The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And yes, Flippy, I just listed some prominent dems....my point wasn't the specific people, but simply trying to point out that there were people on left side of the aisle that certainly knew and didn't speak up until it was to their political advantage to do so.

A point I wouldn't have argued with at all.

So, just to be clear, there aren't actually any Democrats you feel should be waterboarded, right?

To my understanding, the reason that waterboarding is part of military training is to prepare soldiers in case they are ever captured and waterboarded. So, yes, in a sense, SERE training involves torturing recruits. I presume that the exposure to these techniques is relatively brief, done with full disclosure beforehand, and with careful attention to making sure no one is truly harmed. Emerging information seems to indicate that our detainees underwent endless hours of the procedure, in one case over one hundred times in a month. We don't yet know what, if any, useful information was obtained by these means, but indications are that conventional interrogation techniques have been far more effective.

If there really is a 24-style ticking bomb scenario that we avoided thanks to waterboarding, we should know about it. (Cheney insists there are documents that would vindicate the procedure - but even if they aren't released, surely there are people involved who could give us at least SOME information about this hitherto-unknown breakthrough in national security.)

I've got to go back onstage, but, as always, pleasure tossing the ideological volleyball around.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

So, just to be clear, there aren't actually any Democrats you feel should be waterboarded, right?

I don't think so. I tried (and not very well) to make a rhetorical point.

[Gemini Cricket]

Opinions on Sotomayor?

I didn't realize it was pronounced "SO-TOE-MAY-YOUR". At least that's how they pronounce it on NPR.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And yes, Flippy, I just listed some prominent dems....my point wasn't the specific people, but simply trying to point out that there were people on left side of the aisle that certainly knew and didn't speak up until it was to their political advantage to do so....

Again, you missed the point. We were listing people on the right who are quite vocal in denying that waterboarding is torture, not people who might have known we were diong it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Again, you missed the point. We were listing people on the right who are quite vocal in denying that waterboarding is torture, not people who might have known we were diong it.

In my opinion, it is far worse to believe it is torture and do nothing when they know it is happening than to vocally express that it is not torture.

I personally know two members of the armed forces who have been subjected to it and do not consider it torture.....and in fact, find it somewhat ridiculous that it is categorized as such. There are people who have been subjected to it who do not consider it to be. What is torture to me may not be torture to someone else. I am deathly afraid of the dentist, do not go willingly, dread it, and want it to be over immediately. It literally takes every ounce of will power I have not to bolt from the chair. Is that to be considered torture? I don't think I'd like water boarding, but someone like Michael Phelps might not mind at all. Hell, I'd like to sue my son's 4th grade music teacher for making him practice his recorder for 3 hours/month. THAT is torture.

[flippyshark]

And, okay, this is the last time I'll pick on you, scaeagles - but, other than the fact that you don't like them - why again do you think prominent dems should undergo waterboarding? Because they might have known about it? Because you think they are horrible people? I disagree with those who think that conservatives should be waterboarded, as stated before. But at least it was coherent - Hannity doesn't think waterboarding was torture, so, let him try it and see how he likes it. (Which, of course, he offered to do before apparently changing his mind.) So, there is a direct correlation between the "crime" (thinking waterboarding is okay) and the punishment (let 'em have it.) Just to clarify, I don't follow this line of thinking. I don't even particularly advise anyone to voluntarily undergo the process, as I understand it's potentially much more dangerous than is generally acknowledged.

But, just to press you a bit - why exactly do you think Obama, Clinton, not Gethner but certainly Pelosi deserve waterboarding? They already agree it's torture. They presumably find it objectionable. So, they deserve it? Do you think they will undergo it and come out saying, "Oh! That wasn't so bad after all!"

Or were you just offering a knee-jerk response to all the "let's waterboard prominent conservatives" posts?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Or were you just offering a knee-jerk response to all the "let's waterboard prominent conservatives" posts?

Bingo!

[Alex]

SERE was not torture. Torture is not consensual. The tortured are not given a safe word or signal they can use to stop things whenever they want. And the fact that waterboarding was included is a pretty solid indicator that the military considers it torture. The point, after all, was to expose soldiers to a flavor of what it would be like to be tortured. It wasn't "here are perfectly legal and reasonable -- though tough minded -- extreme interrogation techniques you might experience if captured training" it was "here're are some of the things you might experience if you're captured and tortured" training.

SERE gave a taste of what it might be like to be tortured but psychicly it is fundamentally different from toture. On another board someone who has been through SERE said it well, I think. It was torturous, not torture.

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

That said, I certainly understand the pressure that leads to torture and after the fact society may decide to forgive or only lightly punish a transgession if the evidence is strong that it did do just such a thing (currently there is little such evidence for the torturing we did do). But still, you don't pre-emptively exonerate people for immoral acts that they might commit under the pressure to succeed.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

And to pre-empt the eventual question that comes up. If torture was the only thing standing between us avoiding another 9/11, it would still be wrong to torture and that would be, in my view, and acceptable price to pay for standing by some very important principles.

Something on which I do not doubt your sincerity at all, because you are not someone seeking political advantage.

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

And this is what disturbs me about politics, really. I don't consider myself innocent of it in the least. EVERYTHING can be spun in hindsight to make a political opponent look inept. With rare exception, I do believe (Obama included) that politicians have the best interests of America at heart, but each politician wants to be the one who is credited with making the decisions that have bettered America. Should Kerrey or Gore have been President and made some of or all of the same decisions, the left would be all for them and justifying or downplaying the significance of just what they are now condemning.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

No one would ever convince me though, that should something horrid have happened (say the LA 9/11 thing), Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, whomever, would all be on the other side asking why we didn't use more agressive techniques to find out whatever we could.

Opinions based on "what if" and hypothetical "shoe on the other foot" scenarios have got to be the least convincing rhetorical device ever!