GAYPATRIOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
To all of our awesome readers. Dan, John, Nick and I are taking a brief holiday this weekend. In addition to the rest we probably all need, our Webmaster Jay is making some needed changes to the Patriot WebHouse in order to make sure our roof isn’t leaking.
Have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend and a hearty salute to our brave men and women who have died in the cause of freedom, as well as the families who love them and miss them.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
22 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In other words:………Shit is happening and I can’t deal with it.
monty
Comment by monty — May 26, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - May 26, 2006
Bruce and Dan,
Have a great holiday. Dan, hope to see you at the end of June!!
Comment by Michael — May 27, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - May 27, 2006
here’s something for you republicans to consider over the weekend: how about you let us libs go after Bush and the neo cons and we’ll let you have all the immigration reform you want. walls, deportations, the works. We’ll probably both end up at the weekly standard hq’s with our pitchforks. think it over and have a great and patriotic memorial day weekend.
Comment by lester — May 27, 2006 @ 1:36 pm - May 27, 2006
I only “celebrate” as in socialize on memorial day with my brother. I’m from a high ratio of service environment, but the only servicemember other than my father is my brother.
If I’m not with my brother I don’t “celebrate” memorial day, I mourne it, because I allowed myself to leave.
Those who never served think of it only as a day off, with pretty parades, but it isn’t a “WHEE YAY WHEE” kinda holiday, it doesn’t even require research to know that, it’s called MEMORIAL day. when you commemorate your dead mother do you drink and party?
With those who have served, we can laugh and joke about our time in, while simultaneously memorializing the individuals who did the things we never did.
Comment by Wickedpinto — May 28, 2006 @ 10:06 am - May 28, 2006
After reading the editorial below, I could not help but think and wonder this Memorial day weekend, whether our government, especially its leadership, was worthy of the sacrifices made by those in Iraq and Afganistan and elsewhere, past and present.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601548.html
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 28, 2006 @ 10:18 am - May 28, 2006
Memorial Day is one of the biggest celebrations of the year here — we’ll be plenty busy.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - May 28, 2006
I think, Gryph, that you forgot to read the first paragraph of your citation.
In response to the 3,000 murders on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation went to war. In Afghanistan, our targets were the al-Qaeda perpetrators and the Taliban regime that aided and abetted them. In Iraq, the target was an unstable tyrant who had a history of using chemical weapons and who could be trusted to cheat on and retreat from his international commitments. I supported both engagements as Navy general counsel. I support them still as a private citizen. I regard each as a prudent and even necessary use of force. The terrorist threat, and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in reckless hands, can never be underestimated.
Second, Korematsu is the Nazi comparison of these decisions. In Korematsu, the decision was made that thousands of people, many of whom were American citizens, should be legally stripped of property and liberty, sent off to internment — all based on their national ancestry.
The Guantanamo Bay detainees aren’t even close. These are people who were captured fighting against American troops and planning to or carrying out attacks against Americans. There is no presumption of desire to harm Americans; there are mountains of evidence that they do wish to harm Americans, and will given the chance.
Furthermore, in my opinion, the Geneva Conventions, etc. are two-way streets. When al-Qaeda signs them, when terrorists sign them, when Iraqi insurgents sign them, THEN they will have its protections. Until then, they will do nothing but torture their own people, OUR troops, and OUR soldiers, then hide behind gullible leftists and the world media to protect themselves and avoid the consequences.
If these people want human dignity, they can respect it themselves. But by their actions, they have made it clear that they don’t — and we are under no legal or moral obligation to give it to them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2006 @ 12:40 am - May 29, 2006
It amazes me that people in our own country support these murderous bastards even to the point of leaking national security information. Worse yet, there are those who will praise the leakers as whistleblowers. It’s sad that there are those among us who consider it their “patriotic duty” to screw us, and the members of our military, royal for political gain.
At least 50 million people in the ME are now free and have their own government with our help and yet there are those among us who are content to mark us as the enemy. These people must NEVER be allowed to have governmental control of this country again. Those who believe the word of those brainwashed to destroy us over the word of their fellow countrymen will never have our best interests at heart. Elect the “Democrats” and you doom America to Hell.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 29, 2006 @ 4:10 am - May 29, 2006
First of all, yes, I did read the first paragraph, and in case you have forgetting, I am in agreement with those views.
I disagree with you however on your paragraph above. I simply don’t see how we can adopt what you suggest as a matter of national policy without corrupting and destroying our own American identity as a people who respect human freedom and dignity.
Why do you let terrorists turn you into the bogeyman that they keep claiming we are? Why give them that much control over your life and character? With you, they have already won.
Something that gets overlooked BTW, whenever these issues are discussed, is that these things came up not because of some Liberal Spy Ring, but rather because members of the military felt it was their ethical duty to expose these them and also to publicly disavow the policies that permitted them.
This Administration is not worthy, on this Memorial Day, of those that have made the sacrifices that we honor today.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 29, 2006 @ 10:59 am - May 29, 2006
Why do you let terrorists turn you into the bogeyman that they keep claiming we are? Why give them that much control over your life and character? With you, they have already won.
Because, Gryph, I have never tortured another person.
The vast majority of US soldiers have never tortured or been cruel to another person.
That’s because we are an evolved society. We do not HAVE to, as a regular rule, torture or be cruel to another person; in the vast majority of cases, it’s completely unnecessary.
But in the cases where it is necessary, our soldiers should be allowed to use it. We should trust them and their independent judgment to make the best decision based on the information they have; furthermore, we should trust our system of review to ensure that, when it is used, that each case is evaluated and, if found to be unjustified, punished.
That has happened, and it will continue to happen — because we are a nation of laws and we are an evolved civilization.
What you are, though, Gryph, is a Bush-hater.
I want you, on this very spot, to admit that you would never under any circumstances sanction torture, even if doing so would save one, one hundred, or one hundred thousand American lives.
If you want “moral purity”, affirm it yourself.
But if you can’t make that statement, if you can’t say that you would never under any circumstances allow torture, then admit that you have double standards — namely, that you are holding the Bush administration to a decision paradigm and ban that you yourself would not back.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 30, 2006 @ 11:49 am - May 30, 2006
The stock-in-trade of Gryph and people like him is to raise and spread false issues.
They claim to be patriots, or want us to accept them as patriots; but as the Bible says, “by their fruits ye shall know them”.
In the case of Guantanamo: The detainees are the worst 400-500 of over 70,000+ enemy fighters we have captured (temporarily) in the War on Terror. They are prisoners of war who (experience has shown) return to terrorism as soon as they are released, in most cases. At Guantanamo, they have been treated well all along. The facility has always been open to Red Cross inspections, to my knowledge. No one has ever demonstrated that ANY torture has EVER been used on them, contrary to the myths that Gryph and people like him seem to enjoy spreading.
In short: We essentially honor the Geneva Conventions with the Guantanamo detainees. No one has demonstrated otherwise – at least, not with reliable sources (as opposed to claims of the terrorists themselves whose training manuals teach them to lie in the most extreme way possible). As others have pointed out, we do it despite the facts that (1) the Geneva Convention legally does NOT apply to terrorists; and, (2) their whole raison d’etre as terrorists is to destroy the Geneva Convention and everything it rests upon.
The Mora article claims, “Whatever the ultimate historical judgment, it is established fact that documents justifying and authorizing the abusive treatment of detainees during interrogation were approved and distributed”.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. First give a reasonable definition of “abusive”; then rational people can evaluate your destructive and silly claim, Mr. Mora / Gryph.
Mora, to me, looks like a man of conscience who reads the MSM too much and has bought into the one-sided, highly selective picture of Guantanamo that the MSM has v-e-r-y carefully painted in their partisan war on the Bush Administration. I have no doubt that if Kerry were President, we would be doing all of the exact same things at Guantanamo and it would be trumpted in the MSM – and hence by Mr. Mora, Gryph, etc. – as shining examples of our humanity. As well it should be.
But I have just said something complimentary about Mr. Mora, above. I wish I could say something as complimentary for Gryph. I have seen Gryph repeat his false stories too much on this blog, even after being challenged for RELEVANT specifics and being unable to supply any, to draw any other conclusion than that Gryph must get some kind of actual satisfaction or enjoyment from repeating his stories.
Gryph says: “…these things came up not because of some Liberal Spy Ring, but rather because members of the military felt it was their ethical duty to expose these them…”
No and yes. In the case of Abu Ghraib: on the contrary, the fact that our own military VOLUNTARY exposed it is one of the redeeming things about it and I, for one, bring it up on every discussion I possibly can. But in the case of Guantanamo, there is nothing to expose.
I tend to doubt Mr. Mora has any firsthand knowledge of the guards at Guantanamo, and I’ve already supplied a “charitable” interpretation, let’s say, of his empty, vague allusions in the Post article.
Comment by Calarato — May 30, 2006 @ 11:56 am - May 30, 2006
NDT says: “…in the cases where it is necessary, our soldiers should be allowed to use [torture]“.
I disagree with that… Unless NDT merely intends to adopt the watered-down, foggy and meaningless Gryph-style definition of “torture”.
I say: (1) Supply rational definitions of “torture” and of “abuse”, (2) make policies against them, and (3) investigate / punish the people who violate those policies.
We – meaning the U.S. and its military, under the Bush Administration – have demonstrably done all three. That is reality. My objection to “Gryph’s myths” is the sick, twisted version of “reality” they attempt to spread.
It’s possible, in other words, that the nature of NDT’s objection is different than mine.
Comment by Calarato — May 30, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - May 30, 2006
P.S. Under a rational definition of torture – I believe I can say I would never sanction it – not even if it saves a hundred thousand American lives – because I understand real torture to be a notoriously inefficient way of extracting information. In other words, it isn’t an instrument capable of saving lives.
Real torture’s only utility is to instill fear in a family or population, which is why terrorists and Saddam Hussein types practice it.
Comment by Calarato — May 30, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - May 30, 2006
Well said, NDXXX & Calarato.
The spin of “officially endorsed torture” makes us as bad as the terrorists crap comes from the same impulse that posits: Rumsfeld visited Saddam in the 1980′s; therefore we endorsed Saddam’s use of WMDs against the Iraqi and Iranian people/troops.
The people on the Left will continue to believe all those lies because THEY WANT THEM TO BE TRUE. At their core, the Left is not only Bush-hating but has a long, consistent track record of also hating the troops, the military, the use of force in defense of liberty and America as a Shining City on the Hill and a beacon for the freedom-loving peoples throughout the world.
Gryph will never stop wanting the troops to be proven bad, wrong, evil, or criminal… just like John Kerry: these guys need to believe their own lies.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 30, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - May 30, 2006
Sorry, NDT, but I’m not interested in choosing only from the choices YOU offer. Its a false claim of reason you make.
It is possible to believe that something is necessary without it being right. Yes, I believe that there may be times when its necessary to torture. Yes, I also believe that it is wrong and should be against the law and that I should be punished if I break that law.
I do indeed trust the individual members of the military to know when to make those decisions. They have proven themselves as a whole to be more fair-minded and honorable than their leaders. But what you propose is State-sanctioned torture. What are you thinking? Why the heck would you trust any government with that kind of power?
If you want a more nuanced and thoughtful discussion of my position on torture, then read the article referenced below by that noted Liberal Loony, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. (scroll to bottom half of its page) I pretty much share his views on the subject.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=88
Caralato:
Retreating into “What is Torture”? is a rhetorical trick of misdirection, not a serious question Big C. And yes, there actually have been soldiers that have reported abuse in Guantanamo. However, you are also forgetting that the US maintains many, many prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere where these policies have been applied and people have suffered and some have died because of them. I will also point out that rather than an “Its OK to stick a hot poker into the eye…” policy definition of approved torture, what the Administration has done instead is to blur and make vague “what is torture” rather than directly approve of it. Same as Caralato. So while previously “water-boarding” was clearly “torture”, now its considered a grey area. -This a technique practiced on our own POW’s in WWII and Vietnam. Disgusting.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 30, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - May 30, 2006
Wow, to see a proven religious bigot start referencing someone as holy, thoughtful and principled as Fr Richard Neuhaus –a neo-con who supports the War on Terror, ousting of the Taliban and deposing of Saddam’s regime by Prez & CIC Geo Bush– stands reason on her pointy little head. What next? Realignment of the stars?
Or is this one of those “cute” moments in the debate when it behooves the Left to use someone on the Right to underscore an important moral lesson? Like pulling out Bill Buckley and presenting him as a “changed mind on the WOT” as the Left did a few weeks ago… or as the Left tried to do with Gryph’s own expert, Fr Richard John Neuhaus, last November? BTW, the Left failed in that effort –Neuhaus confronted the lies directly.
If that’s the case Gryph, Fr Neuhaus has something equally important to say to you:
“I am frankly appalled by the recklessness of the rhetoric in this country, mainly but not exclusively coming from opponents of U.S. policy. Those who begin, and sometimes end, with the claim that President Bush and the administration “lied” should read Norman Podhoretz’s article in the current Commentary, “Who is Lying About Iraq?”” Gryph, so much for your Bush-hatred foments.
and
“Opponents of the war who have not engaged the facts and arguments presented by the administration have a right to their opinion, but it is not worth much.” Ouch, the truth hurts.
and
“I am convinced that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would be disastrous for the people of Iraq, for the Middle East, for our national security, and for American leadership in world affairs. I hope these brief comments help put to rest the chatter about my enlisting with the opponents of U.S. policy. Not, I should add, that my judgment carries much weight in influencing that policy one way or the other. But, for what it is worth, that is my best judgment regarding the course of moral and political wisdom on an important subject nearly overwhelmed by cacophonous controversy.”
Hmmm, and just to be precise, the legal maxim Neuhaus applies to the use of terror in limited circumstances is “… abusus non tollit usus–the abuse does not abolish the use.”
Neuhaus also believes in Intelligent Design, that homosexuality practiced by men and women is morally indefensible and flaw in character formation, and that the military and civilian leaders deserve our unfettered support once the decision to go to war is made –we can debate the merits of going to war, the prosecution of the war, mistakes and trangressions during war but once the decision is made it not even the province of the Pope to determine whether the decision was prudent or not –that is for the civilly elected leaders.
Of course, then Neuhaus quickly decides that the War on Terror in Iraq is prudent if “victory” as generally envisioned by Geo Bush comes to fruition. Sort of “the ends justify the means”; perfectly in keeping with his “use of terror” position.
BTW Calarato, Neuhaus supports your position –e.g., we need to define “torture” and whether or not it is morally permissable… both items that Gryph tried to avoid and discredit in his response to posits.
And your 100% correct Calarato: torture is most efficient when trying to terrorize others into submission… the threat of torture is far more effective on those not prepared for or trained to endure it.
But in a crunch, I know it will get one key information if you can find the target’s most persausive and vulnerable trigger.
Finally, Gryph, Neuhaus offers this point for those on the Left who question why the religious Right is even involved in politics
“Politics is chiefly a function of culture, at the heart of culture is morality, and at the heart of morality is religion”. I first heard Father advance that very point in a May 2000 lecture at MSU attended by thousands.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2006 @ 9:40 am - May 31, 2006
#15 – “Retreating into “What is Torture”? is a rhetorical trick of misdirection, not a serious question Big C.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer again!
Rather, it is an elementary principle of rational discussion that, for it to occur, people must define terms – especially when asked / challenged.
What is, and always has been, characteristic of every instance I’ve personally seen of your sick efforts to spread false stories, Gryph – and Andrew Sullivan’s as well – and Mr. Mora’s, in the article we’re discussing – are two astounding failings:
(1) Your sick refusal to ever define terms.
(2) Your shocking inability to provide (or name) relevant cases.
A propos of (1): The bottom line is that you, Gryph, demoralize and degrade the real victims of torture by employing the word in such a rubbery, shoddy, irresponsible way as to drain it of meaning.
And where and what exactly are these magical mystery prisons that you once again try to allude to in #15 that are supposedly rife with torture? The European Union can’t find them and hardly believes in them. (link is to a place where I give two MSM articles on that)
Gryph, in #5, YOU brought up Guantanamo. What RELIABLE or MAINSTREAM sources / specifics can you give us on the POW-like, WW2-like instances of torture you claim are happening there?
Answer: You can’t, because there aren’t any. So instead, you try to switch the subject to these “other” magical mystery prisons. But no specifics – as usual!
Gryph, judging just from what you have allowed me to see in this blog, it sure looks like you a disgrace to reasoned debate and as well, a disgrace to United States citizenry.
Comment by Calarato — May 31, 2006 @ 10:22 am - May 31, 2006
#16 – Matt – I appreciate your many fine points as always.
The usual hypothetical dilemma goes something like this: A nuclear bomb is about to go off and you have 24 hours to prevent it, and you have a terrorist in-hand with knowledge. Do you torture him?
The question pre-supposes a rational definition of torture, as they all do; but let’s assume we have one, and it’s Saddam-like electrocution of genitals, or similar stuff.
Then my answer is “no, you don’t torture him”. The terrorist WANTS to be a mass murderer. He expects to die – and to suffer for Allah. So you won’t get info by torture and should think of other techniques first, or other solutions altogether.
Key point – You wrote, “in a crunch, I know [torture] will get one key information if you can find the target’s most persausive and vulnerable trigger.”
OK, well, you yourself said “If you can find the target’s trigger…” That sounds more like “manipulative questioning” to me, than torture. I’m not sure what you have in mind.
If you know the terrorist’s psychological or moral weak spot, and can use it to get him to cooperate – possibly including so-called “cultural abuse” – please proceed! But that wouldn’t be torture (as I’ve set it up here).
I think we need categories like (1) non-coercive questioning, (2) manipulative / coercive questioning, and (3) real torture. And ban (3). And define when, where, how and why (2) becomes OK.
Comment by Calarato — May 31, 2006 @ 10:57 am - May 31, 2006
I understand your points, Calarato. And I’m sympathetic to most of them. Most of them. I like the 3 categories of torture as a construct for understanding what is and isn’t permissable.
I think my standard for acceptable torture is far beyond what you’re willing to accept in your example, tho… if the terrorist has a family he/she is close to… find them, put them in a room on a TV, show it to the terrorist and begin executing the family members until the terrorist talks… Mom, Dad, Gramps, Sis, Auntie, the lover, the kids, the best friend, the soccer coach, anyone that would make the terrorist talk. Anyone.
I know most terrorists are trained to submit themselves to their own death and the death of cell members for the sake of the cause… but some begging and pleading from their own family before execution usually isn’t in the training program handbook. If it’s a trigger that might work, use it.
By any means necessary to avert the massive loss of innocent life… it’s the premise for action I would expect those in control to employ.
Wasn’t that the premise of the Cold War –hit us and we’ll retaliate by bombing your population centers? At some point, the Geneva Conventions and codes of civil culture/barbarism become irrelevant when the threat is barbaric at its core and requires a like-minded response. Do we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist when we do that? No, for me it’s a justifiable response. The division is action-reaction.
By any means necessary to avert the massive loss of innocent life. I would trust those in control and who were trained correctly that they know when torture would and wouldn’t be effective. I wouldn’t presume to second guess them.
S&M crap like we’ve seen exposed at Abu Gharib and identified by Bush haters like Gryph as “sanctioned torture by Bush” isn’t covered as torture to me… that was sick, perverted personnel operating outside their charge. That’s allowing the MSM and anti-war people to define what is torture.
But for your example, I’d certainly tolerate the loss of collateral lives to save others in that case. And I think that point would put my soul in mortal danger.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2006 @ 11:51 am - May 31, 2006
So it sounds like you would sacrifice (actively) a smaller number of innocent lives, for an indeterminate chance at saving a larger number of lives.
I will have to think about it. My first reaction is, yeah I don’t agree. But I can’t yet say why, in formal terms, so I’m not slamming you.
The Cold War example can be tricky. First, the Soviets were just a bit closer to being rational actors than the terrorists. Second, I am not sure the Cold War doctrine of M.A.D. – which was invented by JFK liberals, incidentally – was moral. In fact, I think President Reagan viewed it as immoral. That’s why he re-started the search for a defense against nuclear missiles. And President Bush.
At a minimum, I think torture and M.A.D both fall in the category of things you should always want alternatives to.
If you absolutely have to use them on some horrible day, well… But then, use our “normal” days to keep that day from arriving! Find a missile defense… establish democracy and hope in the Middle East… secure the ports and borders from terrorist infiltration… etc.
Comment by Calarato — May 31, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - May 31, 2006
Here’s the problem, Gryph:
Yes, I believe that there may be times when its necessary to torture.
I do indeed trust the individual members of the military to know when to make those decisions.
But — and here’s the kicker — that’s exactly what the government was saying.
The memos that you and yours scream frantically over say nothing more than that — that, in cases where the armed forces believe it to be necessary, torture may be used.
But, since your hatred of Bush is the overriding concern, you cannot admit that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - May 31, 2006
Calarato, fair enough. On that bad day… if it comes… I hope the people in charge of those decisions can operate for the collective good and be willing to hazard their soul for the lives of others because in nearly every religious faith, the taking of an innocent life is immoral.
I don’t doubt what I propose is immoral and so was MAD. Prudent? Probably IF things turn out in the end as hoped for….
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 31, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - May 31, 2006