliban did not wear uniforms.
Part of Obama's lunatic ROE but it save his life. He was barred from accompanying his civil affairs unit into a village where they were ambushed. The guys in his unit all ended up dead and he and a motor pool sergeant saved the others. They ran a Humvee into the village repeatedly and rescued a bunch of Afghan soldiers.
"The Kuntscher Nail "
Interesting! Thanks!
Althouse: One of the most impressive female firsts in American history.
The Brits have Judi Dench as M already.
But, yes. So which works better, a MAGA hat or a pussy hat?
Tom Clancy was way ahead of this. He had a female CIA Director whose husband was her #2 and she had a baby while Director.
Terrorists and criminal animals like MS-13 are protected and important identity groups to liberals, Democrats and the media.
That is who they want to protect and serve. Not the average American.
You see that playing out right now in the news.
Good luck with that you worthless scum.
J. Farmer said...
"So if waterboarding and bashing someone's head against a wall is not torture and are useful interrogation techniques, why don't we have American police deploy them against suspected American criminals?"
Nice straw man you have there.
Would you like some smelling salts?
Loosen your blouse?
War is shit.It can be nothing else.
And shit has no rules.
During Abu Grabe I asked my father in law, who fought with the 1st Marine Division in the Pacific during WWII, how they handled Japanese prisoners.
He answered "What prisoners?"
J. Farmer said...
"So if waterboarding and bashing someone's head against a wall is not torture and are useful interrogation techniques, why don't we have American police deploy them against suspected American criminals?"
Wow you are one dumb fuck. The cops tune up suspects every day. They are just better at it than these Army dudes. They needed to put the interrogation in the hands of a couple of cops from the Bronx or Chicago. We would get the info we need with all of this unnecessary nonsense.
Of course it would be very unfortunate when the suspects hang themselves because they feel so guilty after giving up their homies.
I wondered the same thing....
From what I can tell, the CIA had some involvement via Brennan, and she is a Brennan Acolyte.
>Michael K. said:
>Rand Paul asked about her possible role in the present Russiagate scandal.
>
>I don't know if he ever got an answer. I guess that's why he voted No.
@buwaya:
No, nothing "justifies" anything. I only point out what is customary in this sort of war.
So my question remains. If the commander-in-chief decided that mass rape as a tool of intimidation would be a useful strategy, would you object to such behavior? If so, on what grounds?
@Rusty:
War is shit.It can be nothing else.
And shit has no rules.
Who are we fighting this war against? How will we know when it's over?
@Langford peel:
Wow you are one dumb fuck.
Sweet of you to say.
The cops tune up suspects every day. They are just better at it than these Army dudes. They needed to put the interrogation in the hands of a couple of cops from the Bronx or Chicago. We would get the info we need with all of this unnecessary nonsense.
Okay, then. So if you were false arrested and the cops try to beat a confession out of you, you'd have no objection? If so, why would you object?
Freder’s link to Article IV:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
From the commentary on Article IV:
The words "at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever", were intended to ensure that all situations and cases were covered. The Article refers both to people who were in the territory before the outbreak of war (or the beginning of the occupation) and to those who go or are taken there as a result of circumstances: travellers, tourists, people who have been shipwrecked and even, it may be, spies or saboteurs. (It will be seen later, when we come to Article 5 [ Link ] , that provision has been made for certain exceptions in this last case.)
So let’s go to Article 5 and see who is excluded.
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
So it’s a political judgement call.
@Jersey Fled:
He answered "What prisoners?"
Perhaps one of the 50,000 or so Allied forces took as POWs and were held in camps in the US, Australia, and New Zealand primarily. Others were captured by the Chinese and the Soviet Unions, and Japanese POWs provided a valuable source of military intelligence.
But would she consider Hitler Wineboarding?
Rules of war, like religious virtues, constitute a sort of "defense in depth" against evil behavior. The first line of defense may be breached, as will successive lines. But eventually the forces of evil meet and are stopped by the stronger lines in the depth of the position. The process is inconsistent and unpredictable but usually the forces of barbarism are contained at some point, along one of the cultural lines of defense. Culture, of course, plays a prominent role in containment, or the lack of it. Japanese prewar culture was inferior in this regard to that of much of the civilized world and their soldiers accordingly behaved atrociously. Same can be said for German soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front who were told that Slavs were a subhuman race. The point of having rules of war is not to prevent barbaric behavior and the commission of atrocities but to apply cultural/psychological pressures against their commission. One must judge these matters on a continuum. As Paul Johnson observed in Modern Times in his discussion of relativistism, "It is of the essence of geopolitics to be able to distinguish between different degrees of evil." The same holds true for war. The Allies were better behaved than the forces of the Axis. Ask yourself: who would you rather have take you prisoner in World War II? The Americans? Or the Japanese?
Jersey Fled said...He answered "What prisoners?"
What he meant was, the Japanese soldiers were known to fight to the death. He didn't mean he murdered them.
tim in vermont said...ISIS machine gunned prisoners in front of ditches.
So did the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, that was funded and trained by the CIA.
They ran a Humvee into the village repeatedly and rescued a bunch of Afghan soldiers.
Dakota Meyer's actions on that day earned him a Medal of Honor.
Is there any way to really know if this is a good appointment?
First, about waterboarding …
I don’t consider it to be torture. In my opinion torture leaves a permanent physical mark, wound, or injury – such as was inflicted upon McCain, for instance. What it is … is a diabolically effective psychological method to get the recalcitrant to talk without causing them any physical harm. It taps into every person’s instinctive fear of drowning. Any American captured by terrorists should pray for such benign treatment.
And I reserve Geneva Conventions for those entities who observe the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists do not qualify.
My hope is that in Haspel Trump has found the CIA insider who knows which political operatives in the CIA leadership need purging. That she did what had to be done to three terrorists after 9/11 is for me a point in her favor. That she destroyed the tapes also shows good judgement, for depriving the MSM and the terrorist networks of a propaganda tool.
So did the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, that was funded and trained by the CIA.
Right then. The Geneva Convention is a non starter in that area.
@grackle:
And I reserve Geneva Conventions for those entities who observe the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists do not qualify.
Then why care about technical definitions of torture (e.g. permanent physical mark, wound, or injury? Plus, psychological trauma can many times be more damaging than physical wounds. But as for definitions of torture, this is from the UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory and under Article VI of the Constitution treaties are part of the supreme law of the land:
For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
"Stupid Americans! Right Comrade cookie?"
Stupid Drago.
The point of having rules of war is not to prevent barbaric behavior and the commission of atrocities but to apply cultural/psychological pressures against their commission.
The goal is not eliminate atrocities, which is unrealistic and impossible, but to apply cultural/psychological pressures that will work to inhibit their commission, that will slow the rate and frequency of commission. E.g., during the Warsaw Uprising (the 1944 uprising by the Polish Home not the 1943 ghetto uprising) Polish fighters were at pains to wear uniforms so as to be in accord with Geneva convention protocols concerning who may lawfully participate in combat and merit human treatment if captured. They made their position on this known to the Germans and when they captured Wehrmacht soldiers they treated them humanely. However, when they captured SS troops and members of the ethnic special commandos (mainly Ukrainians) fighting with the Germans, they executed these summarily because of their long and terrible record of committing atrocities against Polish civilians. All this did not escape the notice of the Germans, of course, and when the Polish Home Army finally surrendered its soldiers were treated as lawful fighters and accorded all the protections due to prisoners of war of a legitimately constituted national army. Of course, the Poles did certainly benefit from back-channel communications between Allied leaders and Wehrmacht commanders in which the latter were warned that they had best treat the Poles correctly or there would hell to pay after they lost the war (the defeat of Germany then being recognized by most sane people as an inevitability.)
Japanese POWs provided a valuable source of military intelligence.
Where did you learn that ?
My father0in-law commanded a POW camp for Japanese POWs in the Philippines after 1944.
The only POWs that he had any relationship were Japanese doctors in the camp who, as they were about to be repatriated, scratched their names on a canteen for him. He had that canteen until it was destroyed in the 1961 Bel Air fire.
He did have resisting Japanese POWs , one of whom he told the officers he would shoot if he didn't stop wearing a headband with Shinto slogans on it.
I never heard of much intelligence from them.
"what is the big damn deal about waterboarding?
"We waterboarded 3 people. 3 terrorists. geeez. nation of pussies if that's too much."
There was torture used other than waterboarding, and against many more than the three people the Bush Administration deigned to admit to. Some people died under our interrogation.
Beyond that, if something is illegal, it is illegal whether used 1000 times or only once, whether it is used against innocent people or guilty people. Once we show our willingness to violate the law by torturing even one person, we have shown ourselves to be as depraved as any of the "bad guys" we point to in the rest of the world, those whom we are presumably better than.
article 66 : "The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person "
PROTECTED PERSON
that is; NOT a stateless terrorist (which is a SPY)
This is fun!
It's awful how those Democrats crapped all over the hero John McCain like this.
@Michael K:
Where did you learn that ?
See Ulrich Straus' The Anguish of Surrender: Japanese POWs of World War II
J. Farmer said ... "Well, for one, I don't want to live in a country where my president has the ability to unilaterally kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to secret prisons, torture them for information, and then dump them if they're not actually guilty of anything."
I want to live in a country that protects me. That is what I pay a lot of taxes for.
I agree with your last statement.
- Mitch Rapp wannabe (but too old)
Yeah, the Geneva Convention does not say what liberals think it does.
J. Farmer, however, does make a pretty good point. The Democrats tied our hands just prior to being roundly removed from office by the ’94 wave. Sorry, not sorry about the torture, but at least you have your facts straight.
Meanwhile, Trump appears to have won significant concessions from China.
@Francisco D:
I want to live in a country that protects me. That is what I pay a lot of taxes for.
To what end, though? Mostly Saudi citizens arrived in the country on commercial flights with visas and began hatching the 9/11 plot, thinks to bin Laden's personal family fortune. How does trying to nation build in Helmand province protect you from this threat? The proximate result of our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria are failed states in which violent jihadists run wild. And yet we call this "defense" spending. We're spending a trillion dollars a year because we have to protect ourselves from guys in bath robes, flip flops, and rusty AK's?
Here's a much better and much less costly solution: immigration moratorium.
"I certainly want there to be acceptable rules of conduct, i.e., something along the lines of the Geneva Convention. I am against mistreating prisoners of war. But, when you're battling animal terrorists who target civilians, and don't wear uniforms, well, it's a bit asymetrical. I don't think Al Queda complied with the Geneva Convention either."
How do you know that the people you have detained are "animal terrorists" and not just people who were rounded up in dragnets or sold for bounty, (which happenstances provided many of the innocents who ended up at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and elsewhere)? Without trials and evidence, how do we know who we have in our black sites? There are plenty of innocents sent to prison here in America, where we feint at giving people a right to trial...what's the likelihood we only detained "animal terrorists" out there on the other side of the world?
Plus, it's not about behaving as badly as the other guys, it's about behaving up to our own codes of law and ethical conduct. Under your thinking, once a murderer here in America confesses to having chopped up his family, we should be free to take him out into the town square and have him drawn and quartered.
There is an imperative that no democratically elected government can afford to disregard. If that government cannot protect its citizens, it will be replaced. Hence you saw the murderous reign of Barack “Take No Prisoners” Obama and the “Drone War.”
These arguments about waterboarding, what actually constitutes "torture," and the proper treatment of Islamic terrorism under military rules and not as a matter of law enforcement, were all rather definitively talked to death when they came up over 16 years ago.
Now they are all rather tedious and if the usual suspect fools did not get it then, then they either never will or they are not arguing in good faith (they rarely are) and it is pointless to engage with them (as it is with most things).
So, I will not repeat all of those things said before, other than to incorporate by reference my several dozen prior comments here on those matters as if they were fully set forth herein.
it’s about behaving up to our own codes of law and ethical conduct.
Which do not constitute a suicide pact, BTW.
@tim in Vermont:
J. Farmer, however, does make a pretty good point. The Democrats tied our hands just prior to being roundly removed from office by the ’94 wave. Sorry, not sorry about the torture, but at least you have your facts straight.
"With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention. "
-Ronald Reagan, May 1988
"Then I suggest you go back to the Geneva Convention for what is allowed when dealing with 'stateless terrorists.' Bullet to the head clearly allowed."
So...you think everyone in the middle east deserves a bullet in the head? This is the essence of what we're doing. The citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Most of those who did died with their victims. The terrorist group from whence they originated was small and fragmented. We could have undermined them if we had not attacked whole countries. Instead, we simply provided the germinating seed that birthed the expansion of terrorist actors. We did exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do. He understood us very well.
One of the most impressive female firsts in American history.
Which is why the Demos voted against her? "I'm with her- as long as she's a Democrat."
Smug will out. Robert Cook can attempt an outsmugging but I just do not think it is possible. Smug will win the Smug-off.
"Since the Taliban was well known to execute prisoners, I don’t think that even they would claim protection under the convention."
As John McCain admirably said, (perhaps one of the few times): "It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."
Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Etienne observes: What he meant was, the Japanese soldiers were known to fight to the death. He didn't mean he murdered them.
And the Soviets would not accept their repatriated prisoners after WWII. After all, it was their fault for getting captured. So they were off to the gulags and many were just murdered.
"Fascinating lady. Do they call her 'M' at Langley?"
Many of them call her "Bloody Gina."
"So...you think everyone in the middle east deserves a bullet in the head? This is the essence of what we're doing."
Another thread winner for Cookie!
Then why care about technical definitions of torture (e.g. permanent physical mark, wound, or injury?
As I explained already, in my opinion torture results in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury. Waterboarding(done properly) does NOT result in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury, therefore waterboarding is not torture.
Plus, psychological trauma can many times be more damaging than physical wounds.
Not in my opinion. The choice is between having your fingernails pulled off or being waterboarded. The commentor, we must assume, would choose bloody fingertips. I’ll choose waterboarding, thanks anyway.
But as for definitions of torture, this is from the UN Convention against Torture … [blah, blah, blah]
I do not care about most things the UN puts out. It is a thoroughly corrupt organization that we stay in and finance so we can keep an eye on it and veto its more extreme acts of stupidity.
"Terrorists and criminal animals like MS-13 are protected and important identity groups to liberals, Democrats and the media.
"That is who they want to protect and serve. Not the average American."
It is the protections guaranteed to everyone, including "criminal animals," that protect the average American.
Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Well, yes, but he was also defending the French Revolution. So there's that.
Robert Cook asserts: Many of them call her "Bloody Gina."
Who, at Langley, specifically?
@grackle:
As I explained already, in my opinion torture results in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury. Waterboarding(done properly) does NOT result in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury, therefore waterboarding is not torture.
There is no legal definition of torture, in US or customary international law, that is as restrictive as your "opinion." 18 USC Code 2340: "(1)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;"
The choice is between having your fingernails pulled off or being waterboarded. The commentor, we must assume, would choose bloody fingertips. I’ll choose waterboarding, thanks anyway.
Those are both examples of physical trauma. Here's a better choice: would you rather get your arm broken in a bar brawl or kidnapped and kept sleep deprived and tied in stress positions for a month?
I do not care about most things the UN puts out. It is a thoroughly corrupt organization that we stay in and finance so we can keep an eye on it and veto its more extreme acts of stupidity.
How do you feel about the US Constitution? "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
Grackle,
Laws pertaining to torture do not adhere to your loose opinon about what constitutes torture.
"So...you think everyone in the middle east deserves a bullet in the head? This is the essence of what we're doing."
We're not doing a very good job, then. We have to try harder.
"It is the protections guaranteed to everyone, including "criminal animals," that protect the average American."
Cookie jumps to the defense of MS-13! Unexpectedly.
@mockturtle:
Robert Cook asserts: Many of them call her "Bloody Gina."
Who, at Langley, specifically?
John Kiriakou
Cookie keeps writing the showrunners of The Americans, threatening to sue them for malicious libel. His love of "illegals" started early.
John Kiriakou And who else of the 'many'? I asked this of Cookie, of course, who make the statement but feel free to answer, Farmer.
"Robert Cook asserts: Many of them call her "Bloody Gina."
"Who, at Langley, specifically?"
This guy, and others he worked with, according to him.
How much truth do you think there is at truthdig.com?
We need a poll starting with "1."
My wife told me that Gina Haspel's performed form of torture will be to sit down with detainees in their cells and tell them what kind of day she had.
After a few hours of this they will either be singing like canaries or begging for a bullet.
Or both.
God, a lefty crying jag about the CIA.
Excuse me,
"preferred form of torture"
@Michael K:
God, a lefty crying jag about the CIA.
Excuse me,
If you could set your partisan blinders aside for a second, you could read numerous non-leftists making the same argument. What would your response to them be?
The Conservative Case Against Gina Haspel by John Kiriakou, 20-year veteran of the CIA
Gina Haspel: As If Nuremberg Never Happened by Peter Van Buren, 24-year veteran of the Foreign Service
Gina Haspel and How Torture Deceived Us Into Iraq by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, 30-year veteran of the US Army
https://sputniknews.com/cartoons/201805171064529155-senate-intelligence-advances-bloody-gina/
Cookie jumps to the defense of MS-13! Unexpectedly.
He's right to do so, and for the right reasons. If you break out the hot irons and thumbscrews for people you're pretty sure have done something terrible you're going to scoop up some innocents. And then the strong temptation will be to drop them out of a helicopter somewhere and pretend you don't know what happened.
You don't have to look very hard to see countries around the world that do this, and they're uniformly places you wouldn't want to live.
"Who are we fighting this war against? How will we know when it's over?"
You seem to be fighting against the United States.
Oh. Dear boy," Only the dead have seen the end of war." Because people like youwho would freedom for peace.
" If you break out the hot irons and thumbscrews for people you're pretty sure have done something terrible you're going to scoop up some innocents."
Deporting someone does not equate to using hot irons and thumbscrews, so your premise is false.
"Who are we fighting this war against? How will we know when it's over?"
You seem to be fighting against the United States.
Oh. Dear boy," Only the dead have seen the end of war." Because people like youwho would freedom for peace.
trade
I like to live in a country where the President calls MS-13 members animals.
Darrel. I can live with it.
@Rusty:
You seem to be fighting against the United States.
No, I am fighting against what I consider ruinous and disastrous policies for the US. Do you consider, say, Pat Buchanan as someone who is "fighting against the United States?" If not, where do you imagine he and I disagree?
Oh. Dear boy," Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Nobody was alive when World War I ended? Or WWII?
Because people like you who would trade freedom for peace.
That is a completely false dichotomy. What freedoms do you imagine I want to "trade...for peace," whatever that means? I have already given my preferred solution: sever restrictions on immigration.
"But Mr. Pompeo’s overt politics — he had been a firebrand Republican House member before taking over the C.I.A. — made many there uneasy that their work could be infected by political concerns."
Bwahahahahaha! Comedy gold! This was the agency run by the notorious John Brennan, an Ebola of a political infection if there ever was one.
Bwahahahahaha! Comedy gold! This was the agency run by the notorious John Brennan, an Ebola of a political infection if there ever was one.
Needs a repeat. The CIA was given a slow-acting poison by JFK. When Clinton came into office, the body was ready to be reanimated as Comrade CIA.
@Bob Loblaw,
He's right to do so, and for the right reasons. If you break out the hot irons and thumbscrews for people you're pretty sure have done something terrible you're going to scoop up some innocents. And then the strong temptation will be to drop them out of a helicopter somewhere and pretend you don't know what happened.
But, pretending you don't know what happened is exactly what you & Cookie & Farmer are doing.
The SCOTUS rulings & the RoI for captured "irregular" prisoners became so burdensome & so "radioactive" to the careers of the agents who handled them that the US under the Obama administration stopped capturing them & simply started blowing them up in the field. As Obama put it (and I paraphrase a wee bit), "I'm seem to be quite good at killing people".
So, instead of capture we started using Hellfire missiles as our method of interrogation. And we've killed a lot of people. A lot. It didn't get much coverage over here, because body parts, especially the body parts of women & children, spattered all over the road due to the ministrations of the Magic Negro was not considered "News Fit to Print". But, it sure was in the local presses of the countries were we blew up those women & children, & they know full well who was responsible.
Yeah, maybe some of those clowns we waterboarded were innocent. Probably not, & in any case very few people died in our interrogations. But you know what? Those Pakistani children who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? They really were innocent.
Don't think for a minute that the protection of your pretty littler consciences didn't have a lot to do with why those kids ended up splattered.
@YoungHegelian:
Don't think for a minute that the protection of your pretty littler consciences didn't have a lot to do with why those kids ended up splattered.
I agree completely with your assessment and have criticized anti-war Democrats from that exact perspective. I was never a fan of Obama's drone campaign and said as much throughout his presidency. I remember the murder of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki being a particularly egregious example, and I further remember being disgusted at his "drones" joke.
you could read numerous non-leftists making the same argument. What would your response to them be?
Horse shit. I read Pat Buchanan, maybe as much as you do, but I don't agree with him a lot.
For the same reasons I am not a BIG L Libertarian.
You people assume civilization is the default state of society. It's not.
It's messy and dirty and we are always on the edge of survival, even in Beverly Hills CA.
Aliso Viejo is a very nice suburb near where I used to live.
A lady with a son in college, living near where my wife used to live, was blown up by an ex-boyfriend this week.
Bad things happen to nice people. Sometimes you have to kill bad people.
"So...you think everyone in the middle east deserves a bullet in the head? This is the essence of what we're doing."
Yes. Exactly right.
Except for the Hebes. We can let them run it like Meyer and Moe Dalitz ran Vegas. They know they are doing.
But as far as the Muslims? We know what a good Muslim is.
But, pretending you don't know what happened is exactly what you & Cookie & Farmer are doing.
That's a different issue. The CIA (and others) stopped taking prisoners because they didn't know what to do with them after interrogation, not because "enhanced interrogation" was off the table. Obama had promised to close Gitmo, so the last thing the administration wanted was more prisoners.
Personally I have no problem with executing irregulars captured in a war zone after they've outlived their usefulness, but I don't think we should be torturing them.
Michael K. said ... "Bad things happen to nice people. Sometimes you have to kill bad people."
I agree. Some times you have to torture bad people to save innocent lives.
George Orwell captured the sentiment well, "Gentle citizens sleep well in their beds at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "
Brennen needs to be indicted for lying.
@Michael K:
Horse shit. I read Pat Buchanan, maybe as much as you do, but I don't agree with him a lot.
I understand that. My point was that you don't disagree with Buchanan because he's a "lefty;" you disagree because you are not convinced by his arguments. Hence, whether or not someone is a "lefty" or not makes no difference to any individual argument they make.
You people assume civilization is the default state of society. It's not.
I am not sure who "you people" are, but given that for probably 90+% of human existence, there was no "civilization," I certainly have never assumed it is the "default state of society." And that's precisely why US regime change operations over the last two decades have been such disasters.
It's messy and dirty and we are always on the edge of survival, even in Beverly Hills CA.
Agreed.
Bad things happen to nice people. Sometimes you have to kill bad people.
Agree also, which is why I favor the death penalty as a purely punitive and retributive process. But that is very different than a US president, having the power in perpetuity, to declare anyone on the globe an enemy of the state (based on secret evidence often obtained through dubious means), and then murder that person.
@Francisco D:
I agree. Some times you have to torture bad people to save innocent lives.
Can you give an example of when this has occurred?
George Orwell captured the sentiment well, "Gentle citizens sleep well in their beds at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
That is actually a misquote of something Orwell said in Notes on Nationalism, and he was addressing his argument to pacifists, which is not a position anyone here has advocated.
So my question remains. If the commander-in-chief decided that mass rape as a tool of intimidation would be a useful strategy, would you object to such behavior? If so, on what grounds?
Well, as a Christian nation, we could point to the morality of the Golden Rule as something universal and applicable to everyone.
But we are no longer permitted to be a Christian Nation. Clinton and Obama put paid to such nonsense.
So what moral authority have you replaced it with? Because J Farmer doesn't like it?
Torture works. Only feeb Liberals say it doesn't, not because it is true, but because they have no argument, not authority that they can cite, being Godless scum. Man made morality can be violated with far greater impunity than God made. See Henry the VIII after he became God and King, routinely torturing monks...just like the atheists of Myanmar.
Now, a clarification: so you want SEVERE restrictions on immigration or to SEVER restrictions on immigration? A very distinct difference a typo can make.
Robert Cook thanks for your posts reminding us what we should be. those who read the CIA controlled report on her concluded she should not head the CIA, but this is political and in part based on her letter where she states in hindsight waterboatding is wrong.
"But we are no longer permitted to be a Christian Nation."
We never have been a Christian nation. However, we are a constitutional republic with laws we are supposed to abide by. That should be sufficient governor of our actions. As we seem to willfully violate our own laws, it's silly to suggest we would abide by the Golden Rule.
Because people like you who would trade freedom for peace.
To be fair, I don't think J. Farmer does that.
His problem is, he thinks that if we go hide in the corner with our hands over our eyes we will be safe.
We never have been a Christian nation.
We most certainly have. However we have never been a Christian state.
As I explained already, in my opinion torture results in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury. Waterboarding(done properly) does NOT result in a permanent physical mark, wound or injury, therefore waterboarding is not torture.
There is no legal definition of torture, in US or customary international law, that is as restrictive as your "opinion." 18 USC Code 2340: "(1)“torture” means … [etc.]
I do not claim that my opinion agrees with current law. Obviously, I believe the law is wrong. There are a lot of laws I don’t agree with. Arguments about law are irrelevant to my particular opinion. I’m wondering if the commentor noticed the phrase, “other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions,” in the law he cited above. I’m wondering also if he understands that waterboarding was legal when Haspel did it.
… would you rather get your arm broken in a bar brawl or kidnapped and kept sleep deprived and tied in stress positions for a month?
I would rather be waterboarded than either one of the examples. Try again.
How do you feel about the US Constitution? … all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
I’m fine with treaties – as long as the others are acting in accordance with those same treaties. As for my feelings about the Constitution: I believe it is one of the most significant documents in history and should be revered by all that believe in freedom, especially the 1st and 2nd amendments.
@Bob L.
Personally I have no problem with executing irregulars captured in a war zone after they've outlived their usefulness
Bob, what you're describing there about killing "irregulars" on the battlefield is the old "There lives are forfeit" from every movie set in the Middle Ages. I tend to agree with that sentiment, not because I think that "those dirty, camel-fuckin' Muzzies got it coming", like, apparently, some on this board, but because I think that the penalties for violating the rules of the Geneva Convention have to be imposed harshly on those who do so as a S.O.P.
But, I gotta tell ya, for the life of me I can't see how it's morally tenable to think that you can put a bullet through an unarmed, captive, man's head, but that you can't "torture, enhancedly interrogate" him, whatever. You water board a guy & he comes out on the other side drenched & terrified. You execute him, & it doesn't get any more final.
Philippines, 1942-45
The guerrilla campaign, under US command, including US officers as some of the regional leaders (Fertig, Volckmann, Lapham, Ramsey, etc.), had a problem with Japanese collaborators and informers. The Japs would, among other things, detain hostages at random, torture them, and make their relatives inform on the resistance. Therefore the resistance used counter-terror, much of it truly frightful, against collaborators, informers, and their families. That is war at it's most personal and vicious.
Haspel did it the old fashioned way. She earned it.
@FIDO:
So what moral authority have you replaced it with? Because J Farmer doesn't like it?
The US Constitution, the treaties we have ratified, and the laws a democratically elected legislature have passed.
Now, a clarification: so you want SEVERE restrictions on immigration or to SEVER restrictions on immigration? A very distinct difference a typo can make.
Ha. Very true. That should read "severe." I would like a minimum 10-year moratorium where immigration was close to zero with some small exceptions for special cases.
And then there's landsdales campaign against the asuang which may be apocryphal boot didn't mention it in his bio.
Hence, whether or not someone is a "lefty" or not makes no difference to any individual argument they make.
My comment was actually directed at the wimps and whiners who think that "if you be nice to them, they will be nice to you."
First, I don't think what the CIA did, and what was approved by Bush's DOJ, was torture.
What the NVA did to McCain was torture as it left disability. Not waterboarding, which the left likes to confuse with the Japanese "water torture."
The dishonesty is what is most striking. Just like the NYT describing Trump's comment about MS 13 as applying to all illegals.
They lie.
The Libertarians and isolationists are less dishonest but still assume a world that is only in their imagination.
If you want to talk about "Nation Building" or some real concept, I am happy to discuss it.
You discourage discussion because you keep assuming that only you know what is real.
@Gahrie:
To be fair, I don't think J. Farmer does that.
His problem is, he thinks that if we go hide in the corner with our hands over our eyes we will be safe.
No, my position has always been that the US is fantastically strategically positioned, that the threat posed to us by radical jihadists is overblown, and that turning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states does not help our cause one iota.
landsdales campaign against the asuang which may be apocryphal boot didn't mention it in his bio.
I'm still in the bio, now in Vietnam. I work tomorrow in PHX so I will get about 4 hours of the audio book tomorrow.
The only thing that comes up on asuang, is a tagalog movie.
@Michael K:
My comment was actually directed at the wimps and whiners who think that "if you be nice to them, they will be nice to you."
To be fair, though, who here is making that argument? I certainly haven't read anything akin to that.
First, I don't think what the CIA did, and what was approved by Bush's DOJ, was torture.
What the NVA did to McCain was torture as it left disability. Not waterboarding, which the left likes to confuse with the Japanese "water torture."
The notion that you have to leave "disability" for something to be torture is completely invented out of whole cloth and is not congruent with any known legal definition of torture.
You discourage discussion because you keep assuming that only you know what is real.
That is a ludicrous assertion. If I actually believed that only I "know what is real," I would not bother participating in a public discussion. The whole point of participating here is to have your ideas challenged by others, and I have had several fruitful exchanges with commenters, including yourself. What is true, though, is that I have strong opinions on certain issues I feel I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and I am prepared to defend those opinions.
J Farmer,
At least we can agree on immigration. And while I do not believe in zero immigration, I have no problem being very selective to keep out Muslim men between the ages of 16-45 who are unmarried. It is amazing how few Swedish blonde females who have caused more than a random traffic accident, and I haven't met an Episcopalian who caused trouble.
If it is called racist and intolerant, I will kindly and diplomatically tell them to go fuck themselves.
The Constitution was made when BRANDING and FLOGGING were accepted practices.
So using the stupid gun control rhetoric of the Left, I would happily concede on real torture if we got to publically flog terrorists on Al Jezzera and also brand them with 'T's on their forehead, cheeks, and on the palm and back of their hands. Then drop them in Israel.
Because Israel actually have had to live with the consequences of terrorists. They perhaps have seen a few more ambulances filled with true innocents than an urban pedagogue lecturing principles.
It was a mythical vampire like creature buwaya will know the transliteration. The tale goes lansdale left some huk corpses drained of blood,
that the threat posed to us by radical jihadists is overblown,
...and the threat posed by Russia
and China
and North Korea
and Iran
probably the Somali pirates too....
"The SCOTUS rulings & the RoI for captured 'irregular' prisoners became so burdensome & so 'radioactive' to the careers of the agents who handled them that the US under the Obama administration stopped capturing them & simply started blowing them up in the field. As Obama put it (and I paraphrase a wee bit), "I'm seem to be quite good at killing people.'"
Obama, a war criminal like his predecessors and Trump, was, indeed a prolific murderer. Just as we don't know how many of those we have tortured or killed in black sites were actually guilty of nothing and how many guilty of something, we don't know how many Obama murdered by drone bombings were simply innocent citizens going about their days in their towns in their nations. My guess is most of those we have killed have been innocent.
Also, this talk about torture and murder "protecting" us is a lie. There's not one war we have fought in over half a century (or longer, according to some) that has been necessary for our self-protection. They've all been wars of empire and/or resource-acquisition. As has been true of nearly all ours wars in the life of our nation.
@FIDO:
So using the stupid gun control rhetoric of the Left, I would happily concede on real torture if we got to publically flog terrorists on Al Jezzera and also brand them with 'T's on their forehead, cheeks, and on the palm and back of their hands. Then drop them in Israel.
Imagine that the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria tomorrow. Is it your contention that the fighters left behind in those countries would then try to find some way to travel to America and commit terrorist atrocities against us?
What exactly do you think is the nature of the threat we face?
"'that the threat posed to us by radical jihadists is overblown,'
"...and the threat posed by Russia
and China
and North Korea
and Iran
probably the Somali pirates too...."
Yes, they are all overblown. They serve as handy excuses to justify increases in the War Department's budget.
@Gahrie:
...and the threat posed by Russia
and China
and North Korea
and Iran
probably the Somali pirates too....
Yes, precisely. Russia and China are two major powers, and our interests are far more convergent than divergent on a whole host of issues. Both are also nuclear armed states, so the prospect of direct confrontation between us is very slim.
North Korea is one of the most isolated, economically backward countries in the planet. South Korea has more than enough resources to defend itself from the north.
Iran is a country that has no practical ability to project military force outside of its borders.
Perhaps you could explain which of your liberties are at risk from Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran.
The aswang is a creature of Philippine folklore, common across several cultures there, not just Tagalogs.
Its a cross between a vampire and a ghoul, with various powers of enchantment, deceit, shape-shifting. The aswang curse often runs in families, and they are fond of human flesh of course. They pass for normal people but turn into their true selves at the right moment. One can inadvertently marry an aswang, with predictable results.
Philippine folklore has tons of truly horrible monsters. It is a society full of the idea of restless and unfriendly supernatural beings. Its a true, widespread system of belief. Childrens bedtime stories are somewhat different than Americans are used to.
It is said that the usual Tagalog way to announce oneself comes from this - when a tradesman, say, comes to a gate or doorway, he shouts "Tao po!" - "A person, sirs!" - to announce that it is indeed a human being come, and not some evil spirit.
A great friend of mine, a giant of a fellow with a tremendous voice and born for mischief, once thought to play a prank at a Batangas beach. There were dozens of kids in the water, so he shouted, as loud as he could, "Siokoy!" - the Siokoy is a sea-monster-merman. The lot of them fled.
I assume it was Tagalog but it was the manipulation of the myth a little like the thinly sources claims about how pershing handled
The juramentados
South Korea has more than enough resources to defend itself from the north.
After sacrificing Seul to the Nork’s 10,000 artillery tubes.
Philippine folklore has tons of truly horrible monsters.
On of Lansdale's ploys was to convince Huks that vampires were following them.
At one point, they grabbed the last guy in a column of Huks and cut his throat.
When the others came back to look for him, they found the body and panicked.
J. Farmer said...
@Bay Area Guy:
And, during time of war, often the rule of law doesn't quite fit. Surely, if we can shoot our declared enemies (Osama Bin Laden), cant' we waterboard their ass too (Khalid Sheikh Muhammed)?
Given that calculation, is there anything you believe the United States shouldn't do to suspected terrorists? Prolonged beatings or whippings, mutilation, electro shock, etc.?
There is only one thing we cannot do: lose.
You people and your fucking bullshit preening are ridiculous. You can do it because we bashed skulls. You can do it because we burned people alive. You do it because we shot people until they died.
You sit there and flip out all of this stupid bullshit for one reason.
Because WE won.
Get off your couch and come help out if you want to start flipping shit about how we gave you the freedom to pretend your shit doesn't stink.
The notion that you have to leave "disability" for something to be torture is completely invented out of whole cloth and is not congruent with any known legal definition of torture.
Whatever floats your boat. I have better things to do.
@tim in Vermont:
After sacrificing Seul to the Nork’s 10,000 artillery tubes.
What does that even mean? If there were no US soldiers on the peninsula, North Korea would launch a military assault against the South? Why? South Korea has an expensive, technologically advanced military.
@Michael K:
Whatever floats your boat. I have better things to do.
Actually, "whatever floats your boat" applies much more to your definition of torture, which you pulled out of the air. I provided multiple legal definitions of torture in the domestic and international arena. Quote something similar to support your supposed definition of torture.
J. Farmer said...
So if waterboarding and bashing someone's head against a wall is not torture and are useful interrogation techniques, why don't we have American police deploy them against suspected American criminals?
5/17/18, 3:35 PM
1. Because those are dirty furriners and we Americans get better treatment. Duh.
2. You hypocrite, you were going to do this to me (good luck!), and post pictures on the internet, because I got on your last nerve. Now you're boo-hooing that they did it to the guy that beheaded Daniel Pearl.
@Achilles:
You sit there and flip out all of this stupid bullshit for one reason.
Because WE won.
Get off your couch and come help out if you want to start flipping shit about how we gave you the freedom to pretend your shit doesn't stink.
No, actually, that is a total lie. Can you name a conflict in the last 50 years during which any of our freedoms as American were in jeopardy? Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Grenada? Panama? Bosnia? Serbia? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Syria?
The notion that fighting against a guerilla force in Afghanistan is protecting our freedoms is absolutely ludicrous.
@Bad Lieutenant:
2. You hypocrite, you were going to do this to me (good luck!), and post pictures on the internet, because I got on your last nerve. Now you're boo-hooing that they did it to the guy that beheaded Daniel Pearl.
I don't have the foggiest idea what this statement means.
The common theme of US military activity since 1945 (arguably since 1941) was to preserve the world order, in the broadest sense, from the rise of an overwhelming enemy power, or simply to preserve the general peace. The last loser in any case of a neglect of this work would be the US. It was a very long-term, very broad view of national interests.
Its a fascinating subject really, the Grand Strategy of the United States.
Achilles @9:59pm makes an important point. Some wars are worth winning [not all, and those should never be fought] and if they are worth winning one must use whatever means at one's disposal. Incinerating innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mass destruction AND TORTURE for those who suffered the after effects. But Truman made the correct decision to bring the war to a rapid close. War is hell but it is also an unfortunate but intrinsic feature of human existence. It should be avoided when at all possible but, if worth fighting, it's worth winning. Whatever it takes.
Imagine that the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria tomorrow. Is it your contention that the fighters left behind in those countries would then try to find some way to travel to America and commit terrorist atrocities against us?
What exactly do you think is the nature of the threat we face?
The Threat is 'The Bleeding Edge of Islam'. Currently, Islamists are in Sweden, Germany, Canada, France, U.K. et al and they are slowly making 'no go' zones, where THEY dictate what happens in THEIR neighborhoods. They terrorize their fellow citizens so that their little councils dictate what the laws are in that small neighborhood.
Then they try to grow that neighborhood. Because "When I am weak, I beg pity from you, according to YOUR morals. When I am strong, I oppress you...according to MY morals."
So...did a ton of Syrians try to beg borrow and steal into the U.S.? Why yes...yes they did! We had a national conversation about it. And Madras raised Obama was HAPPY to let them in...but Congress and HORRIBLE polling numbers stopped him. The Democrats, despite his personal feelings, stopped him from putting on that Demographic Vest.
(The Constitution is not a suicide pact)
And since we have already had Saudis and other Afghan trained terrorists here ALREADY, your assertions are...quaint. Untimely. I won't say ridiculous but I mean ridiculous.
And we got all the fools of the Left willing to give them pity according to their morals until Muslims are strong...just to be obnoxious pricks. Just to have an 'ah ha!' moment against people actually treating Muslims as an actual threat (you are included in that last. Ostrich Liberals)
So...exactly how many more Orlando Shootings do you need? How many more Fort Hoods? How many more Orange County shootings do you need before you treat this seriously?
But let's go deeper. You can tell a little girl "Hey...you are cute as a button, and my principles say you should be raised well, given choices and an education so you can be a huge benefit to your family, your children and your society. But you see...while I didn't say a word at Obama running up a crippling deficit on that worthless program of Obamacare, defending you...well, you aren't my problem. So when I advocate withdrawing from your country, you will be raped, and your family killed, your teacher tortured and maybe acid will be poured on your face for daring to learn to read. So my values actually have a very low price tag. But in my HEART I really wish you well. Ta ta!"
J. Farmer: I don't have the foggiest idea what this statement means.
Cool story bro. I'd stick to it if I were you.
Or maybe you were just coked up and have really forgotten all about it, in which case let's let it go.
@FIDO:
So...did a ton of Syrians try to beg borrow and steal into the U.S.? Why yes...yes they did! We had a national conversation about it. And Madras raised Obama was HAPPY to let them in...but Congress and HORRIBLE polling numbers stopped him.
The primary reason there was a Syrian refugee crisis was because the US and our "partners" in the region (e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE) were funding and arming guerilla fighters to make war against the Syrian state.
So...exactly how many more Orlando Shootings do you need? How many more Fort Hoods? How many more Orange County shootings do you need before you treat this seriously?
How does nation-building in Afghanistan stop the Orlando shooting? How does funding jihadists in Syria prevent another Fort Hood shooting? How does turning Libya into a failed state put a lid on anymore Orange County shootings?
So when I advocate withdrawing from your country, you will be raped, and your family killed, your teacher tortured and maybe acid will be poured on your face for daring to learn to read. So my values actually have a very low price tag. But in my HEART I really wish you well. Ta ta!
Rape as a weapon of war and interceince civil strife has plagued central Africa for decades and cost at least a million lives. How eager are you to deploy US troops to the region? Also, all of atrocities you have mentioned were occurring when there were nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Should Trump massively escalate the war there in order for US soldiers to provide security for women? If not, should we assume your "values actually have a very low price tag?"
@Bad Lieutenant:
Cool story bro. I'd stick to it if I were you.
Or maybe you were just coked up and have really forgotten all about it, in which case let's let it go.
Ahh...I reread it and now I understand. You're referring to the time you made some repugnant accusations against my character, and I invited you to say them to my face. Which you promptly declined. I'll be back in NYC later this year if you change your mind. And of course, two men choosing to settle their differences through the sweet science is not the same thing as government agents kidnapping people around the world they think may have done something and torturing them for information.
Again, I think this points to the totally problematic effort of trying to fight a "war" against an enemy that is not organized and does not control any territory.
Except that the Taliban is organized and does control territory. Ditto ISIS. Al Qaeda is highly organized, though it does not control territory.
It just does not make sense.
Not to you. Let us stipulate that.
I don't want the CIA to have the power to kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to a secret prison, and torture them.Again, I think this points to the totally problematic effort of trying to fight a "war" against an enemy that is not organized and does not control any territory. It just does not make sense. I don't want the CIA to have the power to kidnap people anywhere in the world, take them to a secret prison, and torture them.
I think we’re still learning how to fight a shadow war like the one we’re in. It’s nasty, and likely to get worse. Because the flip side is always the question as to how many innocent American lives you are willing to sacrifice on the altar of your principles. For me, one American is too many, yet I know of no way to assure that without killing every Muslim man, woman, and child above the age of two anywhere in the world. And I recoil from that. But it isn’t as easy as you make seem, Farmer.
@Big Mike:
Except that the Taliban is organized and does control territory.
The Taliban has always been a huge distraction. Despite the b role footage of the terrorists on monkey bars, the so called training camps were of little to no strategic value, considering that plans for the attack were made in places like Germany, Malaysia, and within the United States. The US could have hit the Taliban with punitive strikes and used special operation forces to pursue the Al Qaeda elements.
Ditto ISIS
ISIS is not particularly organized; their success has been born almost entirely out of chaotic situations where state power had receded (e.g. Syria and Western Iraq). They made a push into Lebanon that was quickly repelled.
Al Qaeda is highly organized, though it does not control territory.
Al Qaeda is not highly organized. If anything, it is the exact opposite. Most of what calls itself Al Qaeda these days are basically franchisees of jihadist elements that have existed for decades.
For me, one American is too many, yet I know of no way to assure that without killing every Muslim man, woman, and child above the age of two anywhere in the world. And I recoil from that. But it isn’t as easy as you make seem, Farmer.
That is an absurd bar to set. That's like saying if one murderer gets off because of a 4th amendment violation, it's one too many and we have to abolish the 4th amendment. Or people who say we need to abrogate the 2nd amendment to protect people from gun violence. How convincing do you find their arguments? We could probably reduce the murder rate in this country if we implemented highly intrusive police state tactics. Would it be worth it, even if we could save just one more life?
The US is already in a condition where it experiences numerous mass killings per year. And while all of them are obviously horrific and tragic, they do not pose a significant threat to America as a whole.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा