Was the usage of torture foreseeable?

[Aaron]

At this point, that may be quite difficult.

Individuals cases obviously weren't recorded. Nobody collected evidence to be used in that manner.

So how long are these people expected to rot in Cuba? The detainment of these people is in my opinion a human rights violation just as bad as the prison abuses.

[Axis Kast]

So how long are these people expected to rot in Cuba? The detainment of these people is in my opinion a human rights violation just as bad as the prison abuses.

Until interrogators decide they no longer have any value as prisoners. We have released several dozen already.

[Vympel]

Which is why it?s a last resort. The point, Vympel, is that you?re leaving stones unturned. As for duress, you need to explain again why somebody would lie under torture any less than they would lie under less invasive questioning.

After much searching to refind it:

NEW YORK TIMES
Week in Review Section

May 9, 2004

Torture Is Often a Temptation and Almost Never Works

By JAMES GLANZ

IT was two months before Sept. 11, 2001, in an Arab country that will remain unnamed, and the Iraqi subject of the interrogation was not talking. So the translator, a 6-foot-5, iron-jawed local man with scars from the wars he had been in, turned to the interrogator.

''Do you want me to soften him up?'' the translator asked.

No one in the room had any doubt about the import of those words, said sMarc Garlasco, an intelligence officer who was present. But instead of continuing with the perfect B-movie script and allowing the stonewalling Iraqi to be beaten up or humiliated, the interrogator blew up.

''Are you nuts?'' he shouted.

After calling a break, he asked the translator if he had ever revealed secrets under torture when he had been captured. Never, the translator said. "Listen,'' the interrogator lectured him. "Torture doesn't work.''

Torture can make people talk - but experienced interrogators know that they usually can't tell if what the subject says under torture or humiliation is true, because the subject will say what he or she thinks will end the torture. Novice interrogators are seldom aware of how compromised information gained under duress is likely to be.

It now seems apparent that after 9/11, scenes like the one in the Arab interrogation room became more rare. Even before the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at least according to human rights organizations, questionable interrogation practices verging on torture were taking place at bases in Afghanistan and the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba.

Whatever the truth of the other allegations, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib shouts out for an explanation: how could ordinary American soldiers and civilian contractors inflict such degradation on other human beings?

One answer, say psychologists, former intelligence officers and military analysts, may lie in the nature of torture itself: Torture and humiliation is a landscape without boundaries, a terrible slope that even the most practiced interrogators can slide down once they allow themselves to apply the slightest physical or psychological pressure.

Yehezkel Lein, head of the research department at B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, said that after Israel began curbing the use of physical pressure in the late 1980's, it initially limited its use only to so-called ticking time bombs - prisoners with knowledge of an imminent attack. But he said that B'Tselem research showed that even under those guidelines, roughly 80 percent of detained Palestinians ended up being subjected to physical techniques like severe sleep deprivation, sitting in painful positions for hours and worse.

"It was impossible to draw a clear line," Mr. Lein said. He cited the practice of grabbing a prisoner's shirt and shaking him. He said the shaking sometimes became so violent that several prisoners died.

"You can try to put it onto a continuum," said Dr. Rona M. Fields, a psychologist and senior researcher at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies at George Washington University's engineering school.

But, she added, ''as soon as the person is intimidated, it's torture.''

Dr. Fields gave another example of how torture in the wrong hands can quickly spiral out of control and waste lives. After the coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile, military interrogators who used ''grotesque and terrible'' torture often killed their subjects before learning anything of value, Dr. Fields said, forcing the country to turn to the better-trained police. Employing methods she said they had learned from C.I.A. and Defense Department manuals, the police were better able to keep their subjects alive until they revealed information, which they sometimes did.

The debate over what went horribly wrong at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has oscillated between the assertion that the soldiers and contractors who mistreated prisoners were, in a twisted way, having a good time, and the possibility that they were acting under orders.

"Maybe it's a 'Lord of the Flies'-type situation where basic social norms break down,'' said Mr. Garlasco, who is now a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, an independent rights monitor. If so, the low-level soldiers were being led by what Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism in Israel, called "their own weird satisfaction, which has nothing to do with counterterrorism.'' Judging by other cases of abuse, the reservists and civilian contractors at the prison were probably poorly supervised, Dr. Fields said. That, she said, could have left them "responsible for judgments and choices for behaviors that in civilian life they would never be entrusted with because they are not capable of that."

Another possibility is that they were ordered by higher-ups to ''soften up'' the prisoners, in the words of the iron-jawed translator. But if that was true, then those in charge were if anything even more unskilled at real interrogation than their subordinates, the experts say.

''You've got to be able to count on the quality of the information you're obtaining,'' said Michael Baker, a 16-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is now chief executive of Diligence Middle East, a private security company that is working in Iraq. ''And once the prisoner is being tortured, how do you rely on what he's saying, because people will do anything to make the torture go away,'' Mr. Baker said.

In other words, torture doesn't work.

The Geneva Convention against torture prohibits ''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.''

Even that careful bureaucratese is "obviously very subjective,'' Mr. Garlasco said. Legal guidelines set forth by the Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca in Arizona, where government interrogators are trained, are more explicit: "Soldiers cannot use any form of physical torture, including food deprivation, beating, infliction of pain through chemicals or bondage, or electric shock. Soldiers also may not use mental torture, such as mock executions, abnormal sleep deprivation or chemically induced psychosis.''

But somehow, none of the guidelines worked. As the world waits for the outcome of investigations into the Abu Ghraib abuses, the message may be that only the most highly skilled and disciplined interrogators have a chance of keeping themselves on the crest of the frightful and dark slope called torture.

My point, Vympel, is that you claim my morality is the most blatantly offensive thing in the world, but that you yourself are among the biggest pricks I?ve ever encountered. Hope that?s simple enough for you.

You're quite welcome to think I'm a prick- I think you're a prick too. We can think we're both pricks together! However, unlike you, I don't think you're immoral because you call me a prick- I think you're immoral because you apparently will happily screw over anyone who wasn't born where you were. And thanks for dodging the question for the second time.

[Darth Wong]

My point, Vympel, is that you claim my morality is the most blatantly offensive thing in the world,

Your morality is not offensive. In order to be offensive, it would have to exist.

[Patrick Degan]

No it isn't, imbecile. Warmongering dictators are not the standard by which civilisation is defined.

And the people who go along with warmongering dictators? The majorities that sometimes sweep them to power? The hundreds of thousands guilty of mass murder? The planet is a terrible place, Deegan. This idealistic society you people keep looking toward simply cannot exist. Too many people will force too many other people to compromise themselves at great cost. So why set ourselves up for a fall in the first place? Play hardball first – on your own terms –, and then worry about what you’re going to do when you have the pennant.

We're not talking about "an idealistic society", shitwit. We're talking about what constitutes the definition of civilised society existing under the rule of law, not men.

I understand it perfectly, shitwit. Our policy has resulted in the near-wreck of our effort in Iraq and has created diplomatic compications for us in the Arab world we did not have before launching this wholly unnecessary war.

Now you’re confusing “War in Iraq” with “cost-benefit analysis.” How can you compare it to anything when you don’t even seem to understand it in the first place? Your idea of a “cost-benefit” analysis in action is some idiot driving a tank over people just because he can. You don’t intend to argue the merits or even the actual cons of the position – just to defame through strawmen anyone who presumes to champion it.

That's about as weak an argument as I've seen even by your pathetic standards. Talk about an obvious Strawman —I've never talked about "some idiot driving a tank over people just because he can", but the very evident results of the policy this present White House has pursued and which can be denied only by a blatant denial of reality.

Your lie? No, it's as clumsy as all your other arguments. Those murders took place under the aegis of the very ideology you so desperately seek to defend.

My lie? Find me evidence that people convicted at Nuremburg were convinced for anything but war crimes and slaughter. Find me evidence that one man – one single individual – was imprisoned or put to death for the invasion of Poland or France or Czechoslovakia.

Strawman Fallacy and a Red Herring Fallacy. Just no end to your stupidities, is there? The Nazi atrocities were championed by the Nazi ideology, which is laid out in Mein Kampf and every speech of Hitler's. This included the death camp atrocities. And the guiding principle of that ideology —Might Makes Right— was the driving force behind the Nazi terror. No, nobody was convicted and hung for "invading Poland". But that invasion was justified by Might Makes Right. The Holocaust was pinned upon the entire principle of Might Makes Right. You just go to any lengths whatsoever to deny that your entire conception of sensible policy is based upon a moral inversion.

Nice little backpedal. Pity it doesn't save the rest of your "argument", however.

What backpedal? When did I ever wave the torture away? You seem to love distorting my argument, Deegan. Did you even read it in the first place?

Yes I did, and it took me a few minutes to stop laughing before I could type a response.

And for the record, you first attempted to dismiss the issue by saying, in essence, "shit happens", then tried invoking the Tiger Defence to handwave the torture away as the result of stress —until that became impossible when the evidence showed it to be the extention of national policy on our part. Now you're back to your tired-and-untrue position that ends justify means/might makes right/nasty world blah blah blah... which were your excuses for the late war.

In fact, let's just review the record of this thread, shall we:

The torture of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

The abuse of prisoners is a foregone conclusion. In every war.

Human nature. Offer one group that kind of power over another - especially suffused with the urgency and emotion of war -, and you're almost bound to get abuse even if strict prohibitions are already in place.

Second, I expect the U.S. military to use torture. There are people who are paid to pull out other men's fingernails in every country. Frankly, we sometimes need them.

And:

I didn't say we should air using these techniques to the rest of the world. Most of the time, the Geneva Convention should be stood by percisely because of the reasons you have listed. Of course, keeping torture in our potential repertoire is still a necessary for the very serious cases.

And:

Rights are an abstraction. You possess no “rights” as you are defining them – merely permission from – and toleration by – the powerful. The same is also true in the international community.

And:

I am stating what I believe to be fact. That human beings in highly unusual and stressful situations will cross lines. You can try to prevent it, but you'll never be 100% effective.

And:

And by the way, just because there are authorities present to provide oversight and enforce orders doesn't mean they will always do so. Having the right people in the right places doesn't always translate to success. The question was whether we expected something like this. My answer was, "Yes." Frankly, that you're trying to spin it into some kind of reflection of savagery on my part is merely indicative that you yourself foam at the mouth to attack and defame other people.

And:

Cross-posted from M1A2 Sniper on 'History and Politics'.

Abuse less shocking in light of history

Thu May 13, 7:00 AM ET Add Top Stories - USATODAY.com to My Yahoo!

*snip psychobabble*

As for laws, nobody is advocating that we torture those who steal, lie, or cheat. This treatment is reserved to ensure national security. Obviously, this torture would be administered rarely, secretly, and primarily against non-combtants or “stateless” persons, not prisoners-of-war in national armies.

And:

So were back to classic Kast with his "if no one can stop us, it's A-OK" routine.

Well, yes, that's essentially how the world works. Morals should never become a factor for their own sake on the international stage.

This one's a classic:

I'd rather we pulled some fingernails and saved some civilians than let a terrorist conceal information on the notion that were we to subject him to torture, we'd be violating some abstract principles of goodness. Nobody's going to pull out all the stops for us, either. Why bind our hands? And no, "Because it's the right thing to do," isn't an answer.

It was six fucking days before you ever got around to acknowledging the concept of accountability for the guilty in this sorry situation even in passing.

[Axis Kast]

You're quite welcome to think I'm a prick- I think you're a prick too. We can think we're both pricks together! However, unlike you, I don't think you're immoral because you call me a prick- I think you're immoral because you apparently will happily screw over anyone who wasn't born where you were. And thanks for dodging the question for the second time.

My dodging the question? Your article here is nothing but hot air. It essentially consists of 10% repetition of your argument – i.e., “torture doesn’t get reliable information from its subjects” – and 90% hand-wringing over how we got this far in the first place. Never once does it presume to explain why those not under physical duress are giving anything with more truth to investigators than those under a knife or pliers.

We're not talking about "an idealistic society", shitwit. We're talking about what constitutes the definition of civilised society existing under the rule of law, not men.

And you’ll never get around to enjoying even a close resemblance of that society very long unless you realize that its restraints are not meant to be enacted save under specific conditions.

That's about as weak an argument as I've seen even by your pathetic standards. Talk about an obvious Strawman —I've never talked about "some idiot driving a tank over people just because he can", but the very evident results of the policy this present White House has pursued and which can be denied only by a blatant denial of reality.

Your attempted simplification of my argument to, “Oh! Let’s fuck everyone over as long as they’re not us!” speaks for itself. You either have no intention of debating the matter without resorting to ridiculous ad-hominem attacks, or you simply cannot grasp anything more complex than a, “I hug you, you hug” me form of international politics.

Furthermore, your attempt to link the cost-benefit analysis form of government to the Bush administration specifically is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe Clinton didn’t weigh his options before every decision? That people elsewhere in the world didn’t do the same? The reason Bush couldn’t get his Coalition together in the first place was because the cost-benefit analysis was working even outside the United States.

Strawman Fallacy and a Red Herring Fallacy. Just no end to your stupidities, is there? The Nazi atrocities were championed by the Nazi ideology, which is laid out in Mein Kampf and every speech of Hitler's. This included the death camp atrocities. And the guiding principle of that ideology —Might Makes Right— was the driving force behind the Nazi terror. No, nobody was convicted and hung for "invading Poland". But that invasion was justified by Might Makes Right. The Holocaust was pinned upon the entire principle of Might Makes Right. You just go to any lengths whatsoever to deny that your entire conception of sensible policy is based upon a moral inversion.

Ah, so now we bring it back to, “Anything having to do with violence automatically has to do with Adolf Hitler. You Nazi fuck!” How about no?

Hitler’s ideologies relied no more on the “might makes right” principle than any other political movement in history. Hell, peacekeeping works on a “might makes right” priciple: the United States and others committed themselves to physically barring Serbians from slaughtering Albanian Kosovars in the former Yugoslavia. Our might was the real force behind change in the region; our ideals are worthless without a fist to back them up.

“Might makes right” isn’t an ideology; it’s a fact. I’m not telling you how I think the world should be, Deegan. I’m telling you how it is and always will be.

Yes I did, and it took me a few minutes to stop laughing before I could type a response.

And for the record, you first attempted to dismiss the issue by saying, in essence, "shit happens", then tried invoking the Tiger Defence to handwave the torture away as the result of stress —until that became impossible when the evidence showed it to be the extention of national policy on our part. Now you're back to your tired-and-untrue position that ends justify means/might makes right/nasty world blah blah blah... which were your excuses for the late war.

And in not a single one of those quotations did I ever suggest that the people responsible for this specific act in Iraq shouldn’t be punished. Never once did I suggest that torture wasn’t a serious matter.

Saying that it exists and that we should expect to deal with cases of and fallout from torture is very different than condoning it across the board. Of course, I couldn’t expect you to recognize that, committed as you are to strawmaning everything that comes out of my mouth.

[Andrew J.]

Might may make Right, but unwise, excessive, overbearing, etc. use of it will turn others against us. The key is to keep our Might as much as possible, which means using it more sparingly than we have so far.

[Axis Kast]

Might may make Right, but unwise, excessive, overbearing, etc. use of it will turn others against us. The key is to keep our Might as much as possible, which means using it more sparingly than we have so far.

I seriously doubt that going into Iraq made the United States any enemies it wouldn't otherwise have acquired, save the Iraqis themselves.

[Andrew J.]

Might may make Right, but unwise, excessive, overbearing, etc. use of it will turn others against us. The key is to keep our Might as much as possible, which means using it more sparingly than we have so far.

I seriously doubt that going into Iraq made the United States any enemies it wouldn't otherwise have acquired, save the Iraqis themselves.

Does "Europe" ring a bell?

[Axis Kast]

The European Union is now an enemy of the United States? Wow. This is news. I'm heading over to CNN.com right now. Wonder how I could have missed this.

[Aaron]

I seriously doubt that going into Iraq made the United States any enemies it wouldn't otherwise have acquired, save the Iraqis themselves.

Maybe not but it certainly squandered the good will that the USA had built up since 9/11. Tell me Axis, do you think that going into Iraq was justified and if so why?

[Darth Wong]

I seriously doubt that going into Iraq made the United States any enemies it wouldn't otherwise have acquired, save the Iraqis themselves.

Maybe not but it certainly squandered the good will that the USA had built up since 9/11. Tell me Axis, do you think that going into Iraq was justified and if so why?

I suspect he will be too cowardly to give a straight answer. If you monitor his posting habits, he has a tendency to post long-winded pseudo-justifications that actually say nothing. When you distill a typical Axis Kast foreign-policy argument down to its bare essentials, it usually looks something like this:

"We can do it, therefore we can do it."

The fact that this is a totally useless tautology which makes no real point at all is obviously lost on him.

[Patrick Degan]

We're not talking about "an idealistic society", shitwit. We're talking about what constitutes the definition of civilised society existing under the rule of law, not men.

And you’ll never get around to enjoying even a close resemblance of that society very long unless you realize that its restraints are not meant to be enacted save under specific conditions.

No, shitwit, the law and its restraints operate under general conditions. This is why war crimes are actually illegal.

That's about as weak an argument as I've seen even by your pathetic standards. Talk about an obvious Strawman —I've never talked about "some idiot driving a tank over people just because he can", but the very evident results of the policy this present White House has pursued and which can be denied only by a blatant denial of reality.

Your attempted simplification of my argument to, “Oh! Let’s fuck everyone over as long as they’re not us!” speaks for itself.

The record of your postings here clearly indicates that "Let's fuck everyone over as long as they're not us" is the essence of your position, or shall I quote every fucking word you've said over the last year to demonstrate the point?

You either have no intention of debating the matter without resorting to ridiculous ad-hominem attacks, or you simply cannot grasp anything more complex than a, “I hug you, you hug” me form of international politics.

No, no, no, dear boy —an Ad-Hominem would be if I said "you're argument is worthless because you're an imbecile". It is only after I demonstrate the defects in your arguments that I call you an imbecile.

And my grasp of international politics is somewhat more complex than your simpleminded "Hulk SMASH" formulation.

Furthermore, your attempt to link the cost-benefit analysis form of government to the Bush administration specifically is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe Clinton didn’t weigh his options before every decision? That people elsewhere in the world didn’t do the same? The reason Bush couldn’t get his Coalition together in the first place was because the cost-benefit analysis was working even outside the United States.

No, the reason Bush couldn't get his coalition together was because the rest of the world perceived that his case for war was a big, fat lie —as events have borne out. And Clinton weighed options far more so than this inept gang in the White House —who have buried this country in one hugely fucked-up mess precisely because they didn't bother to consider anything beyond their monomaniacal obsession with Saddam Hussein and their fantasies that we'd be greeted with bouquets of flowers, that Iraqi oil would be flowing in sufficent time to pay for the war and the occupation, and that Iraq was Step One in the Grand Design to reshape the Middle East.

Strawman Fallacy and a Red Herring Fallacy. Just no end to your stupidities, is there? The Nazi atrocities were championed by the Nazi ideology, which is laid out in Mein Kampf and every speech of Hitler's. This included the death camp atrocities. And the guiding principle of that ideology —Might Makes Right— was the driving force behind the Nazi terror. No, nobody was convicted and hung for "invading Poland". But that invasion was justified by Might Makes Right. The Holocaust was pinned upon the entire principle of Might Makes Right. You just go to any lengths whatsoever to deny that your entire conception of sensible policy is based upon a moral inversion.

Ah, so now we bring it back to, “Anything having to do with violence automatically has to do with Adolf Hitler. You Nazi fuck!” How about no?

Another Strawman, but we're used to that from you at this point.

Hitler’s ideologies relied no more on the “might makes right” principle than any other political movement in history. Hell, peacekeeping works on a “might makes right” priciple: the United States and others committed themselves to physically barring Serbians from slaughtering Albanian Kosovars in the former Yugoslavia. Our might was the real force behind change in the region; our ideals are worthless without a fist to back them up.

There's a difference between self-defence, peacekeeping —and outright aggression and conquest. The latter is the expression of the Might Makes Right ideology championed by you —which happened also to be championed by Hitler. If the comparison makes you uncomfortable, the simple answer is to cease practising Hitlerian logic.

“Might makes right” isn’t an ideology; it’s a fact. I’m not telling you how I think the world should be, Deegan. I’m telling you how it is and always will be.

Really? I guess that's why the Age of Empire has become a thing of the past, why conquest is now looked upon negatively by the world in general, why torture and enslavement and genocide are now war crimes, and why Nazi Germany is regarded as the world-villain of the 20th century in history? Clearly, the world —except for people like you— is rejecting the dubious principle of "Might Makes Right" as a basis for international conduct.

And for the record, you first attempted to dismiss the issue by saying, in essence, "shit happens", then tried invoking the Tiger Defence to handwave the torture away as the result of stress —until that became impossible when the evidence showed it to be the extention of national policy on our part. Now you're back to your tired-and-untrue position that ends justify means/might makes right/nasty world blah blah blah... which were your excuses for the late war.

And in not a single one of those quotations did I ever suggest that the people responsible for this specific act in Iraq shouldn’t be punished. Never once did I suggest that torture wasn’t a serious matter.

No, you simply never even addressed the issue of responsibility and in several quotes approved of torture as a means to an end. Your words are most clear on the subject.

Saying that it exists and that we should expect to deal with cases of and fallout from torture is very different than condoning it across the board. Of course, I couldn’t expect you to recognize that, committed as you are to strawmaning everything that comes out of my mouth.

What a pathetic comback —even for you. And it's not possible to make strawmen out of arguments so weak they won't withstand a puff of breath to begin with.

[Vympel]

[My dodging the question? Your article here is nothing but hot air. It essentially consists of 10% repetition of your argument ? i.e., ?torture doesn?t get reliable information from its subjects? ? and 90% hand-wringing over how we got this far in the first place. Never once does it presume to explain why those not under physical duress are giving anything with more truth to investigators than those under a knife or pliers.

The percentage is completely irrelevant.

Firstly:

Dr. Fields gave another example of how torture in the wrong hands can quickly spiral out of control and waste lives. After the coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile, military interrogators who used ''grotesque and terrible'' torture often killed their subjects before learning anything of value, Dr. Fields said, forcing the country to turn to the better-trained police. Employing methods she said they had learned from C.I.A. and Defense Department manuals, the police were better able to keep their subjects alive until they revealed information, which they sometimes did.

Do those latest pictures of the man supposedly *beaten to death* in Abu Ghraib ring any alarm bells?

''And once the prisoner is being tortured, how do you rely on what he's saying, because people will do anything to make the torture go away,'

The essence of the reasoning: if they're not under physical duress, they are LESS LIKELY to say *anything* to make the duress stop. Interrogation by clever psychology etc. is less stressful, and therefore less likely to result in "tell them anything, just stop hurting me".

And once again: thanks for ignoring the question a THIRD time.

[Vympel]

Allow me, Patrick, I just can't let this opportunity pass:

Kast's contention:

Your attempted simplification of my argument to, ?Oh! Let?s fuck everyone over as long as they?re not us!? speaks for itself. You either have no intention of debating the matter without resorting to ridiculous ad-hominem attacks, or you simply cannot grasp anything more complex than a, ?I hug you, you hug? me form of international politics.

Reality:

Carrying the above thought on.....would you blow up things in other countires, assasinate thier leaders, and terrorize thier civilians as a means to do what's best for your nation?

Kast's reply:

If I could get away with it and I felt it truly improved the ends of my nation? Absolutely. Without much second thought about moral qualms.

Perhaps it hasn?t yet occurred to some of you. I am morally bankrupt on a political level.

Sounds like "let's fuck anyone over who's not us" to me.

[Axis Kast]

Maybe not but it certainly squandered the good will that the USA had built up since 9/11. Tell me Axis, do you think that going into Iraq was justified and if so why?

And yet the run-up to the War in Iraq was the proof: that goodwill we built up since September 11th was never going to induce the international community to challenge threats that it felt weren’t also its own.

As for justification, on what level? Legal? If the butchers of Tiananmen Square or the destroyers of Grozny don’t sign off on American security, that doesn’t really worry me. It’s always worth a good try for the positive press. Otherwise, it’s a formality. Moral? As you’ve doubtless realized by now, I don’t believe that morals should govern international affairs. Security? Absolutely. In case you’ve never encountered my position before, I still believe there are WMD in Iraq.

I suspect he will be too cowardly to give a straight answer. If you monitor his posting habits, he has a tendency to post long-winded pseudo-justifications that actually say nothing. When you distill a typical Axis Kast foreign-policy argument down to its bare essentials, it usually looks something like this:

"We can do it, therefore we can do it."

The fact that this is a totally useless tautology which makes no real point at all is obviously lost on him.

Except that you intend people to read what you’ve just written as, “Kast believes that if we can do it, we should do it,” which isn’t true at all.

No, shitwit, the law and its restraints operate under general conditions. This is why war crimes are actually illegal.

And the losers of any conflict are the only ones charged with crimes. What does that tell you about morality and law, Degan?

The record of your postings here clearly indicates that "Let's fuck everyone over as long as they're not us" is the essence of your position, or shall I quote every fucking word you've said over the last year to demonstrate the point?

No, it’s that I’m willing to entertain the notion, moron. Obviously, charging into Canada, guns blazing, isn’t going to do very much for us in the long run, now is it?

And my grasp of international politics is somewhat more complex than your simpleminded "Hulk SMASH" formulation.

Actually, the fact that you attempt to boil my argument down to a “Hulk SMASH” position is a better indicator of your imbecility than it supposedly is of mine.

No, the reason Bush couldn't get his coalition together was because the rest of the world perceived that his case for war was a big, fat lie —as events have borne out. And Clinton weighed options far more so than this inept gang in the White House —who have buried this country in one hugely fucked-up mess precisely because they didn't bother to consider anything beyond their monomaniacal obsession with Saddam Hussein and their fantasies that we'd be greeted with bouquets of flowers, that Iraqi oil would be flowing in sufficent time to pay for the war and the occupation, and that Iraq was Step One in the Grand Design to reshape the Middle East.

Bullshit. When Bush first pushed to disarm Iraq through invasion, the rest of the world’s intelligence services were in concurrence. Even when there was no dissent regarding the United States’ position on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Germany and France still refused to consider the regime-change we felt necessary to ensure our security.

And Bill Clinton’s pussy-footing around the matter of terrorism is one reason behind why we were attacked on September 11th. He may have lobbed some cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but he sure as hell wasn’t in a hurry to punish the Taliban.

Another Strawman, but we're used to that from you at this point.

Perhaps you don’t understand: “might makes right” isn’t Hitler’s creation; it’s a fact that’s existed since the dawn of humanity. People with power can do what they want. That’s a fact.

There's a difference between self-defence, peacekeeping —and outright aggression and conquest. The latter is the expression of the Might Makes Right ideology championed by you —which happened also to be championed by Hitler. If the comparison makes you uncomfortable, the simple answer is to cease practising Hitlerian logic.

Did it not occur to you that peacekeepers carry guns? We force other people to stop using violence by using violence on them in return. It’s a form of compellance – often unwilling, from their end.

Really? I guess that's why the Age of Empire has become a thing of the past, why conquest is now looked upon negatively by the world in general, why torture and enslavement and genocide are now war crimes, and why Nazi Germany is regarded as the world-villain of the 20th century in history? Clearly, the world —except for people like you— is rejecting the dubious principle of "Might Makes Right" as a basis for international conduct.

No; it’s merely wrapping it up in a nice, flowery package because outright territorial aggression is no longer profitable. We make other countries do what we want every day. So do a lot of others. You think Russia doesn’t twist CIS arms? That China isn’t breathing down North Korea’s neck from time to time? That France isn’t dictating this or that economic policy in the Francophone? That the IMF and World Bank don’t hold sway over Argentine financial politics?

Torture, enslavement, and war crimes are genocide because power need no longer be measures strictly in terms of how many men remain to heft spears and don helmets. And, as far as I can tell, war crimes trials haven’t exactly deterred much slaughter lately.

Of course, the fact that it’s force that determines who is subject to these titles is lost on you.

No, you simply never even addressed the issue of responsibility and in several quotes approved of torture as a means to an end. Your words are most clear on the subject

Because the question isn’t about responsibility; it’s about inevitability.

That I approve torture as a means to an end doesn’t mean that it should be used indiscriminately. That’s just dangerous.

The fact that Andrew has already pointed out he shares my opinion that morals shouldn’t be an issue in politics but that you focus on me – and furthermore, attempt to suggest that the parameters of the question cover ground they obviously do not – really speaks a lot about how far you like to carry personal vendettas, Degan.

The percentage is completely irrelevant.

Concession accepted. You were supposed to tell me why people would lie less if their confessions weren’t extracted through violent means. You could not. Too bad for you.

Do those latest pictures of the man supposedly *beaten to death* in Abu Ghraib ring any alarm bells?

Which is why we shouldn’t leave it to military police, moron.

The essence of the reasoning: if they're not under physical duress, they are LESS LIKELY to say *anything* to make the duress stop. Interrogation by clever psychology etc. is less stressful, and therefore less likely to result in "tell them anything, just stop hurting me".

Ah, so if you’re nice to them, they’ll give you a hardbound biography with 20 pages of citations in the back, eh?

And if the mindgames don’t produce anything of value even when we know we’re dealing with a major player in the terrorist community, Vympel? Then what?

Sounds like "let's fuck anyone over who's not us" to me.

But of course, you ignore the part where I said, “if it truly improved the situation,” which it generally does not.

[Aaron]

And yet the run-up to the War in Iraq was the proof: that goodwill we built up since September 11th was never going to induce the international community to challenge threats that it felt weren’t also its own.

As for justification, on what level? Legal? If the butchers of Tiananmen Square or the destroyers of Grozny don’t sign off on American security, that doesn’t really worry me. It’s always worth a good try for the positive press. Otherwise, it’s a formality. Moral? As you’ve doubtless realized by now, I don’t believe that morals should govern international affairs. Security? Absolutely. In case you’ve never encountered my position before, I still believe there are WMD in Iraq.

The international community wasn't behind the war on Iraq because they believed that Saddam was no threat to anyone but his own people, and it turns out that they were right.

There was no legal justification for the war. Saddam was apparently in violation of several UN resolutions but there was no resolution authorizing the war, neither was it in self-defense, therefore it was illegal.

As for security. If Saddam had WMD's he had no way of delivering them against US interests in the Middle East or elsewhere. The claims that were made were that he could deliver them as far as Cyprus, but how does that matter to the USA? The only interests that the USA has in the Middle East are Israel and oil. Israel can defend itself. And Iraq's military was in horrible shape, it barely put up a defense during the war. So how would it be able to threaten anyone else?

[Axis Kast]

The international community wasn't behind the war on Iraq because they believed that Saddam was no threat to anyone but his own people, and it turns out that they were right.

Of course, at the time, they were also sharing information which agreed that Saddam had significant stockpiles of biological and chemical arms. If they concluded at that point that Saddam posed no threat despite those resources, they were doing so solely with their own interests in mind.

There was no legal justification for the war. Saddam was apparently in violation of several UN resolutions but there was no resolution authorizing the war, neither was it in self-defense, therefore it was illegal.

I don't really care what the U.N. had to say about Iraq. We were, after all, polling nations such as Syria for their opinion.

As for security. If Saddam had WMD's he had no way of delivering them against US interests in the Middle East or elsewhere. The claims that were made were that he could deliver them as far as Cyprus, but how does that matter to the USA? The only interests that the USA has in the Middle East are Israel and oil. Israel can defend itself. And Iraq's military was in horrible shape, it barely put up a defense during the war. So how would it be able to threaten anyone else?

Do you really think anyone in Washington is keen to see Israel have to defend itself?

[Thinkmarble]

Bullshit. When Bush first pushed to disarm Iraq through invasion, the rest of the world’s intelligence services were in concurrence.

The BND disagrees.
Basically the BND took the position that Sadam Hussein did try to accquire biological and chemical weapons as well as carriers systems but that he failed on all accounts.

[Aaron]

Of course, at the time, they were also sharing information which agreed that Saddam had significant stockpiles of biological and chemical arms. If they concluded at that point that Saddam posed no threat despite those resources, they were doing so solely with their own interests in mind.

Where were all these nations getting this intelligence? It's hard to believe that everyone could have been so wrong on the WMD issue.

I don't really care what the U.N. had to say about Iraq. We were, after all, polling nations such as Syria for their opinion.

It doesn't bother you that your president started a war illegally and under false pretenses?

Do you really think anyone in Washington is keen to see Israel have to defend itself?

They certainly aren't discouraging them from oppressing the Palestinians. The only reason why they try and get Israel to stay passive is because the Arabs would turn against the coalition.

[Andrew J.]

The European Union is now an enemy of the United States? Wow. This is news. I'm heading over to CNN.com right now. Wonder how I could have missed this.

Not the entire Union, if only because Blair is our devoted servant. Certainly the Continent has turned against us. Germany doesn't like us anymore, France hates us even more than usual, state-sponsered Russian television news is always blaring stories that make us look bad, etc.

Now, they aren't our enemies in the sense that they're going to declare war and invade, but they're not on our side anymore, nonetheless.

[Vympel]

The percentage is completely irrelevant.

Concession accepted. You were supposed to tell me why people would lie less if their confessions weren?t extracted through violent means. You could not. Too bad for you.

Why don't you read the whole damn post before you pronounce "concession accepted", you desperate fuckwit. I was unware this debate was on "what percentage of the article deals with the issue".

Which is why we shouldn?t leave it to military police, moron.

Please show that it was military police who beat the guy to death.

Ah, so if you?re nice to them, they?ll give you a hardbound biography with 20 pages of citations in the back, eh?

1. Strawman- noone said "be nice to them and they'll give you information". The issue was efficacy of information they give up.

2. Red herring- you asked for why they'd be less likely to offer up false information, and I jusst gave you it from the horses mouth.

Concession Accepted (THAT'S when you say it, bitch- at the end of the post.)

And if the mindgames don?t produce anything of value even when we know we?re dealing with a major player in the terrorist community, Vympel? Then what?

We know what "then what" would be for you- torture them and have them admit to being the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

But of course, you ignore the part where I said, ?if it truly improved the situation,? which it generally does not.

LIAR- you didn't say "if it truly improved the situation". You said "if it truly improved the ends of my nation". Which makes Degan and my own characterizations of your morality 100% accurate.

"Oh! Let?s fuck everyone over as long as they?re not us!"

Is exactly what that means, Comical Axi.

[Patrick Degan]

No, shitwit, the law and its restraints operate under general conditions. This is why war crimes are actually illegal.

And the losers of any conflict are the only ones charged with crimes. What does that tell you about morality and law, Degan?

Absolutely nothing, since that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

The record of your postings here clearly indicates that "Let's fuck everyone over as long as they're not us" is the essence of your position, or shall I quote every fucking word you've said over the last year to demonstrate the point?

No, it’s that I’m willing to entertain the notion, moron. Obviously, charging into Canada, guns blazing, isn’t going to do very much for us in the long run, now is it?

Yes, you'll "entertain the notion". The problem is that you refuse to entertain any other notion while proudly trumpeting the one notion you do entertain.

And my grasp of international politics is somewhat more complex than your simpleminded "Hulk SMASH" formulation.

Actually, the fact that you attempt to boil my argument down to a “Hulk SMASH” position is a better indicator of your imbecility than it supposedly is of mine.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

No, the reason Bush couldn't get his coalition together was because the rest of the world perceived that his case for war was a big, fat lie —as events have borne out. And Clinton weighed options far more so than this inept gang in the White House —who have buried this country in one hugely fucked-up mess precisely because they didn't bother to consider anything beyond their monomaniacal obsession with Saddam Hussein and their fantasies that we'd be greeted with bouquets of flowers, that Iraqi oil would be flowing in sufficent time to pay for the war and the occupation, and that Iraq was Step One in the Grand Design to reshape the Middle East.

Bullshit. When Bush first pushed to disarm Iraq through invasion, the rest of the world’s intelligence services were in concurrence. Even when there was no dissent regarding the United States’ position on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Germany and France still refused to consider the regime-change we felt necessary to ensure our security.

Oh, we're not going to have to argue this bullshit yet again, are we? The rest of the world's intelligence services —that is those that hadn't been politically compromised— did not support the absolute assertions Bush and Blair spun as justifications for the late war, and the results of the UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections contradicted the entire picture of Saddam as the huge threat which he was made out to be by Bush. The only reason "regime change" by invasion was "felt necessary to ensure our security" was because Bush and his puppeteers refused to consider any other course of action, nevermind that twelve years of sanctions had kept Saddam Hussein in the box and neutralised.

Just how many times do you want to get beaten up over the same issues?

And Bill Clinton’s pussy-footing around the matter of terrorism is one reason behind why we were attacked on September 11th. He may have lobbed some cruise missiles at Bin Laden, but he sure as hell wasn’t in a hurry to punish the Taliban.

More bullshit. Clinton wasn't the one who ignored eight months of intel warnings about the Al-Qaeda plot or went fishing despite being handed a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." As for what Clinton did do against terrorism, well:

Linky

Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]


After the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Mr Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 more people would be alive today.

Origins: In
chronological order:

* On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

* On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.

* On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.

On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

* On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

* On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must be an election year.

Last updated: 27 January 2004

Too bad the record says you're a liar.

Perhaps you don’t understand: “might makes right” isn’t Hitler’s creation; it’s a fact that’s existed since the dawn of humanity. People with power can do what they want. That’s a fact.

And yet, that dubious principle has been steadily and incresingly rejected by most of the civilised world for the last 150 years, barring people like yourself and your favourite political philosopher.

There's a difference between self-defence, peacekeeping —and outright aggression and conquest. The latter is the expression of the Might Makes Right ideology championed by you —which happened also to be championed by Hitler. If the comparison makes you uncomfortable, the simple answer is to cease practising Hitlerian logic.

Did it not occur to you that peacekeepers carry guns? We force other people to stop using violence by using violence on them in return. It’s a form of compellance – often unwilling, from their end.

I see the whole "self-defence" point just sailed over your fucking empty head. And you still continue to confuse law enforcement activities —peacekeeping— with "Might Makes Right". Nevermind that peacekeepers act within strictly defined bounds of conduct according to service regulations and law. Peacekeepers don't take it upon themselves to summarily execute people, for example, or employ torture as a means to an end.

Really? I guess that's why the Age of Empire has become a thing of the past, why conquest is now looked upon negatively by the world in general, why torture and enslavement and genocide are now war crimes, and why Nazi Germany is regarded as the world-villain of the 20th century in history? Clearly, the world —except for people like you— is rejecting the dubious principle of "Might Makes Right" as a basis for international conduct.

No; it’s merely wrapping it up in a nice, flowery package because outright territorial aggression is no longer profitable. We make other countries do what we want every day. So do a lot of others. You think Russia doesn’t twist CIS arms? That China isn’t breathing down North Korea’s neck from time to time? That France isn’t dictating this or that economic policy in the Francophone? That the IMF and World Bank don’t hold sway over Argentine financial politics?

What a warped view of the world you do have. And how you merrily confuse differing conditions to try to make reality twist itself to your fevered imaginings. Only you could conceivably equate economic or diplomatic maneuverings with any possible resemblance to the ideology which knows only resort to force as its first, last, and only option.

Torture, enslavement, and war crimes are genocide because power need no longer be measures strictly in terms of how many men remain to heft spears and don helmets. And, as far as I can tell, war crimes trials haven’t exactly deterred much slaughter lately.

Oh really? Have we had many dictators in the last twenty years or so who've wracked up casualty figures in the dozens of millions? None? Thought so.

Of course, the fact that it’s force that determines who is subject to these titles is lost on you.

My, how that hurts me...

That, BTW, is what we call "sarcasm" —just in case that's lost on you.

No, you simply never even addressed the issue of responsibility and in several quotes approved of torture as a means to an end. Your words are most clear on the subject

Because the question isn’t about responsibility; it’s about inevitability.

The only reason it becomes "inevitable" is when policies are shaped to make it inevitable. These things do not happen in a vacuum, shitwit.

That I approve torture as a means to an end doesn’t mean that it should be used indiscriminately. That’s just dangerous.

More backpedaling?

The fact that Andrew has already pointed out he shares my opinion that morals shouldn’t be an issue in politics but that you focus on me – and furthermore, attempt to suggest that the parameters of the question cover ground they obviously do not – really speaks a lot about how far you like to carry personal vendettas, Degan.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy and Appeal to Motive Fallacy in the same idiotic statement. How efficent of you.

[Andrew J.]

The fact that Andrew has already pointed out he shares my opinion that morals shouldn’t be an issue in politics

I don't, really, I just said that so I that I could talk with you on your own terms. I thought that if I pretended to not care about morals that you wouldn't dismiss whatever I said out of hand, like you do with everybody else.

[Axis Kast]

The BND disagrees.
Basically the BND took the position that Sadam Hussein did try to accquire biological and chemical weapons as well as carriers systems but that he failed on all accounts.

No; intelligence services from Berlin to Tel Aviv concurred with the United States’ analysis that Saddam Hussein had some stockpiles as well as an ongoing nuclear program considerably more advanced than the simple paper incarnation we did find.

Where were all these nations getting this intelligence? It's hard to believe that everyone could have been so wrong on the WMD issue.

Estimates. How is it so hard to believe that nations which had faced Iraq in 1991 and been witness to their treachery through 1998 would have pessimistic assessments about the effectiveness of the sanctions regime (which they themselves often violated at will)? Is it really so “out there” to imagine that President Bush became concerned with Iraq not because his father had supposedly failed – a question the son was responsible for bringing up in the first place -, but because the experience of having a father who had dealt with a dangerous Iraq first-hand influenced him as to the dangerous potential of the Iraqi regime?

It doesn't bother you that your president started a war illegally and under false pretenses?

First of all, I don’t think it is ever necessary that others write off on our security. I agree that to go to the United Nations was beneficial in and of itself. Waiting for their rubber stamp, however, is simply stupid.

Secondly, I don’t think we went under false pretenses. If the intelligence was poor, that was not an intentional subversion. I still believe there are WMD in Iraq.

They certainly aren't discouraging them from oppressing the Palestinians. The only reason why they try and get Israel to stay passive is because the Arabs would turn against the coalition

Red herring. Answer the original question: do you really think it’s a good idea that we let Israel pursue their own policy of reprisal against external dangers?

Why don't you read the whole damn post before you pronounce "concession accepted", you desperate fuckwit. I was unware this debate was on "what percentage of the article deals with the issue".



Quote:

I did read the whole article; it’s so much unsubstantiated assertions about the dangers of a “torture-first” method, with ridiculous comparisons between the United States military intelligence corps and the Chilean dictator’s enforcers thrown in for good measure.

First of all, I’ve already pointed out time and again that torture should serve as a last resort when no other method of interrogation has proven effective.

Secondly, it’s the height of stupidity to compare in general United States military intelligence to Chilean intelligence – even accepting that there were gross misdeeds in Iraq.

Please show that it was military police who beat the guy to death.

Please show that it was military intelligence.

And since when is it that every torture session kills the victim before useful information could possibly be extracted via other means? I point you for the umpteenth time back to my original contention: that torture must be considered only as a last-resort, but should not be eschewed altogether.

1. Strawman- noone said "be nice to them and they'll give you information". The issue was efficacy of information they give up.

2. Red herring- you asked for why they'd be less likely to offer up false information, and I jusst gave you it from the horses mouth.

Concession Accepted (THAT'S when you say it, bitch- at the end of the post.)

Are you fucking braindead?

Your argument essentially consists of ranting and raving about how torture will produce confessions about the second coming of Christ because the subject will be willing to say anything at all, and that these “confessions” would be unsustainable. But torture doesn’t occur in a vaccum; people have information used to corroborate and determine the impact and validity of confession on hand when torture is conducted, moron. In fact, they do the same thing even when torture isn’t used.

You’ve provided no reasoning as to why confession extracted under “regular” methods of questioning shouldn’t produce lies and misdirection other than to claim that the subject will be less likely to “throw anything out there.” How does that get to an overall divulging of the truth? They can still lie even when they’re not losing fingernails.

We know what "then what" would be for you- torture them and have them admit to being the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

Are you going to answer the question, or white like a toddler about how this is all my fault?

Yours has got to be the worst comeback of all time.

“Vympel, what would you do if nothing worked short of torture?”

“Forget that. Let’s talk about what we know you would do, asshole!”

LIAR- you didn't say "if it truly improved the situation". You said "if it truly improved the ends of my nation". Which makes Degan and my own characterizations of your morality 100% accurate.

"Oh! Let?s fuck everyone over as long as they?re not us!"

Is exactly what that means, Comical Axi.

I believe the rational among us would assume, Vympel, that “improving my nation” boils down to “improving the situation.” They are one and the same.

Now kindly tell me again why blowing up buildings in Canada would further the interests of the United States of America.

Absolutely nothing, since that has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Of course it does. Legality is an outgrowth of victory. The strong impose the legal terms on the weak. Nothing provides for this vaunted legality of yours but imposition from one upon another.

Yes, you'll "entertain the notion". The problem is that you refuse to entertain any other notion while proudly trumpeting the one notion you do entertain.

I refuse to entertain any other notion than stomping all over people indiscriminately? Last time I checked, the costs outweigh the benefits in that situation. Assuming there are benefits at all.

And exactly what other forms of decision-making are there, Deegan? You tell me.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I’ve accused you of playing “Hulk SMASH” politics?

Oh, we're not going to have to argue this bullshit yet again, are we? The rest of the world's intelligence services —that is those that hadn't been politically compromised— did not support the absolute assertions Bush and Blair spun as justifications for the late war, and the results of the UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections contradicted the entire picture of Saddam as the huge threat which he was made out to be by Bush. The only reason "regime change" by invasion was "felt necessary to ensure our security" was because Bush and his puppeteers refused to consider any other course of action, nevermind that twelve years of sanctions had kept Saddam Hussein in the box and neutralised.

Just how many times do you want to get beaten up over the same issues?

We’re talking prior to Hans Blix (not that I put any stock in his findings anyway, which no matter how you spin the situation or upon whom you lay the blame for it, were cut short by the war itself).

The fact of the matter is that before we even set foot in Iraq, Germany and France were in concurrance about what we expected to find there. And still, politicians in Paris and Berlin refused to consider war.

And you might take notice that our own search is far from over: the ISG under Charles Duelfer recently castigates David Kay for a poor search. Not to mention that the Sarin shell incident suggests that Saddam apparently never marked – or remarked into anonymity – some of his chemical weaponry. In those conventional depots you claimed didn’t need searching, mind you.

More bullshit. Clinton wasn't the one who ignored eight months of intel warnings about the Al-Qaeda plot or went fishing despite being handed a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." As for what Clinton did do against terrorism, well:

Do you have any idea how many “imminent threat” papers come through the CIA and similar agencies on a daily basis? That we missed one of those warnings shouldn’t be a great surprise, considering the sheer quantity of data we analyze on a daily basis.

Last updated: 27 January 2004


Too bad the record says you're a liar.

So you’re trying to prove to me that Clinton kept up his commitment to effectively counter terrorism by failing to push for anything more than a minor cruise missile strike on individual camps in Afghanistan?

He never saw fit to punish the Taliban at all. Forget full-scale invasions; Clinton didn’t even bomb any of their defense ministry buildings or threaten their government with any form of even limited reprisal.

It’s also interesting that a suspect in the 1993 bombings (linked to al-Qaeda) was living in Baghdad.

Oh really? Have we had many dictators in the last twenty years or so who've wracked up casualty figures in the dozens of millions? None? Thought so.

Why twenty years? The Geneva Convention was signed in the late ‘40s. Since then, we’ve been witness to such lovely dictators as Stalin, Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, the Brazilian and Argentine juntas, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Chiang Kai-Shek for that matter, Moboutu Sese-Seko, the Rwandan killings, a certain individual named Idi Amin, another certain individual named Robert Mugabe, the National Party government in South Africa, the regime of Ho Chih Minh (and those in South Vietnam as well), Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea, and one in Rumania run by Chauchescieu.

The only reason it becomes "inevitable" is when policies are shaped to make it inevitable. These things do not happen in a vacuum, shitwit.

And I think that policies like that will always be around. That’s not sanction, you fucking moron – that’s pessimism. Is that a crime in your book now, too?

More backpedaling?

When did I say that we should torture every prisoner we put our hands on, you fucking liar?

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy and Appeal to Motive Fallacy in the same idiotic statement. How efficent of you.

Did you, or did you not ignore Andrew’s declaration that he shared the same opinion regarding morality as I did?

Did you or did you not attempt to argue that pessimism equated to toleration?