Oddly silent

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And our government, in speaking for us nationally and internationally, says that we don't condone the use of torture, which is why the CIA wanted to be sure that they weren't in violation of law and policy and sought clarification on the issue before proceeding. As described, from a legal perspective, the clarification they sought was deemed to fall below the threshold of what would constitute torture. If a couple of CIA employees exceeded that threshold in practice, or misrepresented the nature of what they were doing, that doesn't change the law, or the policy, of the United States and its people.

As far as "trust" goes, of course I don't "trust" the government not to use torture because it is against the law and against official policy. I "trust" that they will torture when they believe torture is necessary and refrain from using it when they feel it unnecessary, just as I trust that you would use it when you felt it was necessary and refrain from its use when you felt it unnecessary.

Has anyone ever indicated to you how "circular" your arguments are?

The government is us, we are the government. If we as individuals wouldn't hesitate to waterboard an accomplice in the abduction of our own child to extract the information we needed to get to our child before they are harmed, but would forgo such action in nearly every other instance, why is it so shocking for us to find out that on occasion, in very limited and extreme circumstances, people within our government would act in the same manner we, ourselves, would in very limited and extreme circumstances?

PrintSmith wrote: The government is us, we are the government. If we as individuals wouldn't hesitate to waterboard an accomplice in the abduction of our own child to extract the information we needed to get to our child before they are harmed, but would forgo such action in nearly every other instance, why is it so shocking for us to find out that on occasion, in very limited and extreme circumstances, people within our government would act in the same manner we, ourselves, would in very limited and extreme circumstances?

Two very different scenarios, P, and you know it. You stated in a previous post (paraphrased for brevity) something along the lines of these two scenarios being distinguished from each other by virtue of their distinct characteristics. Conflating the two at this point isn't something I'll buy into.

Colbert pretty much nails it regarding the differing positions being taken by those on both sides of the issue (although, the pro-torture proponents do kinda sorta take it on the chin in this one):

thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/0frisd/fo...ent---torture-report

Thought I'd also throw this paper into the mix since there is document evidence that medial personnel were "involved" in the EIT program:

s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/doing-harm-...-torture-program.pdf

Obama's administration isn't off the hook on torture either.

www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/america...rent_page=1#bookmark

Yet Obama did not ban torture in 2009, and has not rescinded it now. He instead rehabilitated torture with a carefully crafted Executive Order that has received little scrutiny. He demanded, for instance, that interrogation techniques be made to fit the US Army Field Manual, which complies with the Geneva Convention and has prohibited torture since 1956.

But in 2006, revisions were made to the Army Field Manual, in particular through ‘Appendix M’, which contained interrogation techniques that went far beyond the original Geneva-inspired restrictions of the original version of the manual. This includes 19 methods of interrogation and the practice of extraordinary rendition.

And this from another source ( www.nafeezahmed.com/2009/01/obama-regime-rotation.html ):

First, it should be understood that regardless of what elected US governments have said or left unsaid about the practice of torture by military intelligence services, torture is, and always has been, endemic and officially sanctioned at the highest levels. Declassified CIA training manuals from the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, prove that the CIA has consistently practiced torture long before the Bush administration attempted to legitimize the practice publicly. This means that what made the Bush era distinctive was not the systematic practice of torture by US military intelligence agencies, but rather the US government’s open and widely known endorsement of such practices, and insistence either on their obvious legality, or otherwise of the irrelevance of law in the context of fighting terrorism.

American exceptionalism.

If you could have saved those 140 plus Pakistani schoolkids by waterboarding a few captured terrorists would you?

FredHayek wrote: If you could have saved those 140 plus Pakistani schoolkids by waterboarding a few captured terrorists would you?

What a ridiculous question to ask. Perhaps the Pakistani government might have, but the reality, once again, is that torture, of which waterboarding is included, is banned not only by the U.S. but also in international law, the Geneva Convention, and laws in countries that are party to it.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Isn't that about the same logic you use to give credence to another Ferguson investigation? Procedural issues with how the DA handled it?

Hardly.

Huh. You are dismissing the dissenting report as problematic because it is based on "procedural, analytical, and methodologies" rather than any dispute of the facts.

In the Ferguson DA finding I do not recall any dispute of the facts or finding only the procedural methods of the DA. On that basis you think another grand jury is called for.

So, what part of that am I getting wrong?

BlazerBob wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Isn't that about the same logic you use to give credence to another Ferguson investigation? Procedural issues with how the DA handled it?

Hardly.

Huh. You are dismissing the dissenting report as problematic because it is based on "procedural, analytical, and methodologies" rather than any dispute of the facts.

In the Ferguson DA finding I do not recall any dispute of the facts or finding only the procedural methods of the DA. On that basis you think another grand jury is called for.

So, what part of that am I getting wrong?

Apples and oranges comparison, BlazerBob.

I'll give a more reasoned answer tomorrow if I feel up to it. Too tired tonight and not feeling very well at the moment. G'night.

ZHawke wrote:

FredHayek wrote: If you could have saved those 140 plus Pakistani schoolkids by waterboarding a few captured terrorists would you?

What a ridiculous question to ask. Perhaps the Pakistani government might have, but the reality, once again, is that torture, of which waterboarding is included, is banned not only by the U.S. but also in international law, the Geneva Convention, and laws in countries that are party to it.

You remind me of Michael Dukakis when he was asked what he would want to do if his wife was raped, and he responded with the legal answer instead of the human one.

So there never is an example where those rules are worth breaking?
Is that what you would tell the residents of DC after the capital was hit with a dirty bomb?
ZHawke: Sorry DC, our hands were tied. We could have found out the name of the boat that had the nuke but international law forbid our waterboarding the prisoner. Millions dead and dying, but we were morally and legally correct.
Rights of the many over the rights of the one?