Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2007

Priorities Carefully Arranged

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:44 pm



Democrat blogger John Cole is appalled that I have opened a debate on the morality of waterboarding admitted mass murderers for less than three minutes if it were 100% certain to save thousands of lives. To express his disgust, he solicits his readers’ opinions as to whether he should physically assault me. Most agree that he should.

UPDATE: John says this post of mine “may be one of the dumbest posts ever” because, after all, it was just a hypothetical and it didn’t name me. (Ha, ha! Get it?) Apparently it never occurred to him that his post would send his commenters into a frenzy of discussion about how much fun it would be to commit violence to me.

By the way, at least one of his commenters has since admitted that he thinks I am a greater enemy to this country than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned 9/11.

Yes, he’s serious. As is his commenter who says I am unfit to be labeled a human. (As was the commenter at Obsidian Wings who said that I am a monster, and wished that I die a painful death in a fire.)

But there’s nothing irresponsible about talking to that crowd about committing violent acts on conservatives. I’m sure if Michelle Malkin ever did the reverse — “mocking” a liberal by talking about kicking him, while addressing an audience predisposed to think liberals are less than human — John Cole would take it in stride as just joshin’.

Of course, that would never happen. Because Michelle Malkin has far more class than John Cole ever will.

And this, by the way, is one of the main reasons I posed my hypo to begin with. To identify the self-righteous crowd who recoil at the thought of waterboarding mass murderers for 2 1/2 minutes to save thousands of lives — but who think nothing of talking about violence on conservatives.

Because, after all, we are the real enemy.

UPDATE x2: I see some morons in the comments saying that I am “scared” by Cole’s “threat.” Jesus Christ, his commenters are stupid.

I didn’t take it as a real threat, morons. I saw it as whipping up some commenters into a frenzy with a crass and stupid joke that could easily cause one of his unbalanced commenters to start issuing serious threats. Sure enough, one of them was soon talking about punching Ann Coulter in the Adam’s apple — and this is the kind of thing Cole knew he was starting when he made his stupid joke about kicking me in the privates.

This issue has commenters on other sites talking about how they’d like to see me dead. You know, because I’m talking about things, and that makes me evil. In this environment Cole is throwing chum into the middle of a pack of hungry sharks, and disclaiming any responsibility for their getting whipped into a frenzy.

The point is to note how ironic it is that these people so quickly turn to thoughts of violence against people who are just blogging — because they are outraged at us talking about waterboarding people who are mass murderers. The way you know this is the point is by reading the title of my post. That’s a hint for you idiots from Cole’s site.

107 Responses to “Priorities Carefully Arranged”

  1. I think Sebastian’s point is the most valid of any of the points made.

    Of course, if it would save thousands of lives, or I could reasonably believe that it would save thousands of lives, I would kick you in the junk. Then I would turn myself in to the proper authorities and plead guilty to assault.

    I hope you would kick me in the junk if our positions were reversed.

    Fritz (cab0df)

  2. Since he started blogging, John Cole, if nothing else, has been consistent in that whenever he faces an argument he can’t bluster and generally bullshit his way past, he reaches down in his bag for the biggest piece of red meat he can find and throws it out to the inhabitants of his little echo chamber, bask in their adulation, and then act like he’s “won.”

    It’s the greatest Leftard wet dream to imagine that they actually have the capacity to overthrow the Man, or at least punch that nasty “neo-conservative” in the nose and show him what’s what. There’s some definite masculinity issues at play when it comes to people like Johnny.

    It reached truly hilarious levels a few months back when Leftos tried to say that it was actually conservatives who are all pussies desperately wishing they were Real Men.

    If John Cole met you in person Patterico he probably wouldn’t even have the balls to look you in the eye.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  3. If you were 100% sure that someone had committed a crime would you be morally justified in planting evidence, not disclosing evidence that looks exculpatory, etc.? This is a serious question.

    TCO (1c4d1b)

  4. You know, when i saw your comment I thought he was seriously asking if he should assault you. It wasn’t until I read his post that I realized your comment was intended as hyperbole.

    Also, why link to someone that obviously doesn’t get your point, and clearly has nothing to add to the debate that this point?

    joe (c0e4f8)

  5. It reached truly hilarious levels a few months back when Leftos tried to say that it was actually conservatives who are all pussies desperately wishing they were Real Men.

    Greenwald has a good post today real men like Romney who spent the Vietnam years hiding out in France. And Guiliani who begged for a deferment because he was such an essential first year law clerk. And of course we already know about Bush, Cheney and Rove’s draft-dodging. So, yes it does seem that Conservatives prove their manhood by sending others to war.

    maxbaer (c31187)

  6. John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald…

    They all remind me of the kid on the playground who would take his ball and run home if others refused to play by their ever-changing rules – petulant snots all.

    bains (50814e)

  7. So, yes it does seem that Conservatives prove their manhood by sending others to war.

    Not the old Chickenhawk meme.

    So did Wool McSockpuppet talk amongst himself?

    Paul (ec9716)

  8. He has moderated comments. That says everything. He’ll let through those that agree with him and delete the rest. Why did you even link the [crude term implying lack of manliness by reference to female secondary characteristic]?

    nk (09a321)

  9. Then I would turn myself in to the proper authorities and plead guilty to assault.

    See, I’d admit to it if confronted, but I’m not sure I’d actually go admit to it… 🙂

    If me getting kicked in the jewels saves a thousand Americans, all I’d ask is that it not be someone who kicks things for a living…

    You kicking my “boys”, and a field goal kicker having a go would likely have different results.

    In the latter case, my voice might never go back to normal…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  10. Patterico – You have to remember those drooling wankers at Ballon-Juice thought a serious hypothetical was asking whether a person would have sex with a man to prevent a terrorist attack.

    Mental giants they are not. Eighth grade graduates who like to use naughty words, maybe, but don’t tell their parents.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  11. I liked the “his only demand to that he be allowed to assinate the PotUS and the Veep”…

    My response would be “I’d waterboard the crap out of him and get the boltcutters ready…

    He’ll survive the coming days, but by golly he’ll wish he didn’t.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  12. nk, your post showed up…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  13. Hey, he was speaking in hypotheticals, these are your rules…

    Jody (8f0618)

  14. Greenwald has a good post today real men like Romney who spent the Vietnam years hiding out in France. And Guiliani who begged for a deferment because he was such an essential first year law clerk. And of course we already know about Bush, Cheney and Rove’s draft-dodging. So, yes it does seem that Conservatives prove their manhood by sending others to war.

    I guess John McCain’s five years in the Hanoi Hilton don’t count.

    George Bush didn’t dodge the draft.

    Cheney and Karl Rove got college deferments just like millions of young progressives who now sit at their computers scratching their armpit wrinkles in between wishing it was still 1968 and typing “chickenhawk!” as many times as they can every day.

    Or Glennrick Ellisonbergwald who never saw fit to join the military. He’s too busy pumping out three thousand words for his latest idiotic blog post in between having his lover do it for him.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  15. How do we know Greenwald wrote that post and not some sockpuppet?

    Did he ever figure out where that great smackdown supposedly from Boylan originated?

    Hillary married a draft dodger, does that count?

    Did Edwards ever serve?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  16. And John Cole tries the typical braindead lefty excuse for saying something dumb: “You honestly believed I was being serious? Oh my how silly you are!”

    John Cole is a fine example of what happens when you take an idiot and surround him with idiots who do nothing but tell him how he’s not an idiot, for years.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  17. I have one question, is there anyone you wouldn’t waterboard to stop 9/11?

    whitd (10527e)

  18. I’m going to ask a variant of that tomorrow.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  19. I’d waterboard John Cole.

    To prevent global warming.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  20. Katherine – In a July 9, 2004 post you wrote:

    “I don’t know how many prisoners have been tortured, but it’s almost certainly fewer than the 3000 innocents bin Laden has murdered, let alone the 4 million more of us he has promised to murder. Yes, it is better to hurt people in an attempt at self defense or democracy building, however misguided, than to kill them for the sake of killing them.”

    Has your opinion changed?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  21. Wrong thread. Sorry.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  22. The huge flaw in your hypothetical being, of course, that there’s no such thing as 100% certainty in the real world.

    The whole problem arises from this pre-ordained assumption of certainty to justify torture.

    I mean, you know that they’re terrorists [even when they’re not], you know they know something [even when they don’t] and you know torture is going to work [even when it doesn’t] and it’s the only way to get the information [even when it isn’t.]

    I honestly wonder how the hell America became a country where people, apparently, just really want to torture the hell outta others.

    Same reason we have judges and juries and why cops aren’t allowed to plant evidence or beat out a confession because they know the guy really did it.

    Because it’s not certain, and they can be wrong.

    Rob (4a32fd)

  23. John Cole would assault someone? I would guess you’d have to be half his size, have your back truned to him, and desperately appear to be lacking either one arm or both before he’d actually risk a physical confrontation given the bravery of these trolls. Witness Kerry’s shooting of a man hit by 50 caliber rounds as his chief claim to fame for his “barvery.”

    My guess is Cole is seeking a surrogate with more balls and maniliness, someone like Rosie O’Donnell.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  24. Rob – Truly innovative thinking on your part. Did you take a number with all the other libs to post these talking points here.

    The huge flaw in your hypothetical being, of course, that there’s no such thing as 100% certainty in the real world. – Of course there is no certainty in the real world, but there can be informed decisions.

    The whole problem arises from this pre-ordained assumption of certainty to justify torture. – See above.

    I mean, you know that they’re terrorists [even when they’re not]{We knew KSM was a senior terrorist, he even acknowledged it to Al Jazeera. To whom are you referring?}, you know they know something [even when they don’t](Since Al Quaeda promised more attacks don’t you think their senior planner would know something? Odds anyone?) and you know torture is going to work [even when it doesn’t](are you concerned about all those false positives fooling everyone? Why do people keep using these techniques if they don’t work? I forgot, for the sheer sadism.) and it’s the only way to get the information [even when it isn’t.](You’re right, we’d rather roll over, give up and accept more mass casualties because the terrorists don’t want to give up their secrets that you don’t believe they have because they aren’t even real terrorists because we keep detaining innocent shepherds.)

    I honestly wonder how the hell America became a country where people, apparently, just really want to torture the hell outta others. (Put down the bong and when your head clears you might get a clue.)

    daleyrocks (906622)

  25. I’d waterboard John Cole.
    To prevent global warming.

    Ding, ding ding ! We have a winner.

    But remember, he is a conservative.

    JD (33beff)

  26. The purpose of waterboarding a suspected/known terrorist cannot be to assist a criminal prosecution because, as our host has previously noted, such a statement would be inadmissable in any court. It can only be for the purpose of stopping or mitigating a future attack.
    Once that is done, the terrorist (who, after all under the GC, is an un-lawful combatant) is taken out and shot!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  27. Another Drew – Can you imagine if we just summarily executed all of the unlawful combatants rather than detaining them? The Left would be apopleptic.

    JD (33beff)

  28. Wow. So much clinging to such a flimsy hypothetical. It’s shameful to watch.

    Stop trying to paint yourself as some kind of victim. It’s embarrassing.

    Jody (8f0618)

  29. It’s all about yooooooou!

    Jesus. I guess every time I read a post about beating up a moonbat, I should feel personally threatened, too.

    Meanwhile, the hilarious improbability of “waterboarding admitted mass murderers for less than three minutes if it were 100% certain to save thousands of lives.” goes unquestioned. If I were 100% certain that a giant geyser of oil and gold would spew forth from Yellowstone if everyone in America jumped at once, should there be a national requirement to do so?

    scarshapedstar (0ad653)

  30. Wow. So much clinging to such a flimsy hypothetical. It’s shameful to watch.

    Stop trying to paint yourself as some kind of victim. It’s embarrassing.

    Patrick, I think you hit the target with these hypotheticals. When they start writing stuff ike this, you know you’ve hit a nerve.

    Paul (ec9716)

  31. Liberals. As peaceful as the so called “religon of peace” or as I call it the religion of breaking things into pieces…
    Good thing they don’t believe in the 2d Amendment or you’d really be in trouble.

    Lurkin_no_mo (e83663)

  32. daleyrocks –

    “Truly innovative thinking on your part. Did you take a number with all the other libs to post these talking points here.”

    No, we have secret meetings you don’t know about where we all align in talking points.

    God forbid this just actually be my opinion, huh?

    “Put down the bong and when your head clears you might get a clue.”

    Clue. Less.

    But hey, nice baseless personal attacks there.

    It’s stupid to even have to say it, but I did 4 years at the Naval Academy and 5 years in the Marine Corps… I was taught you do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. Not because it might be useful in the utilitarian sense. Torture is wrong. It’s the purview of the morally weak and the ethically pathetic.

    What I find particularly painful is the lengths folks want to go to make torture “OK.” Every absurd clock ticking, we know he’s a terrorist and this is our only hope absurdity does nothing more than try to convince people that the very things we tried people for war crimes over, is now A-OK.

    Shameful.

    Rob (57416c)

  33. Patrick, I think you hit the target with these hypotheticals. When they start writing stuff ike this, you know you’ve hit a nerve.

    If by ‘nerve’ you mean ‘deep sense of embarrassment that we as a nation are actually having a debate about when it would be appropriate to TORTURE SOMEONE, AND THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS UNDER WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR SAID TORTURE, then nerve it is.

    The willful ignorance displayed by the regular posters here is no less shocking than that exhibited by the original poster.

    Clinging to an impossible hypothetical defend the committing of the most heinous acts on other people, and then to declare some sort of moral victory. How low. How genuinely, contemptibly low.

    Jody (8f0618)

  34. “Another Drew – Can you imagine if we just summarily executed all of the unlawful combatants rather than detaining them? The Left would be apopleptic.”

    Totally. Can you imagine how hilarious it would be? Since we’re so good at determining summarily who is an unlawful combatant?

    whitd (10527e)

  35. whitd – We could have simply shot these people on the battlefield.

    I just love how the government cannot be trusted to make these kinds of decisions, so long as it involves the military and defending ourselves, but the government would be a benevolent master if we would just hand all of our health care decisions over to it.

    JD (33beff)

  36. Since we’re so good at determining summarily who is an unlawful combatant?

    That would be the trigger-men, and all the people we catch trying to kill us, firing guns and such at us.

    Unless they are wearing a uniform, they are unlawful combatants.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  37. Just by mentioning John Cole, I cause the average IQ of the commenters here to go down by 10-20 points, as the morons flood in from his site.

    scarshapedstar sez:

    Jesus. I guess every time I read a post about beating up a moonbat, I should feel personally threatened, too.

    Yeah, I guess if I specifically referenced a post by scarshapedstar and then talked about how hypotheticaly we should beat up moonbats.

    I don’t feel personally threatened by Cole, by the way, you moron. I do think it was wrong of him to talk about physical violence towards a conservative on a hot-button issue like this, even as a “joke,” to the crowd of lunatics he has for commenters. He knew for a fact that people would be gleefully calling for violence, ha, ha. The “funniest” part was when one of you people talked about punching Ann Coulter in the Adam’s apple.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  38. Patterico, John Cole was a true conservative, don’t you know? If not for the evil Bu$Hitlerburton regime stealing elections, he would still be a rock-ribbed Republican.

    For a group that claims the moral high ground on “torture”, war, peace, and the like, they sure are quick to resort to violence.

    JD (33beff)

  39. The point is, Cole professes to hate Michelle Malkin, and claims that she tries to stoke outrage in her audience. Yet he deliberately does that, knowing that his audience is filled with cretins.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  40. Careful, Patterico, just mentioning the fact that it is wrong to threat bodily harm to Ann Coulter will result in the moonbats claiming that you agree with everything she has ever said, or ever will say.

    JD (33beff)

  41. To identify the self-righteous crowd who recoil at the thought of waterboarding mass murderers for 2 1/2 minutes to save thousands of lives

    Has this ever happened? Is it ever likely to? What has actually happened is America has tortured innocent people and what is likely to happen is that they’ll go beyond water boarding if they haven’t already.

    This isn’t TV or a movie, torture is against every civilized law and instinct for a reason.

    What the hell do you think “Cruel and Unusual” means? If you can’t do it BY LAW to a convicted pedophile why is it suddenly okay to do it to a suspect?

    You’re so terrified that want to be protected by a police state; that makes you a pathetic coward and you certainly shouldn’t be living in a free society, you are unworthy and obviously incapable of it.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  42. For a group that claims the moral high ground on “torture”, war, peace, and the like, they sure are quick to resort to violence.

    Yeah, well, as I say, we are the real enemy. I have seen more than one lefty in various sites in the past 24 hours talk about how he’d like to see me killed.

    But waterboard a terrorist for 2 1/2 minutes if it were guaranteed to save thousands? *That* would be evil!!

    Patterico (bad89b)

  43. salvage – I saw your name show up in the recent comments, and just knew we would be starting off the day with a doozie from you. You did not disappoint.

    Care to cite any of your assertions, or are you just projecting the way you would conduct yourself onto everyone else?

    JD (33beff)

  44. It’s not like I’m worried by these idiots, but it is fun pointing out their utter lack of balance or common sense.

    I knew for a fact that when I asked his commenters who is worse, me or KSM, that one of those morons would bite and say me. It was like predicting that the sun would rise today.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  45. Patterico – FWIW, I have found these scenarios to be quite fascinating, and increasingly more difficult to arrive at a good solid yes or no answer. A few arguments, from each side, have made me step back and re-evaluate where I was at with my decisions.

    JD (33beff)

  46. If you were 100% sure that someone had committed a crime would you be morally justified in planting evidence, not disclosing evidence that looks exculpatory, etc.? This is a serious question.

    I know this is off-topic, but I’ll answer this one: no, you would not be morally justified in doing so.

    Your actions would make it more likely that the accused would be acquitted. If you were so certain that he had committed a crime, why on earth would you take steps that could result in him going free?

    There’s a difference between trying to get information out of someone and trying to put someone in jail.

    Steverino (c33cc5)

  47. All of these comments nicely confirm one longstanding view of mine. Conservatives tend to think that the Liberals are just wrong, misguided. Liberals, on the other hand, think Conservatives (and anyone else that dare disagree with them) are evil. Never have I seen it more clearly on display than in these threads.

    JD (33beff)

  48. Has this ever happened?

    Yes. That would be KSM.

    Really Salvage, if we have to cover the basics every single time you show up, this is going to take a very long time.

    BTW, Patterico, I forgot to ask “last night”, did that thread break the record?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  49. Patterico,
    He really appreciates the attention you’re giving him. Nutshell: let the fools play in their corner of the sandbox (they prefer to play together, anyway)

    None of those pu$$ies could do any harm to a flea, anyway…they’re all type and no life.

    rjwest21 (8f8726)

  50. One issue that repeatedly comes up is that people who are against the use of coercive interrogation techniques believe that you never know if the response elicited is legitimate, actionable information, or if it is a falsehood stated to simply “end the pain.”

    The fallacy in this thinking is the belief that the men captured were captured in a “vacuum”.

    The reality is that these individuals were captured with data and communications media (e.g. computers, paper records, communications equipment, etc.) as well as being captured with other terrorists, that will provide us insights into directions that questions should head towards, how to validate specific information provided, and how to determine which information is correct when we’re provided conflicting information.

    The climax of the interrogation procedure occurs when the subject finally believes that you know enough to know that he’s lying (even if you don’t have 100% of the info. and just need a few… names, addresses, to seal the deal….), and is so afraid of the “punishment” for lying, or convinced that you’re going to find out the information anyway, that he finally relents and provides the information.

    Incidentally, providing names and addresses of a few individuals could be checked in a matter of minutes from wherever the individuals are sequestered and then quickly back-checked (in the states) to determine if their communications profiles fit a suspect profile.

    Just a few thoughts.

    NED

    NewEnglandDevil (cc6b20)

  51. NED – Thanks for laying that out so clearly. It is though they believe that the entire US intelligence service and military would just take off on a wild goose chase the first time any information is given out. They either have a fundamental lack of knowledge of the process, or just make shit up to fit their views. Either way, their lack of seriousness in these matters is evident.

    JD (33beff)

  52. Conservatives tend to think that the Liberals are just wrong, misguided. Liberals, on the other hand, think Conservatives (and anyone else that dare disagree with them) are evil.

    Why yes, there were no Conservatives saying that anyone (Liberals included) who opposed our Dear Leader’s Glorious Crusade to Iraq were traitors, surrender monkeys, Islamo-Fascist sympathizers,etc. Were there? One and a half trillion borrowed dollars later may I mildly interject that it was a mistake.

    maxbaer (c31187)

  53. max – If they were advocating withdrawal and surrender, then if the shoe fits …

    As for the traitor bit, I did not agree with those assertions. I do think that the language from some of the Dem officials was harmful, but fell way short of aid and comfort, outside of the PR arena, which is where this war is being fought.

    A month ago, the war was a failure. Now it is a mistake. Are we to assume that you have abandoned the failure bit, due to the mounting evidence of success?

    JD (33beff)

  54. A month ago, the war was a failure. Now it is a mistake. Are we to assume that you have abandoned the failure bit, due to the mounting evidence of success?

    Six months ago NBC declared it a “civil war”. What happened with all that, by the way?

    rjwest21 (8f8726)

  55. Another hypothetical for you:

    Suppose a child happens to live next door to a known terrorist and you know the child knows where that terrorist is hiding. Are you justified in torturing that child to find out where the terrorist is hiding?

    Konrad (2632a0)

  56. Things I have learned from John Cole:

    1. It’s okay to threaten to kill or maim conservative bloggers who pose hypothetical questions, but it’s not okay to run water over a terrorist’s head for 150 seconds.

    2. You can excuse a magazine publishing a false story about American troops in a war zone, but conservatives are not allowed to overreact when this occurs.

    Steverino (e00589)

  57. Specifics? If at this point you are unaware that America has been engaging in torture since Clinton than you’ll never know because you choose not to.

    Bit like Homer yelling “If I can’t see it I’m not breaking the law!!”

    Maher Arar would be a good start if you truly care about the crimes being committed in your name and why torture can never, ever be made legal in any way.

    As for the basics, they are established, torture is an offense against Western Democracy and anyone who values it should be horrified at the idea of America indulging in this criminal behaviour at any level.

    But it’s obvious that those ideals are too tough for you guys, you want to be kept safe by any means and you don’t care who gets caught in the crossfire.

    The only people who are for torture are psychos, tyrants and cowards, which are you?

    salvage (11c2f9)

  58. If at this point you are unaware that America has been engaging in torture since Clinton than you’ll never know because you choose not to.

    Cite, please.

    The only people that ask questions like the one that salvage just asked are cowards, pussies, and liars. Which are you, salvage?

    JD (33beff)

  59. —->MAHER ARARMAHER ARARThe only people that ask questions like the one that salvage just asked are cowards, pussies, and liars. Which are you, salvage?

    I guess “I know you are but what am I?” is the peak of your wit.

    Psychos, tyrants and cowards like, approve and or use torture to protect themselves. We civilized believers in Western Democracy and rule of law do not. The line is as clear as the reasons for it, if you can’t figure it out… well obviously you can’t.

    Sad.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  60. —->MAHER ARARMAHER ARARThe only people that ask questions like the one that salvage just asked are cowards, pussies, and liars. Which are you, salvage?

    I guess “I know you are but what am I?” is the peak of your wit.

    Psychos, tyrants and cowards like, approve and or use torture to protect themselves. We civilized believers in Western Democracy and rule of law do not. The line is as clear as the reasons for it, if you can’t figure it out… well obviously you can’t.

    Sad.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  61. MAHER ARAR

    ARE YOU BLIND? CAN YOU NOT READ? WHAT, DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A LINK FOR YOU? SORRY YOUR MOMMY DOESN’T POST HERE, CUT AND PASTE MAHER ARARINTO GOOGLE AND LEARN.

    America tortures innocent people, how proud you must be!

    >The only people that ask questions like the one that salvage just asked are cowards, pussies, and liars. Which are you, salvage?

    I guess “I know you are but what am I?” is the peak of your wit.

    Psychos, tyrants and cowards like, approve and or use torture to protect themselves. We civilized believers in Western Democracy and rule of law do not. The line is as clear as the reasons for it, if you can’t figure it out… well obviously you can’t.

    Sad.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  62. Sorry for the triple tap, formating went wacky.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  63. America tortures innocent people, how proud you must be!

    Syria is not America. America is not Syria. Way to grasp the facts, genius.

    Arar was deported. Look it up. Here, I’ll help.

    Pablo (99243e)

  64. Personally, I love people who sit anonymously at their keyboards and assail complete strangers as “cowards”.

    Generally, I figure it’s the norm of the 5 foot not-much and less than 180 crowd that gains testosterone via high-speed connectivity.

    rjwest21 (8f8726)

  65. He was “deported” to Syria but he’s a Canadian citizen so he wasn’t deported he was illegally rendered to a state where he was tortured for America. You may gibber that IT’S SYRIA! THEY DONE IT! but that’s like a mob boss telling the judge, “Hey, I didn’t whack the guy I just gave him to some other guys… they did it whatchyou looking at me fer?”

    The crime leads all the way back to your country, you proud of that Sparky? An innocent man held prisoner and tortured just for you! Does that make you feel safe tough guy?

    It’s amazing while America howls that Syria is “Axis of evil” material she use their evil to try and make twits like you feel safe. Pathetic, cowardly hypocrites of the worst sort.

    And that’s one case, there are many others. Now that you seem to be able to use Google (it’s simple but you seem simpler) why don’t you look up “extraordinary rendition”?

    You may think that handing off the dirty work keep you clean but it doesn’t. America, as policy tortures, leaving y’all out of the Civilized World.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  66. He was “deported” to Syria but he’s a Canadian citizen so he wasn’t deported he was illegally rendered to a state where he was tortured for America.

    He’s also a Syrian citizen, and he was deported, not rendered, to Syria based on bad information we got from the RCMP, which is why they just paid him $10 million.

    You may gibber that IT’S SYRIA! THEY DONE IT! but that’s like a mob boss telling the judge, “Hey, I didn’t whack the guy I just gave him to some other guys… they did it whatchyou looking at me fer?”

    You can gibber all you want that Syria is just America’s puppet, but that would be like…well, that would be idiotic. Carry on anyway, as I know you will.

    Pablo (99243e)

  67. Born in Syria in 1970, came to Canada in 1987 and lived there ever since, so why would they send him to the other side of the planet when Canada was right there?

    It wasn’t “bad information” from the RCMP that sent him to be tortured so you’ll feel safe, it was official American policy. He was detained in America and sent to Syria via America, yeah, they were really going to listen to the RCMP, puh-lease. But it’s cute the way you try and shift the blame.

    Oh it’s good you noticed that 10 million payout, see that’s called taking responsibility, America used to do that.

    And I didn’t say Syria was America’s puppet, they’re America’s useful evil, they torture for you. They’d be doing it anyway so it’s not like they need to be told.

    salvage (11c2f9)

  68. I am no psycho, tyrant, or coward, yet I think there are limited circumstances where actual torture could be justified. therefore, salvage, your assertion is BS.

    American, as a policy, tortures. Generalize often?

    I suppose that you were outraged, outraged I tell you, when Clinton utilized extraordinary rendition. Funny how these morally preening asses were silent about this cancer that will destroy our country when it was one of their in office. Makes one wonder whether it is about the policy or the politics.

    That you think we are outsourcing this to Syria is comical. Where are you from, salvage?

    JD (33beff)

  69. It wasn’t “bad information” from the RCMP that sent him to be tortured so you’ll feel safe, it was official American policy.

    Then why do you suppose Canada just paid him $10 million? Google it! As for the little turd appended to that incorrect sentence, I’d never heard of Arar before this story came out, so I don’t see how this could have made me feel safe. Had you? Feel free to explain that.

    Oh it’s good you noticed that 10 million payout, see that’s called taking responsibility, America used to do that.

    Why would they take responsibility for American policy? Why would they take responsibility if they were not responsible for what happened?

    And I didn’t say Syria was America’s puppet, they’re America’s useful evil, they torture for you.

    No, Syria tortures for Syria and they get a lot of crap out of it, like Arar’s confession.

    Pablo (99243e)

  70. Sorry, guys. Arar should not have been deported to Syria and would not have without bad faith on our part as well as that of the Canadians. Let’s not give the FBI and the CIA who both hired a Hezbollah agent more credit than they deserve.

    nk (09a321)

  71. policy

    I am no psycho, tyrant, or coward, yet I think there are limited circumstances where actual torture could be justified. therefore, salvage, your assertion is BS.

    Awesome bit of reasoning but no, it can only be justified by psychos, tyrants and cowards.

    Then why do you suppose Canada just paid him $10 million?

    Because the Canadian government failed to do their job. Dar.

    I suppose that you were outraged, outraged I tell you, when Clinton utilized extraordinary rendition.

    CAN YOU READ? CAN YOU? TRY! HERE WHAT I SAID:

    Specifics? If at this point you are unaware that America has been engaging in torture since Clinton than you’ll never know because you choose not to.

    So yes, I fully aware of when America started this despicable and undemocratic practice.

    like Arar’s confession.

    1) what confession?
    2) Of what possible value is a confession obtained under torture? You hurt someone enough and they’ll say anything, true or otherwise. One of the reasons why it’s useless as an investigation tool

    salvage (11c2f9)

  72. Oh, there were screw ups all around, nk. There’s no question about it. But we didn’t torture him, Syria did. And the notion that it was on our behalf is nonsense.

    Pablo (99243e)

  73. “2) Of what possible value is a confession obtained under torture? You hurt someone enough and they’ll say anything, true or otherwise. One of the reasons why it’s useless as an investigation tool.”

    Except when they tell the truth and we can have substantial evidence that confirms it. and lives are saved.

    G (722480)

  74. Because the Canadian government failed to do their job. Dar.

    You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. From the Arar Commission report, pg 140:

    That said, I do conclude that it is very likely that American officials relied on information the RCMP had provided to American agencies in making the decision to detain Mr. Arar on his arrival in New York. I refer here to information about Mr. Arar, some of which was inaccurate, that was given to the American agencies at different times in the months preceding his detention in New York, as discussed in Chapter III.

    The reasons for this conclusion relating to Mr. Arar’s detention in New York are essentially the same as those for my conclusion that American authorities very likely relied on that same information in deciding to remove him to Syria.

    That is not “failed to do their job”. That is “We gave them bad information.”

    what confession?

    You really ought to know the story before you try swinging it around like your warhammer. Arar “confessed” to having trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    2) Of what possible value is a confession obtained under torture?

    That depends on the confession, not how it was obtained. Sometimes people lie and sometimes they tell the truth for a variety of reasons. What good was John Mark Carr’s confession? What good was BTK’s confession? What good was KSM’s confession?

    Pablo (99243e)

  75. G – That is a meme that they will cling to in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    Where are you from, salvage?

    JD (33beff)

  76. Man… Is it just me, or is Salvage getting more and more shrill?

    I can just see his face getting redder and redder and he types.

    CAN YOU READ? CAN YOU? TRY! HERE WHAT I SAID:

    Caps Lock… Cruise Control to “Cool”…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  77. FWIW, salvage, I doubt that Canada paid him $10M because of anything we did. Surely, if they had that kind of coin laying around, they could have spent it trying to reduce wait times for their national healthcare system.

    JD (33beff)

  78. Despite your acknowledgement that rendition has been in practice since during the time Clinton was in office, where was your faux-outrage over the practice back then?

    JD (33beff)

  79. You guys are probably right. Torture is sometimes justified. When you want faulty information in order to start a pre-emptive war, that’s the way to get it. When you want bad intel to feed to Fox News in order to raise the terror alert level before an election, torture will get you whatever you want to hear. Of course, if you want facts based in reality, it’s not so good. And the ticking bomb thing is fiction. It’s the slippery slope that led to Arar and other innocent people being renditioned. That’s why no torture means no torture.

    maxbaer (c31187)

  80. max – If only all of your assertions and opinions were true, I might be able to agree with you. However, simply asserting them, and the sheer force of your will, will not make them so.

    JD (33beff)

  81. Rob@32 – Thank you for your service. Your service, however, does not give you absolute moral authority to avoid criticism as the 121st moonbat to spew the same inanities and falsehoods on related threads. I’ll repeat the relevant portions of your post here and my criticism to refresh your memory.

    The huge flaw in your hypothetical being, of course, that there’s no such thing as 100% certainty in the real world. – Of course there is no certainty in the real world, but there can be informed decisions.

    The whole problem arises from this pre-ordained assumption of certainty to justify torture. – See above.

    I mean, you know that they’re terrorists [even when they’re not]{We knew KSM was a senior terrorist, he even acknowledged it to Al Jazeera. To whom are you referring?}, you know they know something [even when they don’t](Since Al Quaeda promised more attacks don’t you think their senior planner would know something? Odds anyone?) and you know torture is going to work [even when it doesn’t](are you concerned about all those false positives fooling everyone? Why do people keep using these techniques if they don’t work? I forgot, for the sheer sadism.) and it’s the only way to get the information [even when it isn’t.](You’re right, we’d rather roll over, give up and accept more mass casualties because the terrorists don’t want to give up their secrets that you don’t believe they have because they aren’t even real terrorists because we keep detaining innocent shepherds.)

    daleyrocks (906622)

  82. maxie – Are you saying the Canadians thought Arar was part of a bomb plot? Why did they give us bad information?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  83. “whitd – We could have simply shot these people on the battlefield.”

    This is a great argument. On 2 points. #1, there’s lots of people we can shoot on the battlefield. #2, there’s lots of places that are, in the rhetoric of the war on terra, the battlefield. So al-marri, who was declared an unlawful combatant while in a jail cell in NY, could be shot there? Or padilla, who was captured in an airport… someone can just walk up to him and shoot him? Or does the fact that we are out of the immediacy of combat mean that some other process goes on other than the simplistic “We could have simply shot these people on the battlefield”

    whitd (10527e)

  84. Pretty much, we could shoot them at will. There is in some cases the need to show an officer that “here’s what he was doing”, at which point, you can shoot him.

    For padilla, right this second, it would go something like this:

    Person 1: “We convicted him of giving aide t the enemy”

    Officer: “Ok.” BANG

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  85. Hmmmm…looks like we lost salvage. Pity, that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  86. “Pretty much, we could shoot them at will.”

    So. Based upon a presidential (or any of the executive branch?) determination of unlawful combatant status, anyone anywhere can be killed? thats it?

    “Person 1: “We convicted him of giving aide t the enemy””

    A conviction of a capital crime is something different than a determination of unlawful combatant status. Its being a criminal. Which as you know, get appeals, etc…

    whitd (10527e)

  87. Jody #33:

    If by ‘nerve’ you mean ‘deep sense of embarrassment that we as a nation are actually having a debate about when it would be appropriate to TORTURE SOMEONE, AND THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS UNDER WHICH IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR SAID TORTURE, then nerve it is.

    The willful ignorance displayed by the regular posters here is no less shocking than that exhibited by the original poster.

    Clinging to an impossible hypothetical defend the committing of the most heinous acts on other people, and then to declare some sort of moral victory. How low. How genuinely, contemptibly low.

    Yup, Jody would rather condemn 10,000 Americans to die horribly in a terrorist attack than waterboard someone for 2 1/2 minutes.

    I’m sure those 10,000 Americans and their families and loved ones will appreciate it.

    Paul (ec9716)

  88. So. Based upon a presidential (or any of the executive branch?) determination of unlawful combatant status, anyone anywhere can be killed? thats it?

    whitd, have you ever read the Geneva Convention?

    Hint: there’s a reason all branches of the US Military are crush-coal-into-diamonds anal about proper uniform wearing.

    Paul (ec9716)

  89. “whitd, have you ever read the Geneva Convention?”

    Parts. Have you? I’ve read other documents that affect how our government acts too. How about those?

    whitd (10527e)

  90. Parts. Have you?

    Why do you think I brought it up?

    I’ve read other documents that affect how our government acts too. How about those?

    You’re the one who wrote “Based upon a presidential (or any of the executive branch?) determination of unlawful combatant status, anyone anywhere can be killed? thats it?”

    I simply pointed you to the source of such determination.

    Paul (ec9716)

  91. “I simply pointed you to the source of such determination.”

    I think the president gets his powers from the constitution, not the geneva convention. You read that one?

    whitd (10527e)

  92. I think the president gets his powers from the constitution, not the geneva convention. You read that one?

    Nice dodge. I give you 8.7 out of 10.

    Paul (ec9716)

  93. See, I thought you lefties were all about the Geneva Convention when it comes to treatment of enemy combatants…at least that was among the talking points.

    Paul (ec9716)

  94. daleyrocks @ 81 –

    Nice of you to respond this time time without the insults. Had you done that the first time, maybe I’d think you actually were interested in actual engagement. But thanks for reposting everything you wrote before. Useful.

    Of course, there can be “informed” decisions. The only caveat is that informed decisions are still frequently wrong.

    There are folks in Gitmo who were turned in for nothing more than the being members of a rival tribe and the cash offered. Over 40 people have been released from Gitmo, but we knew they were enemy combatants and terrorists. Oops, guess not, since we’ve released them. Our bad. But we could’ve used torture on them while we had them, right? Cause we knew they were terrorists then.

    The problem with these BS hypotheticals about the people we know are terrorists, like KSM, is that if you use when you’re 100% sure, well then, surely, we can use when we’re 95% sure, right? Or 80%? How about even odds? Cause like we’re told, golly, if it saves one innocent life then we can do anything, right? Not to mention these absurd percentages are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with anything other than math, not human decision making processes.

    It’s really, really simple… and I don’t really understand what’s so hard to get. America now engages in activities we once prosecuted as war crimes.

    Torturing people is wrong. America is supposed to stand for something better, and something greater.

    Rob (57416c)

  95. Rob – You’re missing the point again. Did we torture the prisoners we released from Gitmo? Have we tortured everybody there? If not, then I guess the left’s bedwetting over it misuse and spreading may be a bit overblown. When we finally figured out we had innocent shepherds in detention we released them, right. How many of those innocent shepherd made their way back to a battlefield opposing us again, Rob? It’s quite a few at this point.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  96. “Did we torture the prisoners we released from Gitmo? Have we tortured everybody there?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

    “Red Cross inspectors and released detainees have alleged acts of torture, including sleep deprivation, the use of so-called truth drugs, beatings and locking in confined and cold cells. Human rights groups argue that indefinite detention constitutes torture.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html

    “…one of the FBI agents at Guantanamo thought so, too. He warned FBI headquarters the military was using “torture techniques.” The FBI emails were uncovered and declassified in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.”

    “List of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

    “On Monday, May 14, 2007, Pentagon officials Joseph Benkert and Jeffrey Gordon repeated the assertion that thirty former captives had returned to the battlefield in testimony before the United States Congress. They identified six of the thirty by name…

    Commentators questioned the credibility of the spokesmen’s assertions. H. Candace Gorman, looked into the only three names had been offered of captives who had been returned to the battlefield… She found that there were captives with names close to those of the two other men. but that the records showed these men were still in custody when according to the spokesmen’s assertions they had not only been released, but had been killed in combat…”

    Another was named later, for a total of 7.

    Of those 7, 5 confirmed returned to the battlefield and killed by independent sources. One reported returned to battle turned out to be utter BS, the other questionable.

    So 5, out of approximately 420 who have been released. That’s “quite a few”? Your math is… interesting.

    “Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.”

    So, that’s about 650 people – who were held indefinitely – who are so dangerous, that we have to… release them? We win the war on terror then, right?

    Regardless, torture is morally repugnant, a tool of the low, the weak and the pathetic. America, rightly, used to be a country that prosecuted that kind of behavior as a war crime.

    Rob (57416c)

  97. “Nice dodge. I give you 8.7 out of 10.”

    Dodge? thats the point!

    whitd (10527e)

  98. Rob – You should be encouraging the release of prisoners I would have thought. Were any of the allegations of torture that actually violate international conventions, as opposed to liberal sensibilities, actually proved?

    I don’t know what information Candace was looking at, but she wasn’t looking too hard. There are plenty of those innocent shepherds out there. Where did that meme about people being sold into captivity start anyway, a gullible Time reporter, just like the Haditha story?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

    That Wiki article you got your info from sounds like it was written by Candace herself. Not much credibility there when you’ve got actual former prisoners bragging about their return to the front in other forums.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  99. Dodge? thats the point!

    Soooo…your point was to dodge my Geneva Convention point.

    Got that.

    Paul (ec9716)

  100. “Soooo…your point was to dodge my Geneva Convention point.”

    You’re refusing to get it.The point is that the geneva convention is not the alpha and omega here.

    whitd (10527e)

  101. You’re refusing to get it.The point is that the geneva convention is not the alpha and omega here.

    Okay. Then enlighten us exactly where in the US Constitution does it deal with “unlawful enemy combatants” since “the geneva convention is not the alpha and omega here.”

    While you’re at it, also explain why the BDS sufferers has claimed among their talking points that Bush has violated the Geneva Convention since “the geneva convention is not the alpha and omega here” and “I think the president gets his powers from the constitution, not the geneva convention.”

    Recall this started when you wrote:

    So. Based upon a presidential (or any of the executive branch?) determination of unlawful combatant status, anyone anywhere can be killed? thats it?

    Onc e again, I simply pointed you to the source of such determination.

    Paul (ec9716)

  102. “Then enlighten us exactly where in the US Constitution does it deal with “unlawful enemy combatants””

    One of hte thing that the us constitution has in it is a prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Which walking up to someone at an airport and killing them juts based on an executive decision would probably be.

    “Onc e again, I simply pointed you to the source of such determination.”

    The “source” of a determination is one thing. What you can do with that determination is another.

    whitd (10527e)

  103. One of hte thing that the us constitution has in it is a prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Which walking up to someone at an airport and killing them juts based on an executive decision would probably be.

    I assume you are refering to the Fourth Amendment. That addresses American citizens, not “unlawful enemy combatants.” In fact, ALL of the US Constitution addresses all American citizens, not “unawful enemy combatants.”

    So here we are again: Explain why the BDS sufferers has claimed among their talking points that Bush has violated the Geneva Convention since “the geneva convention is not the alpha and omega here” and “I think the president gets his powers from the constitution, not the geneva convention.”

    Paul (ec9716)

  104. “You should be encouraging the release of prisoners I would have thought.”

    Where didn’t I? What on earth are you talking about?

    “Were any of the allegations of torture that actually violate international conventions, as opposed to liberal sensibilities, actually proved?”

    You mean, like say, waterboarding? Oh wait, I forgot, that’s not torture anymore, right?

    Yes, the ‘liberal sensibilities’ of the declassified FBI emails that call it torture. The well known pinko bias in the bureau… and of course the fact that torture is impossible to “prove” since the US doesn’t feel accountable or answerable to anyone, for anything, done in Gitmo. Despite lawsuits and complaints that released persons and international organizations continue to file…

    “I don’t know what information Candace was looking at, but she wasn’t looking too hard. There are plenty of those innocent shepherds out there”

    The Gorman article has nothing to do with that… it has to do with fact checking the claims that people returned to the battlefield. You’re not actually reading, are you?

    The article you linked to at the Post has the same, albeit far less, info than at the Wikipedia page, so your point is exactly what?

    “That Wiki article you got your info from sounds like it was written by Candace herself.”

    Nice ad hominem against someone who’s not actually there. You know you can see everyone who’s ever edited a Wiki article just by… you know… looking, right?

    “Not much credibility there when you’ve got actual former prisoners bragging about their return to the front in other forums.”

    Ah yes, internet forums… the last bastion of truth. As opposed to research actually done by third party organizations.

    Rob (57416c)

  105. Why characterize what Cole wrote instead of just showing it in your article? Here it is.

    If a right wing blogger is about to write another stupid post attempting to justify the use of torture, would it be ok for me to run over and kick them in the junk, rendering them unable to blog?

    You characterize this as “he solicits his readers’ opinions as to whether he should physically assault me.”

    Well actually that’s wrong on two counts at least. First he didn’t name you in particular. Second he solicited his readers opinion not one whether he should do it but on whether it would be “ok” if he did do it.

    It’s quite obviously humor. Grow a funny bone.

    Brian Macker (86a7dd)

  106. … and with this statement you were totally owned.

    “At any rate, before he gets another set of the vapors, someone please tell Patterico that Jeff Goldstein at PW has never actually cock-slapped anyone.”

    Brian Macker (86a7dd)

  107. It’s quite obviously humor. Grow a funny bone.

    And mine was quite obviously hyperbole.

    It’s not “owned.” It’s “pw3nd!!!1!!1!”

    Don’t you know anything?

    Patterico (faeccf)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1157 secs.