Sullivan Engages in Terror Vs. Freedom Moral Relativism
Has anyone out there forgotten that we are the good guys in this Global War on Terror? Andrew Sullivan thinks we are the same as our enemies, apparently.
I doubt whether even Donald Rumsfeld will describe what has been done to two young American soldiers as a “coercive interrogation technique.” But you never know. Some people wonder why I remain so concerned about torture, and the surrender of our moral standing with respect to this unmitigated evil. Maybe the news of captured, tortured and murdered Americans will jog their conscience. Or maybe it will simply reinforce the logic of torture-reciprocity endorsed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales.
Yeah, war is hell. But for crying out loud! Our side is on the right one in the fight against Islamic fascism and terror. Sullivan, like many in the news media, now equates the American struggle to the terrorists. It is just outrageous.
**UPDATE** - Since I wrote this item, I’ve had some additional thoughts.
The terrorists use torture and barbaric beheadings as a way to kill as many people as possible. It is their rule, not their exception.
The USA and its allies may use torture as an exception, not the rule. But we engage in those interregation techniques in order to keep alive as many people as possible. There is a moral difference.
Are we all forgetting Osama bin Laden’s revealing mantra?
“We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.”
America is feeling raw, enraged, confused, saddened and unsettled by this inhumanity.
So, where is President George W. Bush? Where is the comforting or determined speech that you would expect from a leader at this time?
It doesn’t have to be an 30 minute address with an aircraft carrier in the backdrop, but how about using this “coincidental” information from Tuesday to define to the Free World and America what we are up against?
The terrorists pushed the moral argument back on the side of freedom, yesterday.
It doesn’t have to be a Gettysburg Address, President Bush, but please, throw out a bone.
Yes, Mr. President. Where art thou in this crucial time to rally your nation?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): I may have more to say on this later in the day, but concerning Andrew Sullivan’s remarks (which Bruce quotes above), I can’t improve upon Dan Riehl’s one word rejoinder to Andrew’s outburst. And over at the Conjecturer, Joshua Foust has another one-word rejoinder for Andrew’s post: “revolting.” A bit more diplomatic than the other Dan’s.
58 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sullivan is getting lots of national exposure as of late, due in part to his rantings on his website.
In order to continue to get the exposure he so desparately needs, he must continue to shrill thereby appealing the the leftists that run the national media.
As he enjoys his success, expect more hysteria
Comment by SixStringBassPlayer — June 21, 2006 @ 8:45 am - June 21, 2006
First of all, I have only heard reports of “indications of torture” on the bodies of American soldiers, with very little detail or indication the extent of the torture. I doubt they were being interrogated.
However, the real moral relativism is to say that it’s okay for us to use torture (”coercive interrogation technique”) because “we’re the good guys.” The moral absoutist position should be: Torture is wrong and unconscionable. Period.
Comment by Alex — June 21, 2006 @ 9:32 am - June 21, 2006
I think what he is saying is that we cannot become those who we fight. Its unfortunate that we create for ourselves, as Americans, a higher standard - but that is what seperates us from the animals. I agree that any slippage in that position must be checked. Otherwise, we would be compared to the terrorists and we would no longer be the good guys. Here’s to being vigiliant in American values.
Comment by Jeremy — June 21, 2006 @ 9:39 am - June 21, 2006
Bruce, thanks for pointing out the fallacy of Andie’s moral relativism and his underlying failure to recognize this is a war of unprecendented measures. Whats worse to me is that some Americans care about the moral pronouncements of a guy with his low, creepy gutter morality.
Torture ain’t always torture.
The soldiers were NOT “tortured” for information. They were likely tortured for “sport” and to intimidate other soldiers. And there in lies AndieSullivan’s vacuum of morality –he thinks all torture is for sport. Unfortunately, he’s not alone in the GayLeft BlogBloat.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 9:42 am - June 21, 2006
Alex, Jeremy: thank God you guys aren’t making any decisions which affect the safety or security of people. Move over Andie, there are two more loons for the HumanPeaceShieldsCumTortureBWrong Parade awaiting entry.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 9:45 am - June 21, 2006
In Andrew Sullivan’s hands, “torture” is a rubbery, elastic term drained of all meaning. He disgraces all victims of real torture. And he has indeed become (and once wasn’t necessarily) a moral relativist, unable to distinguish good and evil.
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 10:10 am - June 21, 2006
we may be “on the right [side] in the fight against Islamic fascism and terror” but we certainly do a crappy job of showing it.
If we know that al queda training instructs its minions to claim torture, abuse, etc… if captured by the US because it plays well on TV in many countries and hurts the image of the US, why the hell does the US do everything it can to help them deliver that message??? All that places like Gitmo do is give ammunion to the terrorists in this propoganda war.
Same goes for all the legal constructs that the Bush administration has created since 9/11. Extraordinary renditions, calling people enemy combatants who aren’t covered by the Geneva Conventions, etc… only makes it more difficult for the US to keep (in the public’s mind) moral high ground especially since US soldiers have crossed the line already.
What too many people seem to not realized is that in the minds of most of the world, the U.S. NO LONGER HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. Whether we agree or not is not relevant. Figuring out how to regain our rightful place as a moral authority and a force for good in the world while at the same time not compromising our efforts in the war on terror should be a high priority of this administration. If we let this erroneous impression of the U.S. continue, we are only hurting ourselves and putting the success of the war on terror in jeapordy.
The U.S. has done a fantastic job of playing right into the terrorist’s hands in the propaganda war. STOP THE MADNESS!!!
Comment by NOLAGayGuy — June 21, 2006 @ 10:12 am - June 21, 2006
NOLAGayGuy writes: “What too many people seem to not realized is that in the minds of most of the world, the U.S. NO LONGER HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. Whether we agree or not is not relevant.”
Tell me sparky, did America hold the moral high ground while Clinton’s lying and fornicating in the WH embarassed the US in the world? Did we hold the moral high ground while France and Germany helped Iraq avoid sanctions? Did America hold the moral high ground when Carter failed to rescue our diplomats in Iran? Did America hold the moral high ground when Johnson escalated the war in VietNam and bombed a 3rd world country mercilessly? Did America hold the moral high ground when Kennedy helped invade Cuba? Did America hold the moral high ground when Truman dropped the A-bombs?
Here’s the lesson you need to take away: there is NO moral high ground in international affairs. None. It is a fiction.
The “moral high ground” is here in America and usually determined by how low your political opponents will stoop to use the issue for partisan gain. Your sense that the world has a collective mindset on anything approximating what is “moral high ground” is misplaced. :most of the world…” my ass.
Like you and others here, it is a convinent tool used to gain partisan advantage or misdirect the debate onto a platform that helps you score political points with a gullible public and press. There is no moral high ground given even a cursory review of American actions abroad. None.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 10:27 am - June 21, 2006
That is a load of crap, NOLA. We so need to try to impress a bunch of failed monarchies, dictatorships, socialists, communists, terrorists, and fascists to give us the moral high ground. They never did and once the danger of the Soviets was broken, the whores stopped pretending is all. We’re not the ones making terrorists romantic heros and we aren’t the ones holding out hope for a fascist Chinese state to rise to power. That dream is for the lesser nations that surround us and whom you wish so desperately to impress.
Strength through weakness, right?
Comment by VinceTN — June 21, 2006 @ 10:31 am - June 21, 2006
I fully support the President and the was in Iraq. I do believe, however, that the President needs to take the bull by the horns and confront head on the media at this time more than ever.
I come froma military family and believe that what is being said in the media is an unfair portrayal of the war. Positive events are being ignored because the mainstream media is doing it’s best to bring down the Bush administration. Unfortunately, in the process, soldiers are getting killed in Iraq by terrorists who pay extremely close attention to the American media.
Two factors that could really turn the Iraq War into a positive, would be for President Bush to stand up and be a vocal leader. There doesn’t appear to be leadership anywhere right now and this can only lead to a takeover by the far-left filling a vacuum.
The second factor is the media. Should the msm be confronted by the administration, they would be forced to pay attention to what President Bush has to say. This post by Andrew Sullivan is indicative of how the media feels about the war, not what is actually happening. There is a huge difference!
Comment by Anonymous — June 21, 2006 @ 10:39 am - June 21, 2006
Bruce - On seeing your update thoughts, most of which are great - I have to disagree for the record that the U.S. should ever use torture under any circumstances.
Of course, such a broad ban as I propose must rest on a rational and accurate definition of torture. (Something Sullivan, et. al. don’t give.)
As long as manipulative interrogation is going to be wrongly viewed as real torture (the inflicting of pain and humiliation for its own sake), we are going to have muddy discussions where good people like you appear to think or allow that the U.S. might intentionally torture. (It doesn’t. It prosecutes those who do.)
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 10:49 am - June 21, 2006
Bruce,
I would suggest seriously consider looping “Michigan-Matt” into the same category as the nasty trolls who lurk on this site. Maybe not actually do it, but consider it. It seems anytime that someone has a different perspective, he lumps them into the “left” or “loon” label. That’s not debate, its close to just abusive.
I agree many times with Bruce, and I’m glad this blog is here. However, the last several times I have pointed out a different view (yes, that can be held by conservative Republicans), that guy simply replies with snitty comments.
Perhaps we can all just be a bit more civil?
Comment by Jeremy — June 21, 2006 @ 10:56 am - June 21, 2006
Jeremy at //w./, what part of “civil” were YOU trying for when you summarily dismissed the comments of others in other threads as “bullshit”?
Just wondering, Jeremy, if the double standard you like to apply is intuitive or simply convenient? But it is a double standard.
Either way, seems a fitting act in a thread discussing moral relativism… sorry if I injured your high regard for Andie Sullivan –in my book, he’s wrong, he’s hurting our (the gay) cause and he’s a political opportunist of the first order.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 11:45 am - June 21, 2006
How dumb can you get? Sullivan’s position is absolutist and yours is the morally relativist argument, as someone else pointed out above.
Just about every study reveals the same thing about torture: the information gleaned is usually unreliable. It’s really scraping the bottom of rationality to excuse torture because of our loftier aims in its use. And anyone who has looked at the Abu Ghraib pictures knows that it is just as often for sport on our side as for “information.”
The average American can’t empathize enough with an Iraqi to understand that death would be preferable to the profound humiliation of Abu Ghraib. It ought to be easy, considering the frequency of jihadist suicide, but even in this issue, we decide we are “better” but only in the context of our own values, completely ignoring theirs.
Comment by dante — June 21, 2006 @ 11:49 am - June 21, 2006
dante writes: “Just about every study reveals the same thing about torture: the information gleaned is usually unreliable.”
The realiability of information secured via torture is directly related to the skill of the interrogation team. Good skills set = reliable information.
The myth here is the “studies” reveal it doesn’t work; wrong. Unless it’s a study by Amnesty International or the Quakers. Pain and the fear of continued pain without relief are effective tools for gathering reliable information.
Torture to intimidate an entire society works pretty well too… just read the accounts of those pesky Germans in pre-WWII… or the writings from re-education camps in Cambodia… or the honest accounts of our own POWs from Korea, VietNam and other wars… or ask some Iraqi citizens who lived through Saddam’s reign.
Torture just for the sake of torture and sadism doesn’t work too well… unless that kink is part of your sexual psyche.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - June 21, 2006
Q) What do the insurgents want?
A) A Islamic fundamentalist government.
Q) What does the Iraqi government want?
A) A Islamic fundamentalist government.
Q) What does the Bush administration want?
A) military bases in Iraq.
Comment by Edward TJ Brown — June 21, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - June 21, 2006
What does Ed want? To torture us with more silliness. Please, Ed, stop the insanity.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 21, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - June 21, 2006
The average American can’t empathize enough with an Iraqi to understand that death would be preferable to the profound humiliation of Abu Ghraib.
And the average leftist like Dante can’t empathize enough with Iraqi children who were imprisoned and tortured by Saddam for the crime of their parents being political dissidents.
What did Dante and the rest of the left do? Cover that up in the name of “waging peace”.
Leftists like the ones we have here have ZERO empathy with Iraqis. They were too busy getting money from Saddam’s regime to look the other way.
And as for NOLA’s comments, those people with whom we’ve “lost face” were the leftists in Europe who were receiving billions of dollars in bribes to ignore Saddam’s bloodbaths and flaunting of sanctions. They manipulate anti-American leftists in their own country and in the US to bash the US’s actions and protect their gravy train.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - June 21, 2006
#12, #13 - Jeremy’s idea of “civility” is to insinuate his two hosts are spineless, if he feels like it. (and yet keep coming back)
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - June 21, 2006
#18 - The quoted comment is all the more surreal because U.S. conduct at Abu Ghraib was a non-issue for Iraqis. It was simply off their radar. The storm was entirely in the American media.
It appears that to the extent Iraqis think about it at all, they may understand that having a few guards engage in ritual humiliation of prisoners and then be duly prosecuted is far, far, far less of an injury than Saddam using Abu Ghraib to kill 40 prisoners per week.
dante, NDT is right: where’s your empathy?
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - June 21, 2006
This is correct Dan. You are arguing that its OK to do evil in the name of defeating Evil. You are saying that whether something is immoral or not depends on provocation and circumstance, not an objective standard of morality.
I’m not BTW, entirely unsympathetic to that argument. I believe in the “Just War” doctrine of the Catholic Church for example. And although I believe that killing someone is always wrong, I also think that the death penalty is a just punishment for some crimes.
But if you are going to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil it should be done soberly, regretfully, not with the dark childish glee of revenge. It should never, ever, be “win at any cost”.
If you loosen the moral standards on torture, as this Administration has done, the slide toward this kind of moral degeneracy is all but guaranteed. Thats a REAL slippery slope.
Yes, there is still a moral difference. But not as much of one since this President came to power. We still have the higher moral ground. Just not the highest moral ground. You are also wrong in saying that Terrorists want to behead people in order to kill as many as possible. That is not their purpose. It is instead to inflict terror and fear on as many people as possible. To intimidate, subjugate, dominate. To terrorize.
I can only image the terror and pain those two soldiers went through in their last hours. I have friends in the military, some of whom who have served in Iraq.The thought of something like that happening to them or any of our soldiers over there keeps me up at night. I remember not that long ago when I saw the footage of Matt Maupin in captivity and the fear in his eyes. It upset me so much I sobbed all the way home in my car that evening. I guess thats is what it means to be a “bleeding heart liberal”, something so often scorned here.
Tell me, do you think that those Iraqis that had dogs set upon them and were so terrified that they urinated on themselves felt any different from Matt Maupin or the two soldiers recently killed? Or those prisoners at Guantanamo who are routinely water-boarded, force-fed with garden hosed sized tubes, etc.? Are they any less terrorized?
“But those are terrorists! Good!” You want to tell me. So what. They are still human beings and so are you, hopefully. The reason you don’t torture other people is not just to recognize their dignity as human beings, its in order to recognize your own. You just can’t do it without losing a part of your soul. If you could, you would be a sociopath.
Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked. But thats just not the case in the majority of times that torture is currently being used by this Administration. So quit pretending that what is a fundamentally immoral and soul-corrupting act, isn’t.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 21, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - June 21, 2006
Oops, the above post by me should be addressed to Bruce, not Dan.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 21, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - June 21, 2006
I disagree that the President needs to go on TV to discuss this.
While we should (privately) be outraged and appalled by the atrocities committed against our soldiers, it seems to me to be playing into the hands of the terrorists to (publicly) make a big fuss when they do something especially barbaric.
If we feed the media frenzy and say that the torture and mutilation of two of our servicemen is somehow much more terrible than losing them, say, in a gunfight, or to an IED, it will only encourage the enemy to do it more.
We should not forget, obviously, and in fact we should take pause to remind ourselves of the nature of the enemy we are fighting. But it would be a mistake to send the message that two GI’s tortured and mutilated are worth five, or ten, or however many, KIA some other way.
Comment by LagunaDave — June 21, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - June 21, 2006
…”The USA and its allies may use torture as an exception, not the rule. But we engage in those interregation techniques in order to keep alive as many people as possible. There is a moral difference. “….
Torture? Uncle Andy’s definition of “torture” makes very gay-bar with a Leather Night a scene of Human Rights violations worthy of condemnation by Amnesty Intl. Sheesh…
The immoral conflation of coersive interrogation and “torture” entirely obscures the issue of effective interrogation versus gratuitous sadism…which is what happened at Abu Ghriab and elsewhere. And the obscene conflation of standing a prisoner naked with his underwear over his head with the nearly unspeakable, gratuitous sadism one can imagine was inflicted on those two Airborne troopers is unjust and uncalled-for.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - June 21, 2006
And here’s the fundamental problem with Gryph’s argument:
But thats just not the case in the majority of times that torture is currently being used by this Administration.
How in the hell does he know that?
The short answer: He doesn’t.
What he’s doing is using his irrational beliefs that Bush is evil to rationalize his opposition.
One of the most frustrating things in the intelligence world must be the fact that you can’t tell people things. I have no doubt that information obtained under coercive interrogation has saved thousands, perhaps millions, of lives in the United States, but because it would expose how we gather information and ruin established systems of stopping terrorists before they have a chance to strike, we can’t say anything — and then we have to put up with people like Gryph and Sullivan ranting about how we’ve “lost face” with the Europeans who were taking under-the-table bribes from Saddam to ignore his antics.
Terrorists figured out a long time ago that their best weapons against Bush were the lefties like Sully who would make excuses for anything as long as it was anti-Bush. To hear these leftists ranting about how we should have “empathy” for the Iraqis at Abu Ghirab is hilarious, given that they didn’t have one whit of it when Saddam was running things.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - June 21, 2006
Our side is on the right one in the fight against Islamic fascism and terror.
But we cannot use the torturous techniques of the wrong side in fighting that war. When we do, we loose our moral high ground and risk becoming no better than they.
Comment by Jody — June 21, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - June 21, 2006
Torture is wrong for any reason whether by us or them. The left wins this propoganda campaign if we allow them to continue to define the terms of this discussion. It’s a straw man tactic. They keep throwing out the term “torture” and it works. It’s inflammatory and evil-sounding. Problem is, we aren’t participating in torture and the administration doesn’t support torture. Don’t let them manipulate you into defending torture!
The interrogation methods we use aren’t torture. By the standards the left uses, I was tortured in boot camp. Well, boot camp sucked in more ways than I can count, but I wasn’t tortured.
If some of our methods seem to cross the line of what’s acceptable as an interrogation method, then it’s worthy of debate whether it should be considered torture and stopped, but without a doubt, nothing we’ve done puts us on par with the terrorists. It’s night and day. From all of heard of that debate so far, none of it sounds like torture. Abu Graib(sp?) was horrible, and I wish it hadn’t happened and I’m glad they investigated and prosecuted, but even that is a joke compared to what our enemies are doing.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — June 21, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - June 21, 2006
Firstly: The moral high ground means that we can’t make the press stop being tools for enemy propaganda. We just have to live with the way real torture is passed over and every wiff of impropriety on our side is headline news. (Someone said… I bet the families of those soldiers wish it was panties on their heads just now.)
Secondly: There is no equivalence. Possibly to spare the families, not a lot has been made of the fact that these men were horribly mutilated to the extent that identification was not possible without DNA tests. The bodies were desecrated. The bodies were booby-trapped. The path to the bodies was lined with bombs that took hours to remove while the corpses rotted in the sun and collected swarms of flies. One bomb detonated but no additional people were injured before the corpses were even reached and then the booby traps on the corpses had to be difused as well.
Torture? OMG, someone suffered embarassment or discomfort. Obviously the same thing. Morons.
Thirdly: Torture never works… to obtain true confessions. We do not use coersive interrogation to obtain confessions! Duh! The information, OTOH, that is obtained in the feild, either from a tip or from an interrogation is evaluated by the resulting intelligence bearing out.
Fourthly: I don’t know what Bush is supposed to say. Frankly, I don’t understand this idea that he’s supposed to stop doing stuff that matters to take time out to comfort us. I’m not a baby. I’d rather he take care of the problem than try to formulate a statement that was just the right amount of determination and anger and resolution and compassion just so I can feel better.
Lastly: The purpose of doing what was done to those men may be directly related to Somalia. If so… the terrorists have screwed the pooch, yet again. The first time was 9-11.
Comment by Synova — June 21, 2006 @ 3:08 pm - June 21, 2006
I’d also point out… what happened at Abu Ghraib was not related to interrogation, not even remotely.
Comment by Synova — June 21, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - June 21, 2006
Your Riehl World link ends in “.htmll” (take out the last ‘l’ and it works).
Comment by rightwingprof — June 21, 2006 @ 3:20 pm - June 21, 2006
Nor did it have anything to do with torture.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 21, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - June 21, 2006
NDT says:
I say:
How in the hell does he know that?
The short answer: He doesn’t. And probably hasn’t even tried to look to see if it has.
NDT again:
I never mentioned Europe in my post. But I do think that for all the Euro-twit foolishness that is going on, that there is still something wrong when the majority of Europeans think the USA is a worse threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea.
The first part has a grain of truth, the War on Terror is primarily run as an Information War on the Al Quaeda side of things. The savagery of what happened to those two soldiers was primarily aimed at us back in the States, not at our military in the field.
Too bad Bush and Rumsfield suck so badly at that type of warfare.
Otherwise we would never have had such notable hubristic moments as “Mission Accomplished”, “Just a few Dead-Enders”, “Old Europe”, “WMD’s”, Guantanamo, and the selling of the Iraq War to the American people as a simple get-in, get-out operation, etc. If Bush is a “War-Time” leader, he certainly has failed to convince the nation that we are at war.
As far as “empathy” goes. I have always, and continue to support the War in Iraq. It is a good thing that we have done over there, no matter how poorly executed. And I will point out that many in the GOP did not exactly display empathy for the Afghani people when they were under the thumb of the Taliban. Nor for the people on Iraq for that matter. Whatever actions Clinton ever took in both areas were always ridiculed as attempts to deflect interest from the scandals of his own Administration. And maybe some of them even were, but you didn’t see any suggestions for addressing the situation from the Right side of aisle.
The “fundamental problem” NDT’s and a few others arguments have is that they are based on the underlying assumption, nay, creed, that to be against Bush is to be against America, the troops, Mom, and Apple Pie. Its sort of the Daily Kos’s mirror image. Besides the sound-bite mentality it displays, it is also simply dangerous for the eventual winning of the War on Terror. It is going to be around long after Bush has left office. I would hope that after he does leave office, NDT and others will take a more sober look at the situation, instead of just crowning whomever is the next GOP Presidential hopeful as the new Messiah. But the truth of the matter is that if the best person to run the WOT was a Democrat, they would never support that person. Just on “principle”.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 21, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - June 21, 2006
#27 - Dale, thanks for your service. And I agree with your comment 100%.
Bruce, Matt, NDT: The key to the argument is not to give out the impression or implication, as your words sometimes do, “Torture is OK when we do it.” It is true we are out to save people, not kill them, and that is a fundamental difference between us and the enemy. But real torture - the intentional infliction of maximum pain or injury to oppress and/or coerce - is never OK. NEVER.
And we (the U.S.) don’t do it. We prosecute people who do it. That’s the key to the argument. That, and the simple act of asking our characteristically irresponsible opponents such as Gryph to define terms and substantiate their continually bogus, hateful claims.
#28 - “Someone said ‘I bet the families of those soldiers wish it was panties on their heads just now.’… these men were horribly mutilated to the extent that identification was not possible without DNA tests.”
Exactly.
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - June 21, 2006
“The “fundamental problem” NDT’s and a few others arguments have is that they are based on the underlying assumption, nay, creed, that to be against Bush is to be against America, the troops, Mom, and Apple Pie.”
Easily refuted Gryph horseshit.
Someone is off his meds again.
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - June 21, 2006
#25 North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - June 21, 2006
I have no doubt that information obtained under coercive interrogation has saved thousands, perhaps millions, of lives in the United States…
Oh. I won’t rehash your silliness in a comment thread down-stream, but I’ll merely point out The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light. It is highly doubtful that “coercive interrogation” techniques in the case described saved anyone. But they apparently did result in American investigators running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Oh, yes, I remember you from IndeGayForum. You’re one of those many on the Internet of the mindset that, if you get in the last word, no matter how outlandish, and no matter how much you avoid questions put to you, and no matter how much you distort what has been said to you, you have won the discussion. Hey, whatever.
Comment by raj — June 21, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - June 21, 2006
Exactly what gay bar are you hanging out in dude?
Comment by Davebo — June 21, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - June 21, 2006
Are we still bitter over the price of uranium, Raj?
The reason we don’t particularly care about yours or Suskind’s attempts at hatchet jobs, Raj, is because we know full well that, had even one of those leads had not been investigated and a terrorist act had resulted, you both would be screaming about how awful the oversight was and how many lives could have been saved.
In short, you’ll bitch no matter what is done, because your only concern is feeding your irrational hatreds. Furthermore, as I’ve shown with the uranium example, your opinions are neither intelligent or informed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - June 21, 2006
The “fundamental problem” NDT’s and a few others arguments have is that they are based on the underlying assumption, nay, creed, that to be against Bush is to be against America, the troops, Mom, and Apple Pie.
Actually, Gryph, I don’t think you’re against any of those.
I simply think your actions in carrying out your hatred of Bush jeopardizes all of them.
For instance:
Whatever actions Clinton ever took in both areas were always ridiculed as attempts to deflect interest from the scandals of his own Administration. And maybe some of them even were, but you didn’t see any suggestions for addressing the situation from the Right side of aisle.
Considering that it was a Republican Congress that forced Clinton to sign the Iraq Liberation Act, that sort of seems odd for you to say.
Furthermore, are you aware of the fact that Clinton’s missile strikes against Afghanistan, for instance, took place AFTER intelligence determined that the camps had already been emptied? THAT’S why the “wag the dog” comparisons came up, especially since Clinton sat on that information and waited until after he had admitted that he lied to the American public.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - June 21, 2006
#37 North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - June 21, 2006
Are we still bitter over the price of uranium, Raj?
Sorry, you have never shown that Putin made use of a front company, the definition of which you never contested.
Moreover, you suggested that I wrote things that–I never wrote–and then you said that I lied about them.
I frankly don’t give a tinkers’ damn about your citation of the price of uranium metal, largely because the price of uranium metal has little if anything to do with the cost of actually producing a nuclear weapon.
BTW,
In short, you’ll bitch no matter what is done, because your only concern is feeding your irrational hatreds.
it’s amusing that you, like some of the others here, have picked up on the Bush malAdministration talking point “hatred.” I suppose that you all believe that that might cause people to cringe in horror: “I don’t want to be called a hater.” Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
Maybe someday you’ll actually say something rational. Or even reasonable. I doubt it. Over at IndeGayForum, you weren’t even able to reconcile a statistic from an article from the Wall Street Journal with the summary from the organization on which the statistic was supposedly based. If you were unable to do that, why should anyone believe what you say–anywhere?
Comment by raj — June 21, 2006 @ 5:44 pm - June 21, 2006
#31 Quite right.
I wrote a longish comment and lost it to a power outage.
As for interrogations… I can’t imagine anyone at Gitmo having any information that is useful this many years on. Anything they used to know must be desperately out of date. HOWEVER, current events include interrogations. When Zarqawi was killed and the other sites being watched were raided they captured people as well as information. This leads to more raids, which leads to more raids. If what a prisoner says does not lead to something real, we know they made it up.
It’s the same thing with tips. If they don’t lead to something real we know it was a lie. I’ve read accounts by soldiers involved in this sort of cascade operation (or maybe it was Yon) where a prisoner talks or someone brings a tip and they haul in that guy who turns in someone else, who turns in someone else… do you think our people are idiots? They know people lie. It has to lead to something *real* like weapons or an IED lab or they know it was a lie.
To say that lives were not saved because prisoners were interrogated is stupid. If prisoners don’t give true statements we discover that because those statements prove to be not true. Often enough they *do* prove to be true.
No, I’m not saying it’s okay to torture anyone, but talking like anything less plesant than conversation over a cup of chai while assuring everyone involved that they are safe to say nothing is torture… and yes, it’s about that bad. I could describe a scene from a TV show interrogation that no one objects to *at all* with yelling policemen and threats and physical discomfort and emotional manipulation but if I change that to someone in a military uniform suddenly people are crapping their pants.
I honestly can not imagine what people think we do.
Comment by Synova — June 21, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - June 21, 2006
I frankly don’t give a tinkers’ damn about your citation of the price of uranium metal, largely because the price of uranium metal has little if anything to do with the cost of actually producing a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t your argument.
I quote your exact words:
And, if Saddam really had been able to procure uranium from Niger or even from other countries, just how much would he have had left in those “suitcases and suitcases”?
Caught again, it seems.
And as for the rest of the smears in your post, it’s obvious that you can’t remember your own words accurately; that makes it virtually impossible that you could accurately assess the words of others.
Bye now.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - June 21, 2006
Bruce, Matt, NDT: The key to the argument is not to give out the impression or implication, as your words sometimes do, “Torture is OK when we do it.” It is true we are out to save people, not kill them, and that is a fundamental difference between us and the enemy. But real torture - the intentional infliction of maximum pain or injury to oppress and/or coerce - is never OK. NEVER.
All depends on the relative value of OK, Calarato.
I look at the use of “torture” a bit like I do the use of a police officer’s sidearm; if used, it should be investigated and determined if it was necessary. I don’t think you would ever say it was “OK” for a police officer to discharge their weapon; however, there are certainly times when they have better reasons than others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - June 21, 2006
…so basically you do practice moral relativism.
Should Jose Padilla be tortured then? And if you can justify that, can you justify the occasional use of torture in ordinary civilian criminal cases where someone’s life may be in danger? Why not? Whats the difference between a serial murderer planning to kill 50 people over 10 years and a terrorist killing 50 people in the next 10 minutes with an IED? Some things are just inherently evil and cannot be practiced by good people without being corrupted and coopted by that evil. You cannot undertake such a fundamentally immoral act and still be a moral man.
Sorry, NDT, you are sliding buck naked down that slippery slope so fast you must have KY spurting out of your ears.
Go ahead and call me a judgmental asshole if you wish, but you are still morally, ethically just plain wrong. Bad gay. Bad American. No pride for you.
(yes, I’m making a reference to Nazi’s, so discussion can end now, even if its just a reference to the soup Nazi)
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 21, 2006 @ 6:57 pm - June 21, 2006
Bruce and Dan ought to give an award to Synova. When Synova disagrees with facts alleged or opinions stated by others commenting Synova is respectful and reasoned in challenging them. Synova never resorts to name calling or personal attacks. I won’t bother mentioning those who could and should take a lesson from Synova; we all know who they are.
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 21, 2006 @ 7:36 pm - June 21, 2006
Gryph, may I remind you of something said previously on this board?
Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked.
Or in addition to that:
I believe in the “Just War” doctrine of the Catholic Church for example. And although I believe that killing someone is always wrong, I also think that the death penalty is a just punishment for some crimes.
How does the old saying go? “Do as I say, not as I do”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 21, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - June 21, 2006
I don’t *never* call people names. Murtha, for instance, is a moron.
Comment by Synova — June 21, 2006 @ 8:14 pm - June 21, 2006
#44 - Trace -
Whether or not you are correct, I am personally curious as to why you would publicly tell your hosts (in front of the other guests) what they should do.
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 8:31 pm - June 21, 2006
(excuse me; what the hosts “ought to” do - that was your wording)
Comment by Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - June 21, 2006
OMG! You mean I might display some moral ambivilance about applying the death penalty? Big Whoop.
Now go haunt a house.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 21, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - June 21, 2006
Who seriously bothers to read Andrew Sullivan anymore anyway? He was a sloppy editor at The New Republic. He’s hardly cutting edge as a commentator for Time magazine or the Sunday Times of London. He writes like Andrea Bocelli sings: in one key (and generally a very shrill one at that). He should award himself his own Susan Sontag award for his moral relavancy concerning the descration of these two soldiers bodies.
Comment by Christopher — June 21, 2006 @ 10:29 pm - June 21, 2006
Send a Clear Message…
President Bush needs to tell the American people what happened to those Soldiers. He needs to let the people know what we are fighting and quit white-washing the actions of our enemies….
Trackback by Blue Star Chronicles — June 22, 2006 @ 12:43 am - June 22, 2006
#40 Synova — June 21, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - June 21, 2006
I wrote a longish comment and lost it to a power outage.
You may wish to compose longish comments in a word processor (I use Notepad) and save frequently to disk. That would guard against crashes and power outages. (A battery backup would help with the latter.) After the comments are composed, copy and past into the comment box, and retain them in the word processor until after you are sure that they have been posted. That’s what I do–even if the comments aren’t particularly lengthy.
On the subject of “torture,” it seems to me that “torture” is in the eye of the beholder. There may be such a thing as psychological torture based on culture. Psychological torture would probably not leave physical marks, but it may be reasonable to consider it torture, nonetheless.
To say that lives were not saved because prisoners were interrogated is stupid. If prisoners don’t give true statements we discover that because those statements prove to be not true. Often enough they *do* prove to be true.
Well, maybe. The usual hypothetical that I have seen goes along the lines of “if you capture someone whom you have reason to believe has information of a plot to go off in 24 hours (or so), would you refrain from using torture to extract information from him as to the plot.” It seems to be a fairly remote hypothetical–I haven’t read of anything like this having occurred. Aside from that, two issues arise. One, if the captors actually have reason to believe that the captive has information regarding the plot, it strikes me that they (the captors) would likely have other information regarding the plot. And two, if the plot is to go off in 24 hours (or any other time frame), it seems likely that the captive could provide information that would end out the captors on wild goose chases until after the plot was to be consummated.
Comment by raj — June 22, 2006 @ 9:07 am - June 22, 2006
Gramps writes: “Sorry, NDT, you are sliding buck naked down that slippery slope so fast you must have KY spurting out of your ears.”
Ok, there are times when your images provide Just Too Much Information. I think NDT did a good job of nailing your arguments to the wall, Gramps… no need to be meanspirited and uncivil.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 22, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - June 22, 2006
OMG! You mean I might display some moral ambivilance about applying the death penalty? Big Whoop.
Actually, this is what I thought was the most interesting statement you had previously made:
Yes, sometimes its necessary to do evil in the name of defeating a greater Evil. If I had a terrorist in front of me who knew the location of nuclear weapon under one of our cities, I’d gladly rip him apart to find out where. I’d even whistle as I worked.
But of course, if anyone else did that, they were inextricably trapped on the slippery slope to moral oblivion and kicking puppies.
Again, what is it: “Do as I say, not as I do”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - June 22, 2006
NDXXX, nawh… with raj baby his most interesting comment above was
“Well, maybe” and then he goes forward with a lame, ineffective hypothetical example to test his point.
The truth is that torture does exact reliable information in a timely manner from individuals. It can also serve to keep opponents at bay if used as part of an intimidation scheme within a dictatorship.
The Left just can’t accept that. And their pleadings for “moral high ground” is nothing more than political posturing… for partisan gain.
Americans accept that torture works. Americans chose wisely in the last election where a major Bush-Cheney campaign ad involved sinister wolves on the hunt –for us.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 23, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - June 23, 2006
The truth is that torture does exact reliable information in a timely manner from individuals. It can also serve to keep opponents at bay if used as part of an intimidation scheme within a dictatorship.
The Left just can’t accept that.
Actually, it’s the first of those that the Left can’t accept.
The latter they not only accept, but embrace, provided it’s the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Ba’athist Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan, or any other anti-American country.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - June 23, 2006
“Americans accept that torture works. ”
I don’t, Matt; sorry - going back to #33 - #11.
Comment by Calarato — June 23, 2006 @ 6:09 pm - June 23, 2006
Calarato –it’s perfectly ok with me for you to argue a moral imperative and absolute opposition regarding torture of terrorists by US personnel or provided in US policy (like you need my blessing). I respect that position.
Moral imperatives are important. I feel the same way about abortion and capital punishment and all failures by others to intervene when possible to avert in senseless death. It’s why I think impaired drivers who maim or kill should confront a -0- tolerance policy and why assisted suicides are a crime against our collective spirit.
I don’t want to kill the terrorists in interrogations; I just want the information quickly, fully, and reliably. Torture is an inexact word… but right up to prolonged sensory deprivations and multiple beatings and intense psychological trauma, I’m good for go. Barbarian? No; just a realist. It doesn’t make “us” any less better than them.
The middle eastern bazaar is not a place for the squeamish or ill resolute. Nor is war.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 1:15 am - June 29, 2006