Say Anything Blog

While torture itself may be relatively ineffictive as a method of gathering intel, the threat of torture is very effective.  Legislating against it not only takes away a very important tool of gathering intel(the threat of torture, either explicit or implicit), but it tells the terrorists that we are a bunch of pussies.

Ok guys, lets place a bit of perspective on this. First, you don’t start with"torture", it is usually the 3rd or 4th level of interogation. 2. What has so far been documented is not"torture". And lastly, Sen. McCain is utilizing this as a catalyst for a national campaign, he, of all people, knows what toture is. And understands that we are not doing anything close to it.

Mike, again you confuse opposition to McCain’s legislation with support of torture.

The point is not to keep torture available as an interrogation method but rather to ban it so that our intelligence agents can operate without fear of repriasal over some poorly-worded legislation.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] So before she’s asked any questions let’s make sure she’s seated in a climate-controlled room with her lawyer and only spoken in a soft, sensitive manner. Because that the international community sees as as being sensitive to the needs of our prisoners if war is priority #1, even above the interests of our national security. [...]

he’s never pointed to an instance where American forces have used torture.

You saying McCain should breakout all the torture pictures that were given to Congress?

What has so far been documented is not”torture

Yeah, those secret CIA prisons are used for giving the prisoners birthday parties and subjecting them to the comfy chair.

Look, it doesn’t matter what the law says, our agencies are going to do whatever they want to do.  Pass the measure, that way if we get caught, we can, again, just a “few bad apples.”

Of course, I meant “ineffective”.

This is the point.

Terrorists are “the quintessence of evil,” he said. “But it’s not about them; it’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.”

Next you’ll be telling me that habeous corpus can safely be done away with.

You are, once again, missing the point. McCain does not care about torture. He cares about his presidential aspirations. As I have told both of you in the past, I don’t support torture, or imprisonment, for terrorists. Screw whatever intel they, indivdually, may have. Kill their ass. They say they wish to go to their god, we should facilitate this wish, as soon as they raise their deathworshipping, Wahabist heads.

So please let us retain torture as a legal instrument because we may need it to beat the terrorists. Shameful.

The only thing really shameful are the broad and sweeping definitions of “torture” these days.

The only thing really shameful are the broad and sweeping definitions of “torture” these days.

Why do you say this lik? I didn’t find McCain’s definition to be broad or sweeping.

Woof wrote:

You saying McCain should breakout all the torture pictures that were given to Congress?

Especially when he’s argued against that exact thing in the past.

Rob said

The point is not to keep torture available as an interrogation method but rather to ban it so that our intelligence agents can operate without fear of repriasal over some poorly-worded legislation.

Stephen Hadley said

“The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law,” the national security adviser said. “But… you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th of 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there’s going to be a devastating attack on the United States?”

So please let us retain torture as a legal instrument because we may need it to beat the terrorists. Shameful.

(d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ‘’cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment’’ means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

These look suspiciously like the standards that are in use now.

TW...poo poo faces are not mentioned nor are skank pop tunes so you’ll have to draw your own conclusion.

I’m so glad the left in this country cares so much about the poor, downtrodden terrorists that they want to give them the constitutional rights reserved for our citizens.  Now these are citizens of the country the terrorists want to destroy.  Anyone see anything weird about this line of reasoning? Shouldn’t we deal with the terrorists in the same harsh way we would deal with those who seek to destroy us?  Makes sense to me.  Anyone seeking to destroy this country and our way of life should be afraid, very afraid, of what we will do to them.  They might think twice about what they are doing.  If we treat them with kid gloves, like the left wants to do, it might just encourage them.

Does that include making Poo Poo faces at captured terrorists?

If we are already using this standard why are we having this discussion? Oh! Yea! McCain wants a plank tostand on for his presidential run.

I didn’t find McCain’s definition to be broad or sweeping.

Define “cruel treatment”.

Define “acts of violence or intimidation”.

Define “insults and public curiosity”.

You don’t think that there will be many differing personal definitions of the above?

Seems fairly “broad and sweeping” and subject to greatly differing interpretations.

I don’t agree.  I don’t think we should do anything out of fear; much less from the fear that those who hate us might disapprove of what we do.  I include lefties and liberals in the category of “those who hate us”, by the way.  I think this recitation of “what we stand for” is a false construct.  War is about attrition, to a great extent.  We need to kill more of them than they kill of us.  War is not a time for niceties or good manners.  If we torture, or threaten to torture, it is to get vital intel, necessary to win the battle and the war.  Our enemies torture for that reason, and for two others:  Pure hatred of their enemies, and to turn POWs to their propaganda purposes.  Our enemies have been doing this since Korea.  McCain was tortured mainly for the latter purpose, and he is rightly opposed to it.  The fact is, we don’t do that.  Neither do we, as a nation, torture out of simple hatred.  Some individuals might do that at times, but it is, and always has been, our national policy to use torture either for propaganda purposes or for the infliction of egregious pain and suffering.  No new laws are necessary for this, as it already exists.  You cannot win a war in which you are afraid to do what is necessary, in military terms.

r108 said

I’m so glad the left in this country cares so much about the poor, downtrodden terrorists that they want to give them the constitutional rights reserved for our citizens.

John McCain said

Terrorists are “the quintessence of evil,” he said. “But it’s not about them; it’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.”

r108:

I don’t agree.

I know but torture is wrong because it is ineffective and because it is contrary to our sense of what is right. Limits are set on behaviour during the prosecution of war, America has agreed that such limits exist and McCain’s amendment serves to underscore the American commitment to western values and ideals.

If I want to live in a society based on the principle of “rule of law” rather than the “rule by men” then traditionally I have subscribed to the rich western tradition of inalienable human rights and justice. Fortunately your viewpoint rarely gains currency in the positions of power in free societies but unfortunately this appears to be one of those occasions. Odd that we seem to be taking positions contrary to that which we normally would but these are strange days.

Mike? Why are our enemies not held to these standards. Will you be as upset at their actions in contrevention of the Geneva Accords as you are by our’s? And if so, When? We hold our troops accountable for their actions. Why do people on the left resist any attempt to hold our enemies to these standards. Not you, perse, the left in general. Our enemies can do no wrong, we can do no right. What is the deal? You are closer to center than I am, perhaps you could illuminate this issue.

You’re getting silly again, Dave.  Why can’t you deal with the truth of what I said, instead of raising some meaningless red herring?  If you are so concerned with freedom of speech, why not support it for everyone, not just owners of newspapers?

Mike:  I know it irks the peaceniks, but we wouldn’t have this free society and all the “rights” you like to acquire other than the constitutional ones, if we didn’t do what we needed, and still need to win the current war.  If we lose this war, none of what you talk about will continue to exist.  The real difference between our society and the rest is that we only do the bad stuff when absolutely necessary.  Unlike Saddam, for instance, we don’t routinely rape, murder and torture our own citizens in time of peace.  When worldwide terrorists attack us, we must eliminate them from this earth.  If we don’t, all your philosophy is just so much hot air.

Dave:  Of course I was referring to the war on terrorism, not just the war in Iraq.  Nice spin; I almost didn’t catch it.

Dave: If you are a white conservative Christian man in this society, you have already lost a lot of your freedom of speech, due to the leftist control of the media and the courts.
My point is, of course, that losing in Iraq will result in stepped up terrorist activity, since they will be emboldened by it(like in Somalia under Clinton), and we will eventually lose to them.  Wake up and smell the enemy at our gates.

If you are a white conservative Christian man in this society, you have already lost a lot of your freedom of speech, due to the leftist control of the media

If you’re a white conservative Christian, who is stopping you from starting your own newspaper?

If we lose this war, none of what you talk about will continue to exist.

Mike: To have real peace, you must defeat the bad guys.  It is interesting to hear a peacenik talk about heavy lifting.  You guys are the epitome of lighweights.

If we lose this war, none of what you talk about will continue to exist.

I’m sure that sentiment has expressed many times since the signing of the Magna Carta but it doesn’t make it any truer. The problem I see is that some folks just don’t have confidence in the ability of the West’s basic principles to endure. Somebody once said that “democracy is hard work”...he wasn’t lying and, when faced with adversity, it is tempting to cast aside the principles that make our way of life great and wrestle around in the muck with the enemy. That’s what men do right? They kick some enemy ass and show them who’s boss because to beat the bad guy you have to fight at his level.

Take the easy way out r108 and leave the heavy lifting to those who understand what we have, how we got it and how we’re going to keep it.

2Hotel9 asks

Why do people on the left resist any attempt to hold our enemies to these standards.

Some lefties will never be satisfied...they’ll rail on no matter the weather. That’s the fringe and the weirdos and the Right has them too and if you hate their outlook then you notice it more. In addition, lefties like me who aren’t jingoistic rah rah types get lumped in with the extremists because we don’t share your views on the conflict. We support our way of life but if we don’t jump on board the war wagon then we must be enemies too in the eyes of many war supporters. That’s how I see it.

You guys are the epitome of lighweights.

and we’re not men, we’re pussies.

Terrorists are “the quintessence of evil,” he said. “But it’s not about them; it’s about us. This battle we’re in is about the things we stand for and believe in and practice. And that is an observance of human rights, no matter how terrible our adversaries may be.”

Carry on cowboy.

because they write the kind of thing that lets you know that you never have to take them seriously again.  Because Wizbang’s Jay Tea, already a self-proclaimed “thinker”, sure has his thoughts figured out when it comes to torture. Rob from Say Anything brings up Senator John McCain’s constant push to ban torture by the US government. It’s a fine, noble sentiment, and certainly understandable from a man who spent literally years being tortured by the Vietnamese government, but is it really such a good idea?

Mike:  I will.  Someone has to do the heavy lifting so you lot can cavort with your signs and fling obscenities at the President.  While you are stamping your feet and shouting your obscenities, those of us who really care will be killing the terrorists so that you can keep up your rude behavior.  Oh, well.  Carry on, peacenik.