GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Some things are just, well, relative

October 26, 2011 by B. Daniel Blatt

Monday night, while enjoying my late night snack, I popped in a DVD that has sat on my shelf since I had won it (as part of package of DVDs) in a silent auction five years ago, a biography of the architect of the Great Society, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I had to smile when the Democrat’s friend, former Texas Governor (and former Democrat) John Connally said that the 36th president “had no interest except politics.  He was totally committed to it.  He never read anything . . . . ”  Sometimes it seems our readers see us as that Texas Democrat, entirely focused on politics because our primary internet exposure is through our posts on that topic.

And yet there remains a part of us, the better part perhaps, which can’t be discovered though google.  And that’s where my mind has been of late.

As time permits, I do hope to return to regular blogging perhaps as soon as this afternoon. I can devote a few hours a day to blogging about politics and the rest to mythology and its related manifestations in popular media/culture.

Let me briefly share with you some thoughts on, well, relativity, some observations and serendipities from Monday night through Tuesday morning.  Have you ever noticed how sometimes the greatest joys you feel come not when you achieve a particular honor, but when you find the status quo restored?

Let me illustrate.  Monday night, I was driving home from the Valley via Laurel Canyon when all of a sudden the interior lights in my car went on.  Keeping my eyes on the windy road, I reached up to flip them off, but accidentally hit the switch not for the light, but for the sunroof; it began to open (with the lights still on).  And I began to panic.

You see, when last I had opened the roof, it jammed and wouldn’t close; I had to take it into the dealership.  They were able to close it, but informed me that it would cost over $1,00o to get it working properly again.

I decided to save the money; I could live without a sunroof.

Monday night, with the roof refusing (again) to close, I fretted that I would have to take the car in again.  Back home, I tinkered with the roof (as they had advised me to do should it open again), got the roof to budge a bit, but couldn’t get it to close all the way.  I realized I would have to take it in, suffering an additional aggravation in an already busy week.

Keeping my cool, I drove out again, this time to get a snack at 7-11.  There, when I turned the key into the keyhole in the front door, I held it there for a second in order to close all the windows and sunroof.

To my surprise, the roof closed all the way.  And it was supposed to do.  I wouldn’t have to go into the dealership.

I was in an amazing mood, chipper, smiling at (instead of cursing) the busybody patron who kept changing her mind about what to purchase when it was her turn to pay for her purchases while I waited in line behind her.  I held the door open for a group of slow-moving college kids.  It struck me how wonderful I felt just to restore the status quo (something I had taken for granted for over a year) of barely twenty minutes prior to my visit.

I even slept well.

Yesterday morning, I  woke up to rain.   And smiled at my good fortune.  Good fortune that I would certainly have taken for granted if not for the problem of the roof the previous night.

So, I wondered if our happiness, our state of mind, is relative.

This notion of relativity struck me yet again when I returned home from Starbucks later in the day.  I delighted at how clean my apartment was. To be sure, it wasn’t really clean, just cleaner.  Those who had not been here before would wonder at my clutter.  But, over the weekend — and on Monday — I had consolidated some piles, tidied up, straightened the rugs and vacuumed thoroughly.  It seemed clean, well, that is, in contrast to how it had appeared on Saturday.

With the story of the tale of the sunroof fresh in my mind, I wondered again at how much in life really is relative. . . .

Just a thought.

Filed Under: Blogging, Happiness, Random Thoughts

Comments

  1. rusty says

    October 26, 2011 at 6:08 am - October 26, 2011

    Silent ‘election’ or ‘auction’ ?

  2. Heliotrope says

    October 26, 2011 at 8:29 am - October 26, 2011

    Taking a “vacation” from politics is always refreshing. When I escape to a week away from the internet and the TV, I begin to believe that there may be a bit of normalcy in the world.

    I was in the Azores when I spotted a young fellow at an overlook open his car and unload crates of pigeons. We went over to chat and learn what was going on.

    The young man in his late teens was sending his homing pigeons of a weekly flight from a distant spot. Somehow he misunderstood me and thought I was asking him if he would sell one of his pigeons to me. He was really torn about how he would ever choose which one.

    We cleared up the misunderstanding and he hopped in his car to get home where the pigeons would all be waiting for their post flight treat.

    That is a long way from Obamacare.

  3. Eric Olsen says

    October 26, 2011 at 8:32 am - October 26, 2011

    Great post, Dan. Makes me smile, and miss those nights in the Valley (alwasy capitalize the “V”), as well.

    Certainly, I can relate to those small things that happen to us that give us pause to see the larger picture in a much different light.

    But seriously…you watched an LBJ DVD with your late night snack?!?!?!? 😀

  4. Cas says

    October 26, 2011 at 11:03 am - October 26, 2011

    Hi Dan,
    An interesting book you may have read on the topic…

  5. B. Daniel Blatt says

    October 26, 2011 at 12:02 pm - October 26, 2011

    Thanks, rusty, seems auto correct fixed it for me and fixed it incorrectly. Since fixed. . . .

  6. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 12:03 pm - October 26, 2011

    During the worst period in my life, I somehow managed to write the happiest, most life affirming song I’ve ever written. The gist of it, the chorus in fact, simply says this:

    “I am happy
    I am here”

    No matter how bad things are, life is something that is more precious than anything. Seeing that I was born almost 3 months premature, and probably shouldn’t have survived as the odds on a 2 lb baby surviving in 1965 were incredible low, I’ve always had a great appreciation for the fact that I’m even here.

    PS. Started the Hamilton book yet?

  7. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm - October 26, 2011

    During the worst period in my life, I somehow managed to write the happiest, most life affirming song I’ve ever written.

    Hey, sf – You could rewrite it to touch upon your crypto-Troofer beliefs and “Boooshitler tortured!!1!” canards. Then, when people point out the indecency of it, you can say there’s no point in discussing it – as if you hadn’t been the one to introduce the subject 🙂

  8. rusty says

    October 26, 2011 at 12:34 pm - October 26, 2011

    sure BDB. hope things come together for you.

    [rusty, thanks for the good word, but don’t get me wrong. Things are not currently going badly, not in the least; it’s just that I’m not as inclined to blog about politics as I normally am. And that’s not a bad thing. –Dan]

  9. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm - October 26, 2011

    Hey, sf – You could rewrite it to touch upon your crypto-Troofer beliefs and “Boooshitler tortured!!1!” canards. Then, when people point out the indecency of it, you can say there’s no point in discussing it – as if you hadn’t been the one to introduce the subject 🙂

    Sure…

    ♫ I sure wish you would understand,
    that some things are not hand in hand
    you misrepresent what I believe
    and go on to twist and to decieve

    The facts that normally are so clear
    are distorted based on a thin veneer
    of over zealous patriotic veal
    I’ll set you straight here’s the deal

    I don’t believe that George Bush lied
    or is happy that some people died
    I don’t believe that Cheney’s bad
    though he often seems to be quite mad

    The Truther guys well they’re insane
    Mohammed Atta flew that plane
    it was islamofascist asshat clowns
    that brought those two great buildings down

    I’m not a lib not even close
    that accusation is quite gross
    If you want some written proof
    It’s on my blog and that’s the truth

    On water-boarding I hold fast
    my opinion’s derived from the past
    From Nam, Korea, and way back then
    T’was considered torture and has always been

    If Iran were to catch a guy
    and said that he’s an American spy
    Then they went and did the same
    your collective heads would be aflame!

    Listen carefully to my words
    Pidgeon-holing is for the birds
    to stereotype me it’s just plain wrong
    the folly of blind ideologue !!!s* &#9835

    There you go!!! 🙂

  10. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 1:17 pm - October 26, 2011

    ♫ ♫….

  11. V the K says

    October 26, 2011 at 2:05 pm - October 26, 2011

    And so the question remains, how many innocent people are you willing to let be murdered by terrorists so you don’t have to feel guilty about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose.

  12. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm - October 26, 2011

    you misrepresent what I believe

    Bzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. In fact, you just misrepresented me.

    Here is what you said:

    “In the Pale Monnlight” is still one of my favorite episodes of all the Star Trek shows. It’s a great morality play that translates well to the GWOT concerning torture or Guantanamo.

    So you suggested applying the DS9 episode, “In the Pale Moonlight”, as a parable to the GWOT. Then V pointed out:

    it’s quite a stretch to link the plot of “In the Pale Moonlight” to the GWOT… The plot essentially involves faking a terrorist act to trick people into going to war. Conflating it to the War Against Terrorists is kind of Truther-y

    V was right. Now, it may well be that you don’t have Troofer beliefs… in which case, sf, **you misspoke** when you said what you said. I did not misrepresent; rather, you misspoke. Can you man up about that?

    Oh, and by the way:

    based on a thin veneer of over zealous patriotic veal [sic]

    There you go again sf… misrepresenting me a second time.

    Please make sure you aren’t guilty of the behavior you want to accuse others of, OK? Otherwise, people might think you were the pot, calling the kettle black. 😉

  13. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 2:15 pm - October 26, 2011

    And so the question remains, how many innocent people are you willing to let be murdered by terrorists so you don’t have to feel guilty about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose.

    Indeed.

    Now run along, sf. Remember, this is -your- position/promise to us:

    We discussed this ad-nausium, and there is no sense in rehashing it… So I’m not going to touch on it again.

  14. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm - October 26, 2011

    (“you misspoke” – because you presented a poor/misleading analogy, one that was up to you to correct or clarify, given your not having Troofer beliefs)

  15. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    October 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm - October 26, 2011

    “But seriously…you watched an LBJ DVD with your late night snack?!?….”

    Quick, someone get this man a boyfriend. Stat!

  16. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm - October 26, 2011

    It’s a great morality play that translates well to the GWOT concerning torture or Guantanamo.

    Now, if I wouldn’t have included the bold section, yes, it would be misleading. But, because I specifically tacked on that section, which singles out two specific areas, something I specifically did to make sure that some yahoo didn’t torture the intent to confess an untruth…..

    In ITPM, facing the bleak reality the Federation might lose the war, Sisko ends up making decisions that brakes / tosses aside his own codes of morality for the common good. Before 9/11, much of the population of the US would not have considered that the US would have / operate a permanent detention facility for prisoners of war or enemy combatants, and that we would accept an understood torture technique as official and sanctioned US method of intel gathering.

    Yet, here we are. What was unthinkable for many is justified due to the terrorist threat. Interesting that at the end of the episode, Sisko also deletes and erases his own confession of his involvement.

    There you go again sf… misrepresenting me a second time.

    And, on that note:

    ♫ You’re so vain
    I bet you think this song is about you….
    ♫

    🙂

  17. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm - October 26, 2011

    Sounds like you’re projecting again, sf 🙂

    You’re so vain, that you can say this:

    We discussed this ad-nausium, and there is no sense in rehashing it… So I’m not going to touch on it again.

    … and promptly break it like you never said it. Now in TWO threads. Boy, you must be concerned with your ‘image’, or something.

  18. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 5:38 pm - October 26, 2011

    Correction – in the other thread, what you broke promptly after saying it was rather this bit:

    Watch and learn….. Goodbye on this thread.

    I regret my error. See sf, that is what an apology looks like. But anyway… nice job, keeping up yours! 😉

  19. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 5:51 pm - October 26, 2011

    I did keep mine. I didn’t comment on that in that thread again. I’ll not comment on it again on this thread either. AND, unless it comes up in a lyric (written on the fly once again btw) I won’t comment here at GP on the “T” or “W” word for a whole week…. Even if someone imports it to a different thread. 🙂

  20. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 5:51 pm - October 26, 2011

    (I am going to post the new lyric on my blog, which is why I added the qualifier)

  21. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm - October 26, 2011

    I’ll not comment on it again on this thread either.

    ROFL

    (I am going to post the new lyric on my blog

    Yup… vain.

  22. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 26, 2011 at 6:02 pm - October 26, 2011

    I did keep mine.

    Yes indeed… I meant, “Nice job keeping up your errors (rather than apologizing for them).”

    But see, I misspoke in not saying that quite right, the first time. I regret my error. See, sf? AGAIN, what an apology looks like. Try it sometime.

  23. Sonicfrog says

    October 26, 2011 at 6:42 pm - October 26, 2011

    What’s the error. I wrote a random lyric on the fly, and you responded as if it was aimed directly at you. It was a criticism of some of the generalizations and assumptions that are heaped upon me when we disagree on stuff. I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular as I was writing, just reflecting on the tendencies.

  24. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 27, 2011 at 12:57 am - October 27, 2011

    I wrote a random lyric on the fly, and you responded as if it was aimed directly at you

    Pathetic, sf. What a bullsh*tter you are, truly.

  25. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 27, 2011 at 12:59 am - October 27, 2011

    And once more: Can you ever keep a promise, or display any accountability? Remember your twin promises:

    We discussed this ad-nausium, and there is no sense in rehashing it… So I’m not going to touch on it again.
    Watch and learn….. Goodbye

    Watching… check. Learning (what human lack of accountability looks like)… check.

  26. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 27, 2011 at 9:48 am - October 27, 2011

    And still the question remains: how many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, sf, so that you can compliment yourself on your displays of guilt about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  27. Sonicfrog says

    October 27, 2011 at 8:03 pm - October 27, 2011

    You guys can taunt better than this… Try this!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

  28. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 27, 2011 at 11:20 pm - October 27, 2011

    You’re still back… and question remains…

  29. Sonicfrog says

    October 28, 2011 at 1:43 am - October 28, 2011

    Yep… and Yep.

  30. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 28, 2011 at 10:45 am - October 28, 2011

    Accountability watch: Still zero.

  31. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 28, 2011 at 10:46 am - October 28, 2011

    sf: How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, so that you can compliment yourself on your guilt about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  32. Sonicfrog says

    October 28, 2011 at 12:51 pm - October 28, 2011

    Yawn… You can do better than that.

  33. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 28, 2011 at 2:29 pm - October 28, 2011

    sf… How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, so that you can compliment yourself on your guilt about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  34. Sonicfrog says

    October 28, 2011 at 5:15 pm - October 28, 2011

    Yawn… You can do better than that.

  35. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm - October 28, 2011

    Still not it, sf. Still no accountability, and you appear unable to answer the question:

    How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, so that you can compliment yourself on your guilt about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  36. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 28, 2011 at 9:45 pm - October 28, 2011

    (continued) It’s a simple question. If you’re going to keep coming back here, then answer it.

    Otherwise… all you’re doing, is showing your great vanity.

  37. Sonicfrog says

    October 29, 2011 at 2:25 am - October 29, 2011

    You answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

    If Iran were to catch a guy and said that he’s an American spy, and lets say he is. Then they went and did the same and waterboarded him for information because they think an attack on their country was imminent…

    Honestly, I mean really honest… What would your reaction be?

  38. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 29, 2011 at 4:34 am - October 29, 2011

    You answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

    Uh-huh. That’ll be the day. You’ve only broken about 9 promises in all this. Tell you what – Prove your seriousness, by answering mine first… *because, after all, I asked you first*.

    How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, sf, so that you can enjoy the privilege of complimenting yourself over your (allegedly) fine ethics about about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  39. Sonicfrog says

    October 29, 2011 at 10:57 am - October 29, 2011

    Nope. I’ll answer your if you answer mine.

  40. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 29, 2011 at 11:07 am - October 29, 2011

    To my point: you are indeed using (as I had suspected) a classic left-wing tactic, distraction / subject-changing.

    How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, sf, so that you can enjoy the privilege of complimenting yourself over your (allegedly) fine ethics about about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

  41. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 29, 2011 at 11:21 am - October 29, 2011

    P.S. It’s not as though your question isn’t answered super easily. The answer is in two parts:
    1) If your postulated “spy” were in fact a terrorist planning to attack Iran’s civilians illegally and they needed more info and waterboarded him under controlled conditions, of course I’d be OK with it.
    2) Your question goes awry, in positing a *false moral equivalence* between somebody who really is a terrorist, and someone who really is not a terrorist. Which BTW is another typical leftie tactic. Now you know enough to f*ck yourself with it.

    Now – if you have any sense of responsibility or accountability at all, sf: How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, so that you can enjoy the privilege of complimenting yourself over your (allegedly) fine ethics about about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose? Give us a specific number.

  42. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 29, 2011 at 11:37 am - October 29, 2011

    (cue the next distractionary/evasive tactic in 4… 3… 2…)

  43. Sonicfrog says

    October 30, 2011 at 1:51 am - October 30, 2011

    got home late. will answer tomorrow.

  44. Sonicfrog says

    October 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm - October 30, 2011

    As promised, I uphold my end of the bargain and answer your question first.

    How many innocent people are you willing to let terrorists murder, so that you can enjoy the privilege of complimenting yourself over your (allegedly) fine ethics about about pouring water on a terrorist’s nose?

    First, it must be pointed out that this is a loaded question fallacy. This assumes that when waterboarding torture is used, it will stop the murder of innocent people. It’s the same failed tact used by pro-choice advocates who will argue that any law restricting abortion is a death sentence for countless mothers who will die if their pregnancy is carried to term.

    That said, I will answer your question.

    Zero… If… IF there is a known imminent attack that is about to occur on US soil, if time has run out and there is absolutely no other option, then so be it. This is the standard Conservative rational for the use of this torture procedure.

    First though, lets explore the definition of the term imminent: “likely to occur at any moment; impending”, or “about to happen, occur, or take place very soon”.

    Again…. If… IF….. there is a known “imminent” attack, and the use of waterboarding torture is seen as absolutely the only way to prevent that imminent attack and get information from the terrorist, then, so be it. And when the dust settles on the case, and the attack is thwarted, then the people who tortured the terrorist must be brought up on charges relating to the use of torture. Now, I do support leniency in punishment if this torture did in fact stop an “imminent” attack, but the agents who used this procedure must be held to account.

    No matter how hard you or the Conservative big government types try to redefine it, waterboarding is, and always will be, torture.

    Now, lets examine your “answer” to my question. I asked:

    If Iran were to catch a guy and said that he’s an American spy, and lets say he is. Then they went and did the same and waterboarded him for information because they think an attack on their country was imminent…

    You answered:

    It’s not as though your question isn’t answered super easily. The answer is in two parts:

    1) If your postulated “spy” were in fact a terrorist planning to attack Iran’s civilians illegally and they needed more info and waterboarded him under controlled conditions, of course I’d be OK with it.

    Interesting answer, especially since it doesn’t actually answer my question. I did not ask about what the Iranians would do to an American terrorist, I asked about their use of waterboarding on an American spy.

    2) Your question goes awry, in positing a *false moral equivalence* between somebody who really is a terrorist, and someone who really is not a terrorist.

    Which BTW is another typical leftie tactic. Now you know enough to f*ck yourself with it.

    Why draw that distinction? If waterboarding isn’t torture, there should be no distinguishable difference between using it on a terrorist or a spy. After all, a spy could do more damage to a nation than a terrorist, Klaus Fuchs being a fine example. Your predisposition to change the parameters of the question without answering the original one, leads me to suspect that, despite your claims to the contrary, you too, somewhere deep down in your conscience, also know that waterboarding is, indeed, torture.

    To wrap things up, your answer to being OK with the Iranians waterboarding an American, even if he were a “terrorist”, is laughable. You would label any confession of terrorist activity as being a coerced confession under torture, and this would be a perfect pretense to go to war and kick the shit out of the Iranian Mullahs.

  45. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 30, 2011 at 5:29 pm - October 30, 2011

    As promised, I uphold my end of the bargain

    Finally… after breaking several other promises.

    when waterboarding torture is used

    First, it must be pointed out that this is a loaded term fallacy. Waterboarding isn’t torture; calling it that up-front attempts to pre-determine the outcome of the discussion.

    assumes that… it will stop the murder of innocent people.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. What it does is recognize the fact that in the 3 cases where waterboarding was used, it actually stopped the murder of innocent people. Had waterboarding not been used, at that time and in that particular (controlled, intelligence-gathering) way on those particular 3 individuals including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, certain terrorist plots that were stopped as a result of waterboarding, would not have been stopped. The exact casualty count from plots that were prevented is, of course, an unknowable; but in view of the fact that 9-11 had just recently succeeded, it seems highly unlikely that the count would have been zero.

    IF there is a known imminent attack that is about to occur on US soil, if time has run out and there is absolutely no other option, then so be it.

    So: you support waterboarding, under the same conditions as I do.

    You merely insist, with neither proof nor reason, that it be mis-labelled “torture” in order to satisfy your vanity.

    Which is pathetic. End of argument.

    No matter how hard you or the Conservative -left-wing- big government types try to redefine it, waterboarding is, and always will be, -NOT- torture.

    FIFY, sf.

    Interesting answer, especially since it doesn’t actually answer my question.

    No, it does answer it; you simply choose to not understand the answer.

    Your question draws a *false moral equivalence* between someone who is actually a terrorist i.e. really attacking the Iranian people, and someone who is NOT a terrorist i.e. whom the Iranian government simply labels “terrorist”. I reject that false equivalence.

    You see, sf, there is this thing called “reality” that cannot be bent to the Iranian government’s wishes and declarations… nor to yours. It matters, in answering your question, if the “spy” is actually engaged in illegal, terrorist attacks on Iranian civilians or is simply being mis-labelled (for whatever reason) by the Iranian government.

    In the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the 2 other guys they waterboarded, the subjects were *actually* terrorists. And subjecting them to the discomfort of waterboarding *actually* saved lives. And the whole thing was *actually* done with a life-saving, i.e. non-sadistic purpose.

    Those facts make it inherently NOT torture. Torture is, under the law, a matter the specific intent behind the act… not a matter of the act itself. Even Obama’s Justice Department agreed that ‘torture’ is a matter of specific intent. From one of their legal briefs in 2009:

    [T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”)

    The Justice Department’s reference to ‘specific intent’ vs. ‘general intent’ concerns a legal doctrine which you can look up. Bottom line is that the CIA people who waterboarded the 3 terrorists under controlled conditions did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so, therefore what they did is legally not torture.

    Patterico was good on this. From one link:

    Here is how “torture” is defined in 18 USC Sec. 2340:

    (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control…

    [now quoting an article by Stuart Taylor] Congress quite deliberately chose not to limit the CIA to [the Army Field Manual’s interrogation] methods, and thus tacitly gave the CIA approval to use unspecified forms of physical coercion… The case law suggests that whether various interrogation practices shock the conscience depends on the importance and urgency of the information likely to be obtained and “exact analysis of [the specific] circumstances.”… Congress could seek to explicitly ban [waterboarding], along with other highly coercive techniques. It has not done so [i.e., had not as of Taylor’s and Patterico’s writing in May 2007, despite many opportunities]…

    I have no doubt that if a 15 year old boy were to waterboard his sister, basically to terrify her despite any of his protestations of good purpose, that would be torture. Perhaps also could be waking her up under certain circumstances, or playing certain music to her. Again, torture is a matter of intent – and courts determine the honesty and reasonableness of intent, all the time.

    Bottom line, sf: You’re full of sh*t, on this one.

    If waterboarding isn’t torture, there should be no distinguishable difference between using it on a terrorist or a spy.

    Bull. See above. Nearly every human action is subject to moral distinctions based on context, or WHY it is being done. For example, procedures which inflict far *more* pain and harm than a careful waterboarding, such as a permanent amputation done with no anesthetic.

    You bullsh*tters (on this topic) never can get around that one.

    You would label any confession of terrorist activity as being a coerced confession under torture

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong again. I would not. I would look at the total set of facts.

    I know that misrepresentation is a key for you on this, sf – It is key that you be able to misrepresent me – but it’s not working.

  46. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm - October 30, 2011

    Typo, “procedures which inflict far *more* pain and harm than a careful waterboarding, such as a permanent amputation done with no anesthetic…. may be torture or not-torture, again depending on WHY they are being done.”

  47. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 30, 2011 at 5:48 pm - October 30, 2011

    And to be perfectly clear (although not that clarity will stop you from misrepresenting me, sf): I do not claim that it is the terrorist’s status as-terrorist *alone* that makes waterboarding non-torture. In other words, I do not advocate it as punishment. If it were used as a punishment (rather than as a reasonable interrogation technique given the circumstances and the lives at stake), then it might arguably become torture.

    Again – whether an action of exposing an individual to amputation done with no anesthetic, or to Sonicfrog’s music, or to waterboarding, or to my cooking – any of those things – is torture or not, is a question which the law answers by reference to circumstances, including the actor’s intent.

  48. Sonicfrog says

    October 30, 2011 at 7:59 pm - October 30, 2011

    Had waterboarding not been used, at that time and in that particular (controlled, intelligence-gathering) way on those particular 3 individuals including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, certain terrorist plots that were stopped as a result of waterboarding, would not have been stopped.

    That, my friend, is the classic fallacy of denying the antecedent.

    If A then B
    If not A, then not B

    There is no way of knowing of course that Abu Zubaydah would not have provided info w/o torture, but, it remains quite possible that had we not tortured him or KSM or ARN, some, or even all the plots that were supposedly stopped exclusively because of the info gathered via torture, could not have or would not have been stopped regardless.

    And as far as the Big Government Executive Branch deciding that waterboarding is not torture (which had previously been understood as torture), That is just about as legitimate as the Big Government Executive Branch deciding that CO2 is a pollutant and must be regulated. Well, under the current “Big Government Rules Supreme”, then I guess that must be a fact, no matter what the precious understanding to the contrary was.

    And no, you STILL have not answered my question. You countered with

    Your question draws a *false moral equivalence* between someone who is actually a terrorist i.e. really attacking the Iranian people, and someone who is NOT a terrorist i.e. whom the Iranian government simply labels “terrorist”. I reject that false equivalence.

    Which is an evasive misdirection.

    But I suppose this is all I’m going to get from you.

    And subjecting them to the discomfort of waterboarding …

    “Discomfort” is when my leg falls asleep, or I have a little splinter in my index finger that annoys when I play bass or guitar. Being strapped to a table with someone pouring water down my throat causing a gag reflex and making me think I’m going to die is… oh… I don’t know… a bit more than a little “discomfort”.

    Bottom line is that the CIA people who waterboarded the 3 terrorists under controlled conditions did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so, therefore what they did is legally not torture.

    Yeah, because the feeling that you’re drowning is only, you know, kind of unpleasant. This is a joke. I was going to say “This kind of ‘logic’ is why I recoil at the thought of another Conservative executive”. But since the liberal one is also apparently in the same boat, it makes me glad to be a registered libertarian.

  49. ILoveCapitalism says

    October 30, 2011 at 8:59 pm - October 30, 2011

    That, my friend, is the classic fallacy of denying the antecedent.

    Nope. It’s citing fact. You just can’t afford to admit it.

    Which is an evasive misdirection.

    Nope. It was again citing a fact. Your question really did draw a *false moral equivalence* between someone who is actually a terrorist i.e. really attacking the Iranian people, and someone who is NOT a terrorist i.e. whom the Iranian government simply labels “terrorist”.

    And it is equally a fact that I, ILC, reject your phony moral equivalences. Too bad you can’t do anything about that fact. Facts are not something, sf, that you (or anyone) can just wish away, or ‘declare’ out of existence.

    Being strapped to a table with someone pouring water down my throat causing a gag reflex and making me think I’m going to die is… oh… I don’t know… a bit more than a little “discomfort”.

    Not much. Our special forces do it as a training exercise, remember.

    Oh wait – You can’t afford to remember that. Excuse me for reminding you… excuse me for citing facts.

    You have yet to address the central point, sf: that *Nearly every human action is subject to moral distinctions based on context, or WHY it is being done. For example, procedures which inflict far more pain and harm than a careful waterboarding, such as 4-limb amputation done with no anesthetic, may be torture or not-torture. Being simply tied down on a bed, may or may not be torture. Listening to your music, may or may not be torture. Whether any of those things is torture or not, is a question which the Law answers by reference to circumstances, including the actor’s intent.*

    Bottom line is that you have no answer to that point. Vain Sonicfrog FAIL.

    And with that, I am done here. It is my rule in general, that I don’t continue with posts that have fallen off the GP main page. You shall find, sf, beginning now (i.e. as of the end of this sentence), that I am NOT just saying that as a rhetorical flourish devoid of all reality, like… you know… you have done quite recently.

  50. Sonicfrog says

    October 31, 2011 at 2:20 am - October 31, 2011

    Not much. Our special forces do it as a training exercise, remember.

    Glad you brought that up. Was waiting for it.

    First… There is a HUGE difference between doing it as a training excercise and experiencing it under the situation of being a prisoner. In training, you know the procedure will be stopped at any time. The soldier being exposed to the torture procedure can give a hand signal to stop it at any time. They know it’s not real. Yet, even then, it leaves a psychological scar that alters behavior for some time, even under controlled conditions such as the SERE program.

    Here is testimony by Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, the former chief Psychology Services of SERE from 1999 through 2002 and was, up to the testimony provided below, the chief psychologist for the JPRA which helps repatriated soldiers deal with the experiences of combat, and related issues concerning war, which includes dealing with treatment experienced when held captive by the enemy. I’m including the entire relevant testimony, including the questions to make sure there are no accusations of selective editing.

    Senator Bill Nelson.

    So, you’ve seen it [waterboarding]. You further say,
    “The waterboard produced capitulation and compliance with
    instructor demands 100 percent of the time,” and you finish up
    by saying that the waterboard expressed extreme avoidance
    attitudes, such as a likelihood to further comply with any
    demands made of them if brought near the waterboard again. So
    why don’t you give us some further observations about that.

    Dr. Ogrisseg.

    Senator, when I observed the Navy training, I
    not only watched when folks were being put on the waterboard,
    but also went to observe when they were being debriefed,
    following training. I’m not exactly sure how many, but with
    three or four of these students that I saw that experienced the
    waterboard, I heard their comments about that pressure. The
    gist of the comments is, as I stated there, “If they had
    brought me near that thing again, I would have complied with
    anything that they told me to do, and done anything to avoid
    it.”

    Senator Bill Nelson.

    It’s to prepare our troops for
    captivity. Now, the Chairman, in his opening comments, said
    that this technique is limited to 20 seconds. Our Navy
    students, primarily SEALs, they would know that they were not
    going to be killed in this operation, that it was a training
    exercise. So, it’s to prepare them for it. So, your
    observations of that are that, at the end of the day, whatever
    the captor wants the captee to do as a result of waterboarding,
    the captee is going to do? Is that your observation?

    Dr. Ogrisseg.

    What my observation was, was that certainly
    they would comply with what was wanted. As far as the
    information that they gave, I have no way of knowing whether or
    not that was true or not.
    Senator Bill Nelson.

    You said earlier, to someone’s
    question, that there was a way for the trainee to stop the
    interrogation technique. Tell us about that.
    Dr. Ogrisseg.

    In all of the school programs that I have
    seen, there is a term that can be used for them to say, “Hey,
    I need to talk to someone,” get them out of role and an
    opportunity to bring them back online. With the waterboard,
    when I saw it in 2001, there was essentially not a similar
    mechanism for that, that would allow them before being placed
    in that pressure, to avert it. Even with the specialists that
    you’re talking about the SEALs going through, it doesn’t take
    very long, with that device, to instill a very real fear of
    drowning and death for anyone who’s going through it, even if
    they know what the rules of engagement are for using it during
    training.

    They do it as an exercise, they know it’s an exercise, yet, it still scars them. Why? Because it’s far more than a “discomfort”. It’s torture. You and the other neocons can rationalize all you want, but the bottom line is that it’s torture, and that this is one day going to come back and bite us in the ass.

    PS. I really hope your cooking is not half as bad as some of my songwriting. Because, if it is, then I declare that torture as well!!!! 🙂

Categories

Archives