Failure of the Press, Or the People?

If waterboarding, starving, humiliating or any other form of torture saves one American from dying at the hands of these animals, I'm all for it. The majority of these people hate us, and those who don't wouldn't lift a finger to save us from those who do. 

Grizelda,

Your comments, while interesting, don't really address the issue.  They would however, be good subject matter for another blog. 

I wonder though, if you would have the same philosophy if the situation was reversed & it was your husband, son, daughter, brother or sister who faced the torture situation in a country that claimed they hold to a higher standard, but in fact, everyone knew that they practised torture.  Just curious. 

RichK

Rich,

I didnt' read the column but I think I get your point, or your query. It seems like there is just SO MUCH corruption in our Goverment we're drowning in it.  It's all gotten so big, so complex and so many people are just trying to survive they don't have time or the strength of spirit to get involved.

Could it be that since it's an election year and people are just so used to a President who thinks he's Frank Sinatra and does it all "his way" that in these last few months before we elect a new President everyone is just looking the other way.

It's disturbing to me personally to believe that as a Country we may have lowered our standards in order to fight fire with fire. The end does not always justify the means if you sacrifice the basic principles of right and wrong.

 http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for Choice in Nov 7 Commissioners or 5

My husband has faced it. He completed SEARS school while in the military. He was waterboarded, put in a frozen pond and questioned, and beaten with a rubber hose. He came home with knees and feet that were black and blue, an ear partially detached from his head and 20 pounds lighter. AND he didn't whine about it. He was one of OURS! This is war. It isn't pretty. It isn't for the soft-hearted. Some innocents are going to be hurt or killed. Better theirs than ours.

 My father (as an 18 year old boy) was a POW during WWII .

 So I have some knowledge about the issue. 

These people have vowed to destroy us. One of the ways they will do it is to be more devious than we are and to seduce Americans into believing that they are just like us..... That we should just talk to them.....That they want peace. That Islam is a loving religion. Blah, blah, blah.... 

I didn’t read Wayne Ezell’s column either. I will tell you though that my uncle was captured in Bataan at the beginning of WWII and survived the famous Death March. He spent the entire war in various Japanese POW camps. After the war he was so emaciated that he spent six months in an Army hospital just get back on his feet. For the rest of his entire life he couldn’t eat a full meal but he would carry raisons and crackers in his pocket to mince on during the day. The types of torture that was inflicted on him would have killed most people. Before I went to Viet Nam I had to go through a program called Escape and Evasion. Unfortunately I didn’t evade well enough and was captured. I had to experience some of the torture techniques used by the North Vietnamese albeit in a controlled environment. Similar techniques to water-boarding were used but they weren’t life threatening. Being buried alive was sure an eye-opening experience.

It is hard for the American people to understand that in time of war the lives of thousands of people are at stake. We’re not talking about a John Wayne movie where all’s well when the battle is over. If the information that just one man can provide could prevent further bloodshed, it is imperative that we use the necessary measures to obtain it. As an American soldier, we understood that if we were captured, we probably wouldn’t get out alive. I’ll bet you any amount of money that the kids fighting in the Mid-East today could care less about some poor soul being paraded naked in front of a camera to embarrass him when they can look on You-Tube and see a fellow American kneeling in front of a group of masked men and unceremoniously have his head sawed off.

Solo;

Man you can sure pick subjects. How do you define what is and is not torture as opposed to interrogation? Like Grizelda's husband, I went through SEAR school. Not the most fun I've ever had in my life. They did not use water boarding during my training but used others that were probably just as scary.

I've sat through two talks given by two ex Viet Nam POWs. Not a pretty story. What would McCain say about our techniques? I don't know.

Do the ends justify the means if the ends means that you kept a platoon from walking into a booby trapped building? Prevented a Humvee from driving into an area that was mined with IEDs?

One of the issues is that very few countries actually adhere to the Geneva Convention. This was witnessed by the beheading of some of our POWs at the hands of terrorists.

And there is the crux of the matter. Are they military or terrorists or armed combatants or spies? Basically only Military personnel fall under the Geneva Convention.

Is there a real difference between torture for torture's sake and 'torture' to ascertain vital data that could save the lives of our troops? Does this fall under the same decision making process that was used to decide to drop 'The Bomb' on Hiroshima?

Can all emotion be taken out of the answer so that it comes down to a strictly practical military decision? Is it something that the general public should know or care about? Should they have a say in these decisions? Is it just the vagaries of war that must be dealt with in order to accomplish the mission?

Given some time to think of my response I'm sure I could argue both sides of these questions quite effectively. Which side would I truly support? Honestly, I'd rather not have to answer that question. Why? Because, the moral side of me says one thing, the practical military side says another.

Would I participate in subjecting an enemy to this treatment? No doubt in my mind that the answer would be yes if this was SOP. Would I have psychological issues about it afterward? Probably.

Perhaps that is why many of our young people are coming home with PTSD. Not specifically 'torture' but the fact that they have faced many situations that required them to take the life of someone they never knew.

They didn't call it PTSD during WWII but I'm pretty sure that 'Combat Fatigue' was just that with another name. Think of what the WWII vets say about their experiences. Many will not or cannot talk about it.  

Certainly more questions than answers. But I don't think that this is one of those shoot from the hip emotional purely moral decisions. I think it is one that must be stepped back away from and looked at long and hard before you say yeah or nay.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

OK kids, I see that the main point of my blog has blossomed into its' various facets.  That's OK.  They are all valid points.  So if nobody objects, let's multi task since the respondents think these of some importance & I agree.

Marsha, you came on center to the point I was making.  I mentioned that we've become, as you stated, overloaded.  For the record, my other point was another failure of the press.

The fact that Bush lied thru his teeth is nothing new.  If enough inspection were done, I doubt we could find any president who hasn't, for whatever reason.  Heck, if I were Truman & someone asked me @ rumors of some super secret, super powerful bomb, I'd lie through my teeth till my nose turned to wood & grew 3 feet. No.  I think, & it's only my opinion, that what makes this such a distasteful experience is not just the lie, but also the subject matter in respect to what this country has always maintained & the frequency & situations in which he lied @ this & other things.

Grizelda, Walt & anyone else with similar stories, in no way would I or could I diminish the importance of what people under torture have gone through.  I read a story or opinion a week or two ago that put a different spin on torture & John McCain.  the premiss was, basically, why should we consider Sen. McCain, or any other person in his situation a "war hero," because he was tortured in what became recognised as an immoral, illegal, war?  Sound familiar?  I'm STILL trying to grapple with the moral, ethical & philisophical implications of that one.

On torture.  I'm against it for any reason.  Don't attribute any high moral tone to me because I think that bottom line, it is barbaric, serving only to compliment a psychpathic person bent on domination & sadism.  From just @ every report I've come across, I've heard that it just isn't that effective.  If nothing else, I would resort to chemical interogation.  Bottom line, if it is proven to be fairly ineffective, then what is the practical justification of physical torture?  I haven't heard any logical explanations yet. 

Call me an idealist, but would rather have a president who had the guts, the moral spine, to come in front of a national/international audience & tell us that we don't use physical torture.  But we do use chemical means, however effective or ineffective, to extract information necessary to save more lives.  We don't use physical torture, not for any high moral idea, but rather in the hopes that those we fight against will not use it on our people.  As I said, call me an idealist.  I know neither of those situations will probably ever happen.

Grizelda, The only thing I can offer to you on the subjects of Muslims or Islam is the same I said in my previous blog @ Christians & I think Marsha will back me up.  Both groups have a lot of bad apples.  Unfortunately, we only hear @ the ones with power, money & large followings.  There are millions in those groups who neither do what is being done nor condone it.  They each have their bad points.  Unfortunately, there are some Muslims & some Christians who have reverted to the time tested use of torture.  And I'll bet you your penny to a buffalo head nickel that they'll each still attempt to take the high road of morality &/or religion any chance they get. And I'll bet another buffalo head nickel that they will still find a whole bunch of people who will believe in them.  That's the sorry side of humanity.  JATFUR.

RichK 

Mike,

I'm not ignoring your points.  I've got a few things going on & I want to digest your points before answering.  All things being equal, I'll get back to you this PM.

RichK

Rich,

I enjoy reading the things you have to say and you seem to have an endless amount of topics to throw into the mix. However, I can see that we are on opposite sides of the fence on most of them.

Being a career military man, I can understand the reasoning behind my commander in chief being evasive about certain aspects of strategy. I guess you could call it lying if that’s what you want. No President ever elected hasn’t withheld facts from the general public when it was deemed necessary. Did Jimmy Carter tell America about his plans to rescue the hostages in Iran? Did Nixon leak out his plans to move into Cambodia or Eisenhower and Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs? Being a purveyor of falsehoods will make Hillary a good President after her sniper fiasco. If a President has to lie to protect the security of this nation then so be it. If he lies just to protect his butt, that is a different story. Nixon is an example of that. I wonder if Brother Bill stills believes that he "never had sexual relations with that woman".

I don’t know your background but I respect you for your passion in what you believe. I do take exception though about that "Immoral, Illegal War". Being a participant in that action and seeing some of my friends carried from the field, I see a bit of red when we are labeled as criminals and immoral. Did I agree with the foreign policy of the United States? No. Did I want to be there? No, not at all. My country told me to go so I went. We were young kids doing the job we were expected to do and still after forty years we are marked with the stain that some people think we must wear. The policy might have been flawed but I’m proud of each and every man and woman that gave up that time of their life to honorably serve their country’s wishes.

RickK I agree with you and Marsha.  The end does not always justify the means if you sacrifice the basic principles of right and wrong.

You know this war has cost money and lives for the Americans. The enemy spends little money at the hardware store to develop some IED's and don't care who they take out.

The reason Bush don't order a bunch of people come home and the others go to the hardware store and use IED's on them. It wouldn't look good in the press and people could see that happening.

He wouldn't use torture tactics if people could see them either.

I think I'll go play outside now.

Walt,

I'll be bold & say that I think you have some misconceptions.  When it comes to strategy, it doesn't bother me a bit when the pres says one thing & does another.  I get steamed as hell when I see news on CNN or any other news org that basically lays out what we're going to do to whom, when & where.  But torture is not strategy.  There is a universe of difference between that & strategy. I hope you see the difference.  Lying to protect security is one thing.  This president lied to protect what he thought was his good reputation.  He is not alone.  The press failed us again while we failed ourselves, yet again. 

I agree though, with your examples of Carter, Nixon, Ike & Kennedy.  Also @ Clinton, Bill that is.  People may say that Hillary lied.  But that is only guilt by proclamation, & it only satisfies the unwashed, unlettered masses who choose not to think.  Unless you or any other person can come up with evidense of her intent, she only made a bad mistake.  That's the legal side of my mind speaking.  What some people still refuse to say publically is that regardless of how bad Bill or Hillary might be as PEOPLE, lying @ sex or snipers has not cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, a debt great grandchildren will be paying or put the reputation of our country on the bottom part of the toilet.

I do have interests in many fields.  I tend to concentrate on politics & religion, mainly in the theoretical or, as some may say, the larger picture.  I did not call Viet Nam an illegal or immoral war.  You may want to go back & read my statement.  But I do agree that it was illegal & immoral.  I too, am proud of any person that serves their country in an honorable manner.  I think John McCain did.  But another perspective was brought up, & as I said, I am still sorting out the details. 

FYI.  I entered the Navy on Friday, August 23, 1968.  It was @ a week & a 1/2 before the riots in Chicago & the year of the heaviest fighting in Viet Nam.  I did not have to go to Viet Nam.  I have friends on the wall in DC.  I don't forget.  I don't fail to honor or appreciate.  But that does not prevent me from trying to find an intellectual justification for the actions of myself or others or have an appreciation for what history has to teach us. We still have the future as our future.  We should at the very least, learn from our mistakes.  We, as a country, have made so many.  JATFUR.

Angela,

Amen, sister.  JATFUR.

RichK  

Mike,

Sorry 'bout the delay.  I didn't really pick the subject.  Bush did.  The news media kinda did.  Letter writers started the ball rolling.  Wayne Ezell brought it to the attention of the TU readers & put it on the blogs.  A tortuous path, I'll admit. No pun intended. 

How do you define torture?  The same way you define any word.  You use a dictionary.  One may try to massage, manipulate or BS the meaning of any term to fit ones own narrow needs.  But that doesn't make it accurate or right.  This president is no different than any others who have done the same thing.  In fact, many people do it on a daily basis in a variety of ways.  It's called rationalisation to justify our needs for our own ends.  And it's wrong. Badda boom, badda bing. 

As I said, reports have proven that torture isn't anywhere near as effective as people might think.  So why the hell use it?  Chemicals might or might not be any more effective, but at the very least, you won't PROVE to the world that you are nothing more than a barbaric, lying hypocrit to be despised for espousing higher moral character.

The Geneva Convention.  Thank you Alberto Gonsales, you schmuck.  I think he did more damage with his statements than anyone.  What will we profit if we abandon any semblance of aspiring to a higher moral/ethical level?  Nothing but more of what we have.  There will always be those who do their deeds outside of what some called "civilised," behavior.  That's a fact.  Always has been. 

Beheadings.  So much has been said @ that.  My thoughts?  Monkey muffins.  Is it barbaric?  Absolutely.  But there is something else that I consider barbaric.  That is the fact that people are so ignorant of history.

Beheading IS barbaric.  So is flaying.  Don't believe me, ask anyone who recounts the trials of Jesus.  So is placing a rope with a knot around a persons head & dropping them so their neck breaks, or putting them in front of a wall & having others shoot bullets at them or attaching electrodes to them & running a gazzilion volts of electricity through their body or injecting a person with a chemical cocktail to watch them twitch in pain until they die.  At least that is the theory.  Let us not forget that beheading has been a so called, "normal," means of execution for thousands of years.  Muslims do it.  Christians did it before they did.  In fact, It was "perfected," by a white Christian in France.  Perhaps some have heard of the Guillotine?  So some may have to forgive me if I don't look at beheading with the same revulsion & hatred as they do.  It's all barbaric.

The Public.  That's a good one.  The military serves the civilian government, who, in turn, serves the public.  At least that's the way it's supposed to be.  Stripping it down to the bare essentials, the public has to take back the government that has been stolen from us & have our leaders made accountable to at the very least, basic standards of so called, civilised, behavior.  The Republicans rubber stamped while they were heady with power & didn't care what Bush did.  The Democrats lack the stones & are hindered by a short sighted vision.  Balance of power must be restored.  Executive orders & signing statements should come under the scrutiny & approval of Congress & the Supreme Court under the guidance of the Constitution.

Last, but certainly not least, we have to have a more educated, less apathetic population.  Don't ask me how that's going to come about because I have no idea.  But if the public doesn't get off its collective brain dead arses, things are going to get worse, a lot worse, rather than better.

OK.  I've pontificated enough.  By now, you should know where to get copies of this speech.  Have a great week.  JATFUR.

RichK

I know that we can't live in some utopia world here where all the grass is green........oh what a beatiful day motiff.  However, having not been to a war or joined any branch of the military or government, except the irs, i don't have the same perspective as some.  I still look at the people of this planet as people, people who were created the same way you and i were.  People that start out the same, people who eventually have disagreements and feel it necessary to kill others like them.  If we have to have death to pemit that our ideologies prevail, then why do we need torture.  Death is not as bad as it gets.  One shot to the head versus waterboarding and other extree methods allowed even when the end result is not death, the prupose is information sought, what a load of crock. 

Once a soldier goes to war, are there no choices once they join, are you completely dictated in everything, with a pretty banner flying overhead that says your country loves you and supports you, only when you get home you're hated.  I support all who go to war for my little self, but i do not support some of things they participate in.   

People may say that Hillary lied.  But that is only guilt by proclamation, & it only satisfies the unwashed, unlettered masses who choose not to think.  Unless you or any other person can come up with evidense of her intent, she only made a bad mistake.  Solo

How do you define torture?  The same way you define any word.  You use a dictionary.  One may try to massage, manipulate or BS the meaning of any term to fit ones own narrow needs.  But that doesn't make it accurate or right. Solo

So, how are you today.  Can you do me a favor and clear up some of this bs and tell me how you define lying.  I agree with you about the whole torture thing, but when you just said that bush lied through his teeth, but the first statement is just a little mistake, she didn't mean to, it kind of discredits.

Foxx,

Forget @ Utopia.  There is a difference between an ideal & what Mr. Moore suggested.

In your second reply, you will have to clarify the third sentance of your third paragraph.  I find it a bit incomprehensible.  You call it bs.  That is guilt by proclamation.  You, on the other hand, provide nothing to substantiate your claim.  On the other hand, you do provide excellent example of what I was talking about.  Thank you.

RichK

Foxx,

My mistake & I apologise.  I made reference to your reading comprehension but I failed to explain.  In your third paragraph, you said, "but the first statement is just a little mistake." Since you didn't specify clearly, I could only assume you were talking about my statement on Hillary.  But if you go back & actually read what I typed, what I said was,"she made a BAD mistake."  If you can actually show where I said or implied that, "she didn't mean it," it would be most helpful.  That was my reference to Reading Comprehension, 101.  I'm no different than any other person when it comes to people putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, in an attempt to make a point in their own favor.  Perhaps a little more attention to detail would be helpful.  JATFUR.

RichK

Ah....darn, just forget about it.  It was a bad thread and at the current i can't connect it to the topic, i was just trying to pin a bush hater into a corner, like most of bush's policies it worked well and the entire point is for another thread. 

Gonna have to look up Mr. Moore.  Although, i'm pretty sure i said utopia is out indirecty.

It's 3:00 am, your the Commander in Cheif

You have just been informed a terrorist leader has been captured and is suspected of being a key figure, and assisted in the planning, and of placing nuclear devices in a major US city that could kill potentialy millions of US citizens. Intel. estimates these devices will go off anywhere from 16-36 hours. The devices can be disarmed if they can be found, but the terroist leader will not talk.

Your Intel. Org. says sir we beleive we can make him talk. What do you do?

TRUTHHURTS

We certainly don't want to rile anybody over this.  Maybe we could invite him to make himself at home by inviting to sit in a comfortable LAZ-E-BOY chair, some champagne with strawberries dipped in chocolate, some mood music while he watches a harem filled with veiled virgins doing a belly dance.  That should convince him that we just want to be friends.  I could be wrong though.

Millions may die, but not in vain.  Not in vain b/c we still did what was right, we did not torture A, i say again A versus millions dying, we did not torture a human being. 

What do you want out this truth.  Do you want more torture, do you actually want to support torturing a vile, murderous human being, well guess what in my carnal nature so do i, but in my logical mind it is still wrong. 

What would you do truth, would you label yourself as yet another who tortures to get information a person who of course cares about his or her interests but couldn't give a damn about one person even if that person cares nothing for you.  We are all people, and even in the face of millions dying, we still have a choice to do what is right or what is wrong even if the right choice means people will die, even if you made the right choice but it is extremely unpopular, even if you made the right choice and it solves nothing in the short term, even if you made the right choice the problem still remains.

In the end, as history has proven, those who made the right choices and had some flaws, which we need to fix suchas torture, those who made those choices either died with a high level of dignity or they lived and were victorious in their struggle.

So, nice question, but what would you do?

War is hell Foxx.

It's not pretty, fun, or glamorous, and all is fair.

If torture is needed to save millions or any american lives I have no problem.

When faced with an enemy that will do anything to kill innocent people, and they have information that will prevent more of the same, you must become just as ruthless, and yes, if torture is involved so be it. 

I am so happy we have american patriots willing to do the dirty, horriffying work, that most don't have the stomache to do.

I am not saying your wrong and I am right, I just feel diffrently about it all.

 TRUTHHURTS

I don't know now.  If faced with that situation, you can bet that i'd take whatever means necessary to proect the people of this nation, however, sitting here on the computer talking to you and others about torture....................., all i want to be known is that i don't agree with the premise, but that's not to say i wouldn't stray from my own advice in that type of hypothetical situation. 

I'd love to tell you that i could be or play nice with a terrorist who is about to kill millions of my own people, b/c he himself is a person, but the scenario, that hypo. scenario calls for drastic measures, if torture can be avoided then avoid it, if it must be used and there are no other means necessary short of millions of people dying, then use it, but in the back of my mind i would know even after i approved of the use that even if millions of lives were saved, i would have to kneel down at my bedside and ask for forgiveness from God for what i had approved of.  It's not rosey, it's not pretty, it's what would have to be done if all other exits had been used and even with that said torture still remains wrong.

I flat out disagree with you and i think that you're wrong if you're in support of such means with other ptions avaiable, but i would be the hypocrite in the end.

I think those that do all the dirty work on our behalf Foxx kneel down and pray every day. It's a tough call for sure.

The Geneava convention rules are only as good as the enemy we face, and their willingness to abide.

I don't think that when you face an enemy that would behead people on video and send it out for the world to see, including their family and loved ones has much use for it.

In my opinion when facing such an enemy you must not be swayed. If torture is needed to save lives, then go for it.

Your a much kinder person then me.  

TRUTHHURTS

Solo;

Darn you have a way with words! I can't totally agree with all that you said in your response to me but you sure said it wonderfully. And that is not meant to be a sarcastic remark.

I'd hate to have to debate you. I agree with the concept that you present but feel that there are circumstances and situations that would move me to a different course of action.

I think the posts by Foxx, TruthHurts and Walt bear out some of my own sentiments. It brings to mind an age old question.

"When do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few?" author unknown to me.

There are probably a number of words other than rights that could be substituted here. In the case presented by TH perhaps lives (or life) would be appropriate.

Let's make it real world. If we had taken the 'Master Mind' of 9/11 into custody beforehand, what would have been acceptable to prevent the attack? 

A psychological, physiological and sociological conundrum debated and dealt with in any number of ways since the dawn of man.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

It might be just me, but it seems that because there are a # of issues, some of the points are being missed.  Let's clarify.

Torture, the act.  My premise is that if the experts are correct, interrogation by physical torure just is not that effective.  Reason?  In the overwhelming amount of cases, the person being tortured will say anything he, or she, thinks the interrogator wants to  hear.  It's really that simple.  I can't say anything intelligent on chemical interrogation because I don't know enough.  But let's assume it is at least as effective as physical torture.  You then still have a high degree of ineffectiveness.  Conclusion?  Why use physical torture at all unless you are a sadist?  If you are, then you have larger issues with which to deal.  Bottom line is that the amount of accurate, useful information will be fairly low.

Torture, the philosophy. Once again, fairly simple.  If you make claims to a higher moral ground by not using torture, you run a certain % of your own people not being tortured if they are caught.  If you do torture, or claim to not torture but are found to actually torture, you have pretty much 0% of expecting your people not to be tortured.  If you make the high moral claim & are found out that you do, you also loose all moral, ethical & social credibility.  We've lost enough already, so why loose more?  Absolutely no logic there at all.

I won't get into the other subjects of this thread because they seem to have been overwhelmed by the subject of torture.

Mike, thanks for the kind words.  Don't worry @ the debate thing.  First, we'd have to find out where BSing ends & debate begins.  But that's another thread.  Right now, I'm going to read the NYT, the Wash. Post & then start to get some work done.  Have a great day all & be careful out there especially when the rain starts.  JATFUR.

RichK

Failure? – Your blog title of who failed, the people or the press. Who made you the judge on whether the press or the people are failures?  What happened to good old fashioned opinion and freedom of speech? 

To borrow the famous words of one of your most admired politicians, Bill Clinton, “What is the definition of ‘is’?”  What is the definition of torture?  Sleep deprivation, hunger, water boarding… is this torture? Or is this just imposing a certain level of discomfort that weakens the mind and willpower to resist?  Kind of like alcohol being referred to as ‘truth serum.” 

One of the reasons you and others “think” (as in opinion) there is not enough press coverage may be the differing definitions of torture.  It just might not make the news interest cutoff that terrorists are only allowed to sleep a couple of hours a night during interrogation – waterboarding made the news some time ago due to a reporter going through it himself and some training videos being released.  Is waterboarding torture?  Maybe – maybe not.  Is sleep deprivation torture?  If so, then all the new mothers in this country are being tortured. 

In my little mind, torture is tying together a person’s elbows behind their back and throwing the rope over a rafter, then lifting them up until the shoulders dislocate.  I could divulge secrets regarding the breeding habits of the South African rhesus monkey in that situation.  Torture is hooking up jumper cables to body parts and increasing the power.

It is all in the eyes of the beholder and beholdee, just like whether it is news that Obama’s long time buddy and consultant is a militant hate-spewing preacher or a Man of God.  Some see it as news, others don’t.  Either way, it doesn’t make anybody a failure as in the title of your blog.  It is called an opinion.

Using the word “failure” seems a little judgemental don’t you think?

I just had to put a note in on that comment about sleep deprivation and Moms. I've been blessed (and tortured) three times.  With my first who did not sleep more then three hours at a time till she was six I actually became soooo sleep deprived I forgot my own name one morning answering a phone at my job.

When the younger two came along at 21 mths apart I felt like a Jack in the box I was up and down so much.

Each time I see a new Mother with a baby my reaction is always two fold, first recalling the magic of Motherhood and how it's defined most all of my life, I love babies! The second, remembering all those sleepless years I think....."better you then me"

Here's hoping all the tortured Mothers of babies out there get a good nights sleep tonight! 

http://24.23.126.8/  Petition for choice in Nov 7 Commissioners or 5.

CCC,

Considering that it's you, I'll be as kind as I can & attribute your reply to the Monday Morning Fuzzies that afflict all of us from time to time.

Failure:  Yes, I judge it a failure.  But, more important, the professionals in journalism themselves judged that they failed not only their own profession but the American people also.  They did this openly & publically in the documentary by Bill Moyers last year.  Perhaps you missed that little detail.

In Wayne Ezell's column a letter writer judged it a failure (I'm sure there were more) and said so.  Perhaps you missed that little detail.  Mr. Ezell, in his own words, made the implication of a failure (by use of a synonom) by the press when he said, "The lack of coverage in this case is symptomatic of a too-frequent SHORTCOMING (caps are mine) in identifying national & world news for effective presentation."  Perhaps you missed that little detail.

Who am I to judge?  I am a tax paying, voting citizen who, at least for now, has the right to freedom of speech & thought.  As far as I know, Bush hasn't made a signing statement or Executive Order rescinding that right. I use my thought processes to judge a variety of things on a daily basis just as everybody else does, including you when you judged my comments & decided to tell me via your reply.  That's who I am to judge.  Just another person like you & everyone else who thinks about a person &/or situation & then makes a judgement.

Who said Bill was, one of my, "Most admired politicians?"  I don't recall ever saying that.  If you can tell me when or where I said that, I would appreciate it.  I seem to remember that after asking the same thing before, a number of times, you have yet to provide the information to back your claim.  I have to wonder @ that.

As I said in one of my replies above, the dictionary gives a perfectly logical, etymologically correct definition.  I would therefore question the character of anyone who starts to tailor the definition to justify their own ends.  Now who would do something like that & then lie @ it?  I wonder.

I agree with your next to the last paragraph @ torture.  In fact, it's very close to what I said in my reply titled, "Multi Tasking."  Perhaps you missed that little detail.

When the President of the United States, on numerous occassions, tells the world that we don't torture, when we in fact do, gets caught in his own lie, finally admits to it & a grand total of ONE paragraph in a NEWS paper is devoted to it & the reader advocate himself said it was a "symptomatic shortcoming," it stops being just, "my opinion," I'm begining to fear that delusion & denial is running rampant in this country, not just with the decider. 

Yes, many things are in the eyes of beholders.  And as soon as they form an opinion on what they see, they have made a judgement & are, therefore, by definition, judgemental.  See? That wasn't so hard, was it? 

Thus, the riot act to the riot act has been typed, entered & hopefully read.  As the old saying goes, "So shall it be written.  So shall it be done."  May sunshine be forever upon you but never in your eyes & may your camel never spit upon you.  Thus endeth the lesson.  May the force be with you.  Hope you gid rid of the MMF soon.  Have a great one.  JATFUR.

RichK

We have a duty to treat people humanely regardless of their status. We have standards for custody and control of prisoners. Custody and control isn't a license to punish or torture. Courts punish people not interrogators and guards.

I thought they had a provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

They define torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Try sleep deprivation of your own children, maybe a little starvation, and if they still don't act right. Suggest some waterboarding. Maybe you could gather up some of their friends and put your underwear on their head and take a few pictures. I bet you'll be in jail.

You never know you could subject someone to an afternoon of waterboarding and they really don't know anything. What do you say "sorry".

The attack on the United States was due to a lack of good intelligence. We attacked a country due to lack of intelligence.

So we fix our failure by supporting torture, invading a country, and violating the rights of citizens by saying it's fine to listen to all your phone calls along with many other violations they have agreed to in the name of security lately.

Sorry I can't support this as a person.

Now I'll go back to work.

Exactly what i was trying to convey, except that i disagree as to the intel on going to war. 

Try to get information out of your children, simple information that will not usually affect anybody except for your child.  And hell, if they won't tell you what you want to hear, then use some form of torture.  Is your child a terrorist who's main plan is to kill all of us, probably not, but your child is still a person.  If you disagree with using torture on your own child to retrieve information, then why would you agree that torture is okay and dandy to use against others, granted for a different purpose orobjective.  It's not the end result, the information that is, it's the original premise, is it right or is it wrong.  Can anybody answer that question not basing it on a certain situation or scenario, just a straight forward answer, is the torturing of another human being right or wrong???

It is wrong by the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think it's wrong by the standards as a human being.

As Marsha put it in this thread, "The end does not always justify the means if you sacrifice the basic principles of right and wrong."

Angela,

Obviously, I'm with you 100%.  Physical torture should not be used under any circumstances for the reasons I gave in my replies above.  Our reputation has been considerably diminished & with this revelation, it might be damaged beyond repair. 

One thought did occur to me, though.  We have always claimed, & have been praised by other nations for, our "higher moral standing."  In light of recent discoveries, I have to wonder just how accurate &/or valid any past accolades or self praise were.  JATFUR.

RichK

I feel any physical or mental pain and suffering intentionally inflicted is wrong.

I don't know how you come out of a situation like this without damage to our reputation as American people. 

That's was the reason for my statement in an earlier blog. "The reason Bush don't order a bunch of people come home and the others go to the hardware store and use IED's on them. It wouldn't look good in the press and people could see that happening." Evidently they have a different take on torture when behind closed doors.

That doesn't make us people of "higher moral standings" just liars.

I agree also 100% assuming that we don't involve any practial purposes, but even then i think i'd have hard time justifying such use.

I'm not saying that we should just give automatic forgiveness to terrorist like obam......i mean osama, but do you believe they deserve the same treatment that they have dealt to other people at some times worse treatment.  How do we not become our own nemesis if we practice and exemplify the same qulaities as our enemy through such uses of torture.

Everytime a soldier is captured, either released or killed it is seen on tv, not the killing but the preamble.  Well, terrorists watch tv too, and when they see our government investigating torture uses at prison camps holding their commrades, what do you think goes through their mind, i don't know for sure, but i'd bet they're thinking we are just like them, the Americans, except that we take it a step further. 

If the premise is that 'torture is always wrong' where does that place war? War in and of itself is unethical and immoral. It is an armed conflict where one nation's goal is to impose it's will on another to advance its own agenda or ideology.

Should we then not engage in any war except one that infringes on our own sovereign land? Should we have our armed forces only here in the US and not stationed anywhere else in the world?

What makes war for whatever reason more acceptable than torture? Is it because it is against a 'nation' or an 'ideology' and not an individual? Is war against a nation so impersonal that it is acceptable but torture is personal and therefore unacceptable?

Is it acceptable to push a button on a ship at sea and kill hundreds of unseen soldiers in order to 'save the lives' of our soldiers, yet we cannot inflict pain on a single individual to obtain information that would do the same?

Would it be wrong to go to war with Iraq because we want to own the oil? Is it right to go to war with Iraq to protect the people there from an abusive dictator and to advance the ideology of Democracy? Which of these three reasons is the true reason we are there? Was one of them just a means to justify the ends?

If there are exceptions to the rule that war is wrong then are there no exceptions to the rule that torture is wrong? Is it because you can put a face to torture but war is a far off nebulous concept where you don't have to look the person in the eye? Is it because torture makes it too up close and personal to the average citizen?

To the soldier on the field of combat it is all up close and personal.

My premise is that torture for the express purpose of inflicting pain for no other reason than to inflict pain is wrong. It is also my premise that there are always exceptions to a rule.

To me getting needed intelligence about the enemy through other than 'conventional' means is not always wrong.

You don't try to tell a Fireman how to fight a fire, don't try to tell a Warrior how to fight a war. Tell them what your objective is and let them do what they are trained to do.

To paraphrase a quote I heard once: There are those that call 911 and there are those that are 911.  

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

Oh.....hell, now this conversation is truely a loss.  Now that finder has put his last two cents in, i have nothing left to say, except for that the entire torture and war thing sucks.  Especially that it has to take place, that w can't all just get along.  LOL, that'll never happen and while i don't like the idea of torturing others for information, and i had really never thought of it this way, i like war in general even less.  Althouh, i doubt anyone like either.

Maybe it's when an immoral act is really brought down to a personal dignified level is when it supposedly becomes different from something like war which is vitually the same.......yep this thread is now a loss other than to say that we don't like torture and war, two things that will never stop.

Mike,

You get the ceegar & the kewpie doll for getting down to the nut of the problem, you little blogging philosopher genius, you.  You are a supermensch! 

WAR!  What's it good for?  If you expect THE definitive answer here, you will be sucking the last molecules of air in the bottom of the bilge because no one has yet come up with a satisfactory answer.  Kings, philosophers, historians & the average Mike's & Uncle Rich's have tried & have been found wanting.  You might as well put a few bucks in your pocket, take a walk to the corner store for a beer, pack of smokes, a newspaper & a ham sandwich & ask the same question of all the people you encounter.

As a society, war has shaped the world we now live in.  But one also has to ask, "What is war?"  Does it involve armies, navies, soldiers, computers, CNN & the threat of nuclear strikes?  How about invading some villages & engaging in genocide & rape?  How @ going back 35,000 to 50,000 years.  (forget those "young earth" people.  They don't have a clue.) 25 or 30 people invade a neighboring group because they threaten to upset the balance of territory & food resources?  Is that war?  What did it accomplish?  Should it be only for defense?  Resources?  The suport of allies or family?  Getting a picture of the scope of your question?

While we might agree on some points & disagree on others, isn't it nice to know that on the points upon which we disagree, we haven't, even in a remote manner, considered going into some kind of "war," to prove our point?  I think that's a pretty darn good start. 

You should by now know where to get copies of this speech.  Farkle Press, remember?  Use it, don't abuse it.  JATFUR.

RichK  

Ah Rich! Flattery will get you everywhere. Thank you.

It is a shame that we can't find the answers to these and many other questions.

For a civilization that is supposed to be the smartest and most technologically advanced of all time (at least that we know of) we have certainly come up with some gruesome ways to do harm to our species and environment.

Foxx;

You learn quickly. Cognitive dissidence is sometimes a good thing. It makes you sit back and rethink those things that you always felt were absolutes.

As WOPR learns sometimes 'the only winning move is not to play'.

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

The war subject should have been a blog all of it's own. We'll never fix that problem.

I agree Mike, "For a civilization that is supposed to be the smartest and most technologically advanced of all time (at least that we know of) we have certainly come up with some gruesome ways to do harm to our species and environment."

When I think about war I think about my gun. If my neighbor was beating his wife would I go shoot him. No! If he came to my house and started beating me, yes. But the next time he went to work. I would go over and suggest to my neighbor she shoud get her a gun.

I agree "the only winning move is not to play".

Angela

Not trying to be a smartie pants here so please dont take this the wrong way.

I understand if your neighbor was being beaten by her husband, you would not go to war and shoot him.

But may I ask would you at least call the police, to go to war to save her?

Well on many occasions around the world and in our history. When a country and it's people are being beaten down. The world cries out for the police to go to war for the sake of humanity but they can't call 911. They call out to the leaders of human rights, America

TRUTHHURTS

We can't fix everybody's problems all over the world. We can't even fix our own here at home. If we are the human rights leader America then why do we torture people too. Just like them. If we are going to fix all the problems where people are beaten down the list is long.

I think "the only winning move is not to play".

True we can't fix all the problems of the world. We do have much to fix here at home. We torture in times of war to save lives and win the war.

If the only winning move is not to play. Then are we not just putting on the blinders, and giving our enemies of the world and of humanity the upper hand by allowing them to have a free reign unchallenged? Is it not true that the only way you can win at the game is to play the game, only better?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Edmund Burke

TRUTHHURTS

You know we have some real enemies of our country. Those who could and would do us harm. I think it best to preserve our resources for those people. And collectively as a world body deal with the other problems. It's called diplomacy not running around with wanted dead or alive poster. I fail to see any diplomacy in that tactic.

Sorry I forgot to add my quote  (above you now)and was editing it when you responded.

Yes we have enemies at home and abroad and we must always be vigil and repel them as best we can. But we can never neglect one over the other.

TRUTHHURTS

Diplomacy is not neglect it is a skill and an art in handling affairs without arousing hostility. The practice of conducting negotiations between nations. You know like mature adults not some knee jerk reaction.

First you need skill next you need a better attitude than my way or the highway.

I agree, diplomacy is very, very important. But there are times as we both know when diplomacy will not be the end to all.

For example when Saddam invaded kuwait (spelling) I don't think all the diplomacy in the world would have convinced him to leave peacfully.

I don't think diplomacy would have made Hitler say sorry my bad.

But yes I agree diplomacy first.

TRUTHHURTS

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Why do you exclude Iraq?

TRUTHHURTS

I agree about Kuwait and Hitler. Iraq was an entirely different story this time. War is a necessary evil sometimes none of us like. I agree diplomacy first.

LOL

Look up one post

I have know idea how I managed that

TRUTHHURTS