Lies, Damned Lies, and Cheney's Lies

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only real moral justification for torture maybe the argument advanced by Dersowitz. In which we suddenly have someone under our custody who has the knowledge to avert a very soon to occur disaster.
You realize that the three who were waterboarded were done so under such an assumption.

We forget that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 everyone expected us to be attacked again. It is only after 7 years without an attack that we sit back and think that there was never any further threat.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only real moral justification for torture maybe the argument advanced by Dersowitz. In which we suddenly have someone under our custody who has the knowledge to avert a very soon to occur disaster.
You realize that the three who were waterboarded were done so under such an assumption.

We forget that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 everyone expected us to be attacked again. It is only after 7 years without an attack that we sit back and think that there was never any further threat.

Maybe at one point they were, but the technique is defended for continued use now. So what's the excuse?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I don't think anyone is talking about using it now.

Perhaps it is a matter of defending it in case we need to use it again or to protect themselves for its past use.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don't think anyone is talking about using it now.

Perhaps it is a matter of defending it in case we need to use it again or to protect themselves for its past use.

Well I for one don't think that "we were scared" ever qualified as an excuse for committing multiple felonies and international crimes against humanity. As for Cheney and others they most certainly ARE arguing for using it now. They are arguing that they should be able to use it whenever they see fit.

Torturing people is either legal, or it's not. Cheney argues that it is legal. It's repulsive, it's reprehensible, and it's a betrayal of his oath of office, but that's what he is arguing.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The only real moral justification for torture maybe the argument advanced by Dersowitz. In which we suddenly have someone under our custody who has the knowledge to avert a very soon to occur disaster.
You realize that the three who were waterboarded were done so under such an assumption.

We forget that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 everyone expected us to be attacked again. It is only after 7 years without an attack that we sit back and think that there was never any further threat.

No, Bush has only *admitted* to waterboarding three people. Last year, he admitted to zero, then one, then three. Why do you think he is magically telling the truth now?

And waterboarding is only one type of torture, they could be routinely torturing hundreds of people, just not waterboarding them. Hell, they could still be waterboarding them, and Bush might just be lying again. It's not like anyone has a reason to believe what he says.

And that "attack any minute" argument doesn't hold water either. Just becuase you have a suspect in a serial murder case (as an example), you aren't allowed to bring him in and beat the crap out him to determine if he really is the serial murderer, because you are worried about another murder could take place, do you?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.

Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive... Damn! Those wild dogs are really, really hungry, huh?

No politician wants that as their legacy- they're all pretty vain. And if the truth creates a real hue and cry from the public, go from there. I doubt that, anyway- more likely their party and those who supported them will be shunned in shame...
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.

Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive... Damn! Those wild dogs are really, really hungry, huh?

No politician wants that as their legacy- they're all pretty vain. And if the truth creates a real hue and cry from the public, go from there. I doubt that, anyway- more likely their party and those who supported them will be shunned in shame...

Unfortunately, Americans have a very short attention span, short memories, and are mostly short enough IQ points to put this all together. And many people will say, "Oh, boys will be boys, ha, ha!", and write it off as well-intentioned efforts at saving the Republic.

Only in the movies do the good guys win. Usually, the sonafabitches win, sneering and jeering all the way to the bank.

Meanwhile, the Elie Wiesel Foundation is bankrupt because of the same sort of blind ambition and moral depravity. I hope everyone here will give at least $25 to the foundation to help them out.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ElieWieselFoundationforHum/OnlineGiving.html">https://app.etapestry.com/h....../OnlineGiving.html</a>

-Robert
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.

Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive... Damn! Those wild dogs are really, really hungry, huh?

Reading this type of naivete makes me shudder to think how mindless some people are in their partisanship. Obama will never allow this to happen because he is not really the messiah and wouldn't want to set a precedent his successor would be sure to employ.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As we near the inevitable victory of all backward Bush watches, 26 days and counting, its not hard to predict that GWB will be in the running for worst President in US history, but beyond that, everyone's crystal
balls will get cloudy. Its going to be very hard for Obama, on his first State of the Union Speech, to stand up and tell the American public that the State of the Union is strong. As Obama inherits some of the bleakest prospects since FDR first took office.

In many ways, I think the GWB era will mark the high water mark for the American conservative movement, as they realized what they had been dreaming and scheming for for over half a century. Sadly the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century turned into anything but, as GWB&co has greatly damaged American prospects across the board. And with the passing of an intellectual of the caliber of William F. Buckley, the intellectual conservative movement seems to have passed the torch of all intellectualism to propagandists like Limbaugh and right wing radio. To some extent only Newt Gingrich will remain, a man of some intellect, but as an idea a day, his sins overwhelm his lack of focus insights. To assume that the GOP and the conservative movement will not rebuild itself is probably a falsity, but its somewhat hard to see out out of the current crop of conservative leadership.

As for Cheney, its all too likely that the chess9 comment of . " Only in the movies do the good guys win. Usually, the sonafabitches win, sneering and jeering all the way to the bank." , may describe the end fate of Cheney and a few of his cronies. Morally bankrupt bullies to the end, they delighted in twisting the knife. And given another chance, they would cheerfully do it again.

GWB seems more human at the end, still deep in denial of his failures, he still seems to be finally open to the fact of his failures. And to some extent he seems almost eager to turn the reigns over to Obama while
doing much less than all he can to really screw things up worse in the time remaining. How history will judge GWB is an open question, to some extent he may be viewed like Grant and Harding before him, maybe a charitably basic good man who was cruelly taken in by his advisers, the manipulated but not the manipulator.

But I still have to disagree with chess9 on his other point of " Unfortunately, Americans have a very short attention span, short memories, and are mostly short enough IQ points to put this all together. And many people will say, "Oh, boys will be boys, ha, ha!", and write it off as well-intentioned efforts at saving the Republic."

Given the magnitude of the failures of GWB&co, the American people and the GOP electorate were far ahead of the leaders of the GOP in rejecting GWB&co and all it stood for. It waas no accident that McCain became the GOP nominee simply because he was the harshest critic of GWB&co.

I think in the near future the Jhhnn comment of "I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.
Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive." If the GOP comes back with the revisionist history of Palin, I frankly do not think enough of the American people will by it. The onus is on the GOP to confront its own failures, admit them, and come up with new and more responsible messages. That process may indeed take decades as all our crystal balls will be cloudy.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.

Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive... Damn! Those wild dogs are really, really hungry, huh?

Reading this type of naivete makes me shudder to think how mindless some people are in their partisanship. Obama will never allow this to happen because he is not really the messiah and wouldn't want to set a precedent his successor would be sure to employ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corn mistake here is to assume Obama could prevent the full truth from coming out regarding GWB&co even if Obama wanted to.

To some extent the art of Cheney and Rumsfeld, mis learned as young aides to Richard Nixon, was a how to keep the truth from congress, the courts, and the American people. A how to do the crime without being caught, but now that they are all but out of the picture, all that bottled up truth will be emerge from thousands of holes and what was long sought by many will be found.

Even if Rumsfeld and Cheney were made of sterner stuff and put little in writing, their more numerous aides documented everything. If nothing else, bi partisan scholars will piece things together and then the politicians and courts will follow.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I love the irony of the release of Frost / Nixon with Frank Langella on television repeatedly intoning "if the President does it, it's not illegal" as Cheney reasserts the policy of the Unitary Executive (or Imperial Presidency) in the waning days of our own George III.

Those who do not learn from History...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Don't be such a pessimist, chess9. It's Christmas, after all. I share your doubts about Cheney having any sort of Scrooge-like epiphany, however. I don't think that really matters.

I'm sure that there's smoke coming out of lots of people's word processor boxes typing up the FOIA requests, even as we converse. The desire to reveal the Bushistas as fraudsters is deep and wide, and it won't go away anytime rsn... huh-uhh... They changed the American political landscape in ways they hadn't imagined and never intended.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I really don't think that the new Admin needs to do much of anything other than opening up the doings of the Bush Admin to public scrutiny via the FOIA.

Then stand back as they're figuratively torn apart and eaten alive... Damn! Those wild dogs are really, really hungry, huh?

Reading this type of naivete makes me shudder to think how mindless some people are in their partisanship. Obama will never allow this to happen because he is not really the messiah and wouldn't want to set a precedent his successor would be sure to employ.

Save it, Corn. The use of the Messiah slur reveals you as a hack and a dilettante. Adding the usual "they're just as bad!" insinuation just reinforces that.

Obama supporters don't regard him as some sort of savior- just as somebody who *might* be honest enough to let the chips fall where they may. If he conducts himself in office in a reasonable fashion, then he really has nothing to fear because there won't be anything much that's damaging to be revealed. That's not true wrt our current leadership, and you've as much as admitted to that...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree when it comes to social control, nothing works quite as well as torture. I read a story about a Taliban come back to Humanity who talked about cutting off limbs and heads of people for violating something as seemingly innocuous as pictures on walls of a house. When he came back next week all pictures were removed from homes in village.

So you want to take advice from the Taliban now? :roll: I thought they were all evil people that needed to be killed. Why would anyone want to copy what they do?

This is the third time you assume I want OUR policy to be someway when I question conventional wisdom and PC speak. I don't think torture should be our policy to gain information nor do I think it should be used as social control like the Taliban and other Muslim states use it. I love our habeas corpus, ideas of civil rights, equality before the law, equality of women, procedural justice, judicial review etc. I believe that we can win the war against the global jihadists without giving up the guaranteed liberties of Western societies. I suspect, however, that to do so will require more realism about the true nature of the threat we face. I am claiming torture is effective though based on what I've seen and read. If you and the rest of you in this thread want to claim it's ineffective I can't see any harm coming form it - other than intellectual dishonesty - unlike the dangerous and irresponsible 'religion of peace' line most western politicians are parroting these days.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
Originally posted by: Zebo

This is the third time you assume I want OUR policy to be someway when I question conventional wisdom and PC speak. I don't think torture should be our policy to gain information nor do I think it should be used as social control like the Taliban and other Muslim states use it. I love our habeas corpus, ideas of civil rights, equality before the law, equality of women, procedural justice, judicial review etc. I believe that we can win the war against the global jihadists without giving up the guaranteed liberties of Western societies. I suspect, however, that to do so will require more realism about the true nature of the threat we face. I am claiming torture is effective though based on what I've seen and read. If you and the rest of you in this thread want to claim it's ineffective I can't see any harm coming form it - other than intellectual dishonesty - unlike the dangerous and irresponsible 'religion of peace' line most western politicians are parroting these days.

There is zero intellectual dishonesty coming from the assertion that torture is ineffective. Not only is that opinion supported by experts in the field, but any reasonable assessment of a policy examines the costs as well as the benefits of torture. I think that any such analysis shows exceedingly clearly that what we lose from torturing people far exceeds whatever we might hope to gain, particularly when compared to alternative policies that extract the same information.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
I would imagine you'll have more "deep throats" then you could suspect, it's the product of greed, as "they" see the opportunity to capitalize on what they know is realized and the fear of reprisals is diminished.
Fraud would be the most obvious crime to me.
I think life imprisonment with to use the English term "hard labor", and the stripping of all material wealth would be a fitting justice.
Capital punishment is the breaking of the first rule of law- 1. you shall not kill.
Torture only hurts the innocent.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Zebo
I agree when it comes to social control, nothing works quite as well as torture. I read a story about a Taliban come back to Humanity who talked about cutting off limbs and heads of people for violating something as seemingly innocuous as pictures on walls of a house. When he came back next week all pictures were removed from homes in village.

So you want to take advice from the Taliban now? :roll: I thought they were all evil people that needed to be killed. Why would anyone want to copy what they do?

This is the third time you assume I want OUR policy to be someway when I question conventional wisdom and PC speak. I don't think torture should be our policy to gain information nor do I think it should be used as social control like the Taliban and other Muslim states use it. I love our habeas corpus, ideas of civil rights, equality before the law, equality of women, procedural justice, judicial review etc. I believe that we can win the war against the global jihadists without giving up the guaranteed liberties of Western societies. I suspect, however, that to do so will require more realism about the true nature of the threat we face. I am claiming torture is effective though based on what I've seen and read. If you and the rest of you in this thread want to claim it's ineffective I can't see any harm coming form it - other than intellectual dishonesty - unlike the dangerous and irresponsible 'religion of peace' line most western politicians are parroting these days.

The original piece by Dahlia Lithwick provides EVIDENCE that torture doesn't work. You choose to not believe that evidence but believe what you think is evidence. <shrug>

Who is being intellecutally dishonest? I would give your view the benefit of the doubt as being intellectually honest, but dead wrong.

LemonLaw/Jhnnn: I hope you guys are right.

-Robert
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
This is the third time you assume I want OUR policy to be someway when I question conventional wisdom and PC speak. I don't think torture should be our policy to gain information nor do I think it should be used as social control like the Taliban and other Muslim states use it. I love our habeas corpus, ideas of civil rights, equality before the law, equality of women, procedural justice, judicial review etc. I believe that we can win the war against the global jihadists without giving up the guaranteed liberties of Western societies. I suspect, however, that to do so will require more realism about the true nature of the threat we face. I am claiming torture is effective though based on what I've seen and read. If you and the rest of you in this thread want to claim it's ineffective I can't see any harm coming form it - other than intellectual dishonesty - unlike the dangerous and irresponsible 'religion of peace' line most western politicians are parroting these days.

I think eskimospy summed it up for me above, but I think you have haven't been reading the right articles recently. Almost all interrogators state themselves that torture doesn't work. There have articles from old WWII interogators, that got info out of the captured German POW's, and they have spoken out against torture, and how it isn't needed and doesn't work.

People that have been tortured have admitted that they tell the interrogators everything (and everything), true and false, just to stop the pain. If I have the winning lottery ticket number in advance, and you torture me to get it, I will give it to you. but I will also give you 1,000 false numbers as well. So how do you know which one is right?

A terrorist (or anyone) that gets tortured will give out so much fake information, just to stop the pain, makes it impossible to tell what information is useful in a reasonable amount of time (that mythical "actionable intel" phrase that Bush and co always use)

Read any persons account of being tortured. They will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, just to stop the pain. That makes tortures worthless. So really, it comes done to the satisfaction of inflicting pain as payback.