politburo diktat 2.0

a former european wrote:

I don’t know. I am pretty conflicted about the torture issue. Part of my problem is the overuse of the word “torture” by those opposed to any type of physical punishments.

Like its many other extra-constitutional arguments, the Left first began abusing the definition of “torture” in its crusade against capital punishment. ANY form of execution was required to be viewed as “cruel and unusual” despite the mountain of historical evidence to the contrary. The framers of the constitution and the general public of those times had no problem with executing criminals. Hangings were common and considered nothing more than a proper execution of justice.

The term “cruel and unusual” referred to holdover practices from centuries past which including things like boiling in oil, the rack, impalement, and the ever-popular (at least in colonial times) drawing and quartering wherein the executee had his arms and legs tied to four separate horses which were then sent galloping in four separate directions, quite literally tearing that person into “quarter” chunks.

Things like hanging, the guillotine, and later the electric chair were developed as more humane methods of execution. This did not stop the Left from purposefully lying about the term “cruel and unusual” and removing it from its historical context in order to advance the Cause (eliminating capital punishment). For many on the Left, their political Causes take the place of religion in their world. They are as adamant in their unquestioning beliefs and worldview as the most right-wing christian fundamentalist or islamofascist. Dissent from Holy writ is not tolerated, and unbelievers are crucified as heretics. Why else are so many college campii intolerant of any conservative speaker or anyone else who does not toe the line of liberal/socialist orthodoxy? This occurrs within the supposed bastions of enlightened thought, tolerance, and diversity; the hallowed halls of academe.

Anyway, because so many on the Left who decry the supposed “torture” at Guantanamo have already proven they are willing to lie and deceive in order to obtain a politically desireable outcome (i.e. the ends justify the means, and no act is too extreme to achieve social justice and the promised utopian worker’s paradise), I take what they have to say with a big grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.

The protestations and outcry by the Left about supposed violations of the Geneva Conventions merely proves my point. Those protestors are either completely ignorant about those Conventions or are openly lying to the public to achieve a desired political outcome.

The Geneva Conventions are the latest version of what were, for centuries, known as the articles, or rules, of war. These rules were designed to rein in the normal barbarities of war, such as general rapine and massacres of civilian population, torture and atrocities commited against prisoners of war, etc. These articles were mptivated by a great deal of self-interest. After all, if one side began massacring prisoners, the other side would probably follow suit. therefore, you treated enemy prisoners humanely in hopes they would do the same to your men captured by them. When atrocities were committed, as occassionally happened despite the rules of war, the typical response was a cry of “no quarter” which meant all of the enemy would be killed on sight with no surrenders accepted. Indeed, at the end of WWII, Germany still had huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. Hitler seriously considered using them against the Allies, but was dissuaded from doing so by fear of what the Allies would do in retaliation. In that case, the rules of war worked as designed.

Compare this to our terrorist enemies. They are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Besides not being parties to that contract of civilized behavior, they have openly repudiated it. Under well-settled legal principles going back centuries, such a repudiation of any agreement by one party renders the contract unenforceable against the other. In other words, under the English/American common law, contracts are two-way streets and bind both parties or they bind neither party. Simple notions of fairness and justice makes this so.

The terrorists reject any notion of “rules of war” and scoff at such niceties, but then try to hide behind those rejected principles when captured. The Geneva Conventions themselves always distinguished between treatment of those who followed the rules of war as “enemy combatants” and those who operated in violations of those rules as spies, saboteurs, and “partisans”. For the latter, no lenience was historically shown. In all of the european wars from the Franco-Prussian war, WWI, and WWII, all the signatories of the Geneva Conventions had no problem killing tens, if not hundreds of thousands of enemy partisans engaged in guerilla warfare. The typical approach was summary execution by hanging or firing squad. Therefore, the notion that the terrorists are entitled, legally, to protections under the Geneva Conventions is sophistry at its worst.

Finally, even the real-world, practical side of adhering to “rules of war” break down when dealing with terrorists. There is no consideration of treating their prisoners humanely in hopes that they will treat our prisoners in like fashion. They have already openly rejected any civilized “rules” of behavior. They routinely torture and kill, and especially target, not only combatants, but civilians including women and children. How many more beheading videos do we need to see?

The historical response to atrocities like those perpetrated by the islamofascists was “no quarter”. Read about what the British did to those who had been found guilty of atrocities against the British civilian population during the Sepoy Mutiny, for example. There is no dearth of other historical examples.

So, while I would prefer we all lived in a pefect world where we could share a Coke on a hillside, hold hands and sing Kumbaya, Mohammed insists on harshing everyone’s mellow by bringing a vest full of dynamite to the sing-along. He should be treated accordingly.

Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 6:20 am ¶

BloodSpite wrote:

Make you a deal.

I’ll stop turning a blind eye to “questionable interrogation methods” the exact same time you find a way to get the terrorists to do the same and stop cutting peoples heads off on TV.

Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 11:08 am ¶

BloodSpite wrote:

I acknowledge that, and admit it willingly. But remember I’m also the guy who advocated a”black flag” policy at the beginning of the war, so I feel somewhat secure in that thought process of had we committed to such a policy we probably would not be in the predicament we are now.

That being said i see no easy road from the current status quo except the “slog through” method of instruction we have currently.

But then, I have never liked the Yankee’s either

Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶

a former european wrote:

Davebo, thanks for the link. I did check it out but found nothing new. As I said before, there are numerous “respected legal scholars” who have willingly supported the rape of our Constitution with false asumptions and legal theories merely to achieve a desired political end. This is why I took the time to describe the blatant misuse by such “scholars” of the term “cruel and unusual” as a tool to eliminate capital punishment. Political activists are no different when they are appointed to SCOTUS, than they were beforehand. If the Constitution does not permit the social engineering that is your desired political outcome, then you just make things up by finding hitherto unknown “penumbras” and “emanations” that let you accomplish your political ends. Centuries of brilliant jurists like Justices Marshall, and Oliver Wendell Holmes had never been able to find such hidden meanings in the plain language of the Constitution, but our political activist jurist can, by golly! In any case, those same people that pervert the language and intent of our Constitution would have no problem doing so to the Geneva Conventions.

For those willing to call black white and vice versa, no argument or pointing to facts is sufficient to dissuade them from the orthodoxy of their belief systems. You have as much chance of getting the Pope to denounce the existence of God. IMHO, those fervent political activists are no different than the religious zealots they so despise. The jihadis believe everything is permissible to achieve their religious goals of a one-world caliphate or the promised utopia in heaven upon a martyr’s death. The fervent communist, for example, believes that all things are permissible to achieve the heaven-on-earth utopia of the worker’s paradise. If anyone gets in the way, like Kulaks, or other counterrevolutionaries, then a few eggs must be broken and those infidel heretics to the holy cause of Marxism may be slaughtered in their tens of millions.

The american Left turned a blind eye to persistent and systematic torture (the real kind, not the “sort of” kind) in the Gulag by the Soviet regime. They were, after all, fellow travellers on the road to the socialist utopia, so criticism was disfavored so as to not reflect badly on the Cause. These same fellows now exhibit wailing and gnashing of teeth on a biblical level if a Koran is mishandled in Guantanamo. So, let me get this straight, ACTUAL torture by our enemies, like removing fingernails, electrodes to testicles, and other even less savory methods are dismissed without comment or concern, while “sort of” torture methods like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and playing loud rock music elicit howls of outrage. I am not impressed by the selective application of your high moral principles.

I have always said that an easy solution to Guantanamo is to send them all to Egyptian or Turkish prisons. Surely, their religious needs will be properly met by fellow muslims? Likewise, for the Leftist/politically correct crowd, diversity and multiculturalism prevent you from criticizing these other cultures and their institutions. You would not, after all, want to impose your morality on other peoples like some christian fundamentalist, would you? Wouldn’t such criticism make you the type of “cultural imperialist” you so often decry? No, it would definitely be best to leave them to the tender mercies of their co-religionists in the noble third world and thus end this debate.

Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 6:24 pm ¶

canuckistani wrote:

The counterargument to Clausewitz is that when you are trying to defeat an insurgency by winning the hearts and minds of the population, brutality works against you and plays into the hands of your enemies. I’ve heard all the arguments about “Taking the gloves off” and “black flags” and all the other puerile euphemisms for brutality against the civilian population, and unless you are willing to bring democracy and peace to Iraq by all out genocide, it’s a dead end. Increased brutality will only make things worse, not only in Iraq, but among the other nations of the world - your allies, your potential allies and your potential enemies. It’s a sad thing when a nation that defeated Nazi Germany* and the Soviet Union without shredding the Geneva Conventions can’t face a few thousand nutjobs armed with nothing more than small arms without turning into monsters.
As for myself, my opposition to torture (and yes, waterboarding is torture) is entirely on a moral level. I would disapprove even if it did work. It’s a tool more suitable to East Germany than the United States.

*Read an interesting article, which I’m not going to bother sourcing about the most successful interrogation methods against Nazis - playing chess with them. No waterboards, no hoods, no induced hypothermia, no electrodes, and these guys are the genuine amoral monsters of the 20th century.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 9:09 am ¶

BloodSpite wrote:

And just to add fuel to the fire because I like stirring up interesting debates sometimes…

If Iran views stoning as humane, are we therefore allowed to use something they view as humane against their own people?

By that then, can we not use what Iraqi’s view as humane against their own people by de facto?

If it is humane when committed by an Iraqi or Iranian against one of their own; what makes it inhumane when committed by an American against them?

Perhaps I’m stretching the already broad truth with my own narrow mindedness, however I’d be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 10:19 am ¶

canuckistani wrote:

That is an excellent question, Blodspite, and I’ll give you an answer that I can’t promise won’t evolve with discussion.
I’ll start by admitting that I am a cultural imperialist - I believe that western liberal democracy is the best political system yet devised, and while it is evolving, it’s core principles - respect for the rights of the individual, all those good western freedoms - are what mold are politcal morality. I also believe in exporting those values wherever possible, but would argue that they can only be encouraged, and not imposed by armed force.
My belief is that the use of torture degrades that morality and principles, both for the individuals committing the torture and the state for which they are acting. So if we are talking about actions which violate our own principles - stoning for instance - but not those of the victims, I still believe it has a caustic effect on ourselves, and our nations.
Conversely, actions which outrage the sensibilities of the victim - degrading the Koran, for instance - but do not violate our own western morality are issues that I find much less alarming. They may be politically stupid and provocative, but I don’t find them as degrading to ourseleves as torture.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 10:54 am ¶

David C. wrote:

Another torture thread. These are always fun.

“What is it about a few thousand loosely affiliated poorly funded jihadists that scares you so much?”

Yeah, that’s the kind of brilliant thinking that got us 9/11. Let’s not worry about them at all. It’s one thing to overstate the threat as some do, but let’s not pretend it isn’t serious. Even a few dedicated individuals can cause tremendous damage. And if they can get their hands on nuclear weapons, their ability to cause damage will rise geometrically.

My belief is that the use of torture degrades that morality and principles, both for the individuals committing the torture and the state for which they are acting.

I agree, but I also believe that it may sometimes be necessary/useful depending on the situation, and shouldn’t be ruled out in all cases — especially mild, basically harmless torture such as waterboarding. Stainding on principle is a good general rule, but principles are usually compromised to some extent during wartime.

hen you are trying to defeat an insurgency by winning the hearts and minds of the population, brutality works against you and plays into the hands of your enemies.

I agree again, and this is why I think techniques such as waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods should not be used on suspects and run of the mill prisoners. But if we have a known terrorist in custody, such as an Al Qaeda leader, in my opinion the rules should be far different. We should use whatever interrogation method will be most effective at getting the information we need, when we need it. If that method happens to constitute a form of torture, then so be it.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 12:50 pm ¶

John the Marine wrote:

Q:Does this come to us from the Ministry of Ridiculous Analogies? In what world does torturing a terrorist equal using an innocent kid as a human bomb?

A:In the never land of thought that is the collective mind of today’s Left.

What I find so amusing about this thread is Hippies are telling the rest of how not to fight and then loose a war. After all what would Clauzwitz know? Hearts and minds are to be won after the war is won. It is interesting that the more aggressive strategy of the “Surge” is not only putting the hurt on the Terrorists but it is winning “hearts and minds”. Why? Because when we control an area in Irag there is peace, security and order. Now that we have started to really hunt down and kill terrorists we are not only have the populace’s sympathy, now they’re also helping us. So, listen up philosophers. Go back to doing bong hits and playing chess with Nazis and let our armed services under the stewardship of Gen Patreous win the war. Palor talk about weather some loathsome peice of human refuse was torutred or not when waterboarded is the kind of B.S. that Liberals and Frenchmen care about.

Oh, respecting WWII. Open your history books gentlemen and you will learn some interesting facts about the conduct of that war.
1. Civilian populations were deliberated targeted by both sides in mass bombing raids.
2. FDR deprived approximately 150,000 Japanese/American citizens of their liberty based on the theory that they constituted a 5th column threat. The Supreme Court ruled that this action was within the Presidents Constitutionally given powers.
3. Partisans were killed on sight. As has been pointed out above if you don’t follow the rules you are not entitled to their protection.
4. The United States also interned German and Italian Americans based on their ehtnic background and political opinions.

In short don’t site history to bolster whiny defeatist arguments. Heck, FDR would have thrown Moveon and most of today’s Democrats in jail.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 2:12 pm ¶

a former european wrote:

Well, I suppose my head might be unflatteringly called “bullet-shaped” by my detractors, but I am not a fascist. The Left conveniently ignores historical facts because they rarely are flattering to the socialist paradigm. I saw a clever shirt over at The People’s Cube entitled “Marxism: A Century of Failure Proves Nothing!”.

Anyway, just like the modern “cruel and unusual” argument breaks down when put into historical perspective, so do the arguments over Guantanamo. In WWI, Britain and her Commonwealth Territories instituted a naval blockade of the Central Powers. While blockades had always been permitted under the rules of war, such actions had been targetted against what was termed war contraband, i.e. war-fighting materials such as guns and ammunition. The British and their allies, however, prevented the importation of food and medicines which had never been permitted before. These actions specifically targeted the civilian populations and were responsible for millions of civilian deaths from starvation and malnourishment. It has also been speculated by scholars that the weekened health of these peoples made the Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918+ that much worse, killing many millions more. I am not aware of any War Crimes Tribunal, prosecution of Britain by the International Court, or even an apology issued by the Allies for such acts. People felt that such actions were justified against the enemy in wartime.

Earlier in the century, during the Boer War, the British pioneered the use of concentration camps. To combat the Boer guerilla tactics, the British used various less than savory tactics. For example, when the Boers became too successful at planting mines and explosives on the tracks to destroy locomotives, the British placed boxcars of Boer prisoners, and sometimes civilians, in front of their trains so any bombs would first blow up those hostages and leave the locomotives intact. Irregular tactics to combat irregulars troops or partisans was considered normal.

In WWII, all sides specifically targeted the enemies’ civilian populations. Read about american fire-bomb raids on Tokyo and other major Japanese cities. The Allies also intentionally fire-bombed Hamburg and Dresden for weeks, killing tens of thousands of civilians each time. Read about the term “firestorm”, and its horrific effects. I wonder whether nuclear bombs would have been more merciful. Nevertheless, the great liberal/socialist democrat FDR who ordered those acts is a hero and icon to the Left to this day.

This was not troubling to the WWII generation because they had a better understanding of reality than the pie-eyed hedonist/utopians that followed them. These were accepted as the things that happened during wartime. The people never expected war to be pretty or “sanitized”. It was, and always will be, an unpleasant, nasty and brutal business. They wanted to get the job done as quickly as possible, and then come home. Handcuffing oneself with moralistic philosophy is a hindrance, rather than a help, on the battlefield and prolongs the misery and suffering. There is time enough for hand-wringing and ACLU witchhunts when its over.

Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 9:17 pm ¶

canuckistani wrote:

You may not like Davebo’s rhetoric, but his argument is sound - if your standard of acceptable behaviour is that it is not as bad as the enemy, the door is open to all kinds of atrocities.

As for WWII, yes, terrible things were done. Some of them - deliberate firebombing of civilians, for instance - were actions deemed war crimes when charged against Axis prisoners. But not every war is WWII. For most of the nations involved, it was a question of life or death, not only for the nations but for the civilians living there. If it’s a question of life or death, yes, you fight with everything you have. There are even arguments to be made that when fighting an industrialized power, killing the workers who build the tanks and submarines is a viable strategy. Interestingly, all sides refrained from the use of poison gas on the battlefield, though I suspect that was more a case of deterrence than morality.
But not every war is WWII, not every inflexible leader is Churchill, not every enemy is Nazi Germany, and not every war aim is the unconditional surrender of a massively industrialized state. The War on Terror is a war against an idelogy and a mindset, and there are only two options - kill everyone who hates the West, and then kill everyone who learned to hate the West while we were killing the first round, and the kill everyone who,,,well, you get it. The alternative is to defuse the hatred, and get the terrorist population down to a manageable level. And the way to defuse hatred of the West is not by torturing prisoners, bulldozing villages, disappearing suspected insurgents or acting with calculated brutality.
As for Iraq, I think it’s too late. The Surge was the right plan, but it was too little and too late and you don’t have the army to sustain it, especially if you’re busy trying to provoke Iran at the same time as Turkey is provoking the Kurds. Because of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and Haditha, you’re politically radioactive. No ally will bail you out and anyone on your side is trying to get disentangled as fast as they can.
So call me a defeatist if you like, but I think it’s time to get out, regroup and rethink and then try a different strategy, because this one isn’t working.

pie-eyed hedonists/utopians

Heh. A nice one from someone who thinks you can bring democracy to the Middle East with armed force, from the political movement that brought us the double-wetsuit/***** combination.

Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 11:35 am ¶

Stephen wrote:

Canuckistani,

not every inflexible leader is Churchill, … As for Iraq, I think it’s too late. The Surge was the right plan, but it was too little and too late … this one isn’t working.

I’m not so sure. Should I say “let’s give it six more months, then we’ll know?”

Seriously, there’s a real chance this thing in Iraq is muddling thru or (due to multiple factors) settling into some kind of near-stability.

And if it does, and I hate to say this, Bush will get the credit. We’re a long way from “victory.” And the goal posts have been moved out of 3 or 4 stadiums. But if, if, it muddles through, history will vindicate Bush. Read it and weep. I’m sorry, my friend; I would find that infuriating too.

Tom Friedman once wrote, in a critical vein, “there’sa fine line between being Churchill and being a chump.” Yes, there is. But, realistically, since it is a fine line, someone can quite easily fall just one side or the other.

The fact is we’re not going anywhere. Hillary Clinton has already said so. If we outlast the insurgents, no matter how messy the result, “we win,” as some would put it.

I’m not thrilled at such a revisionist view and what it might mean. But it just might play out that way.

Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶

canuckistani wrote:

War is not, however, an encounter group session where we must “understand the rage” of our enemies.

Why not? What if understanding the rage of your enemies was a smart thing to do? What if, as a hypothetical case, moving American troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait could reduce AQ recruitment and funding by 50%? Is there a strategic interest there that makes it worth risking American lives? Would it be a smart thing to do, or would you puff up your chest and say “That’s giving in to the terrorist’s demands”? I know, I can hear the shouts of “Appeasement” from here, like Neville Chamberlain is the only man in history who ever tried diplomacy. But what if the smart way to fight the war on terror was like a bullfight? You know, less direct confrontation and more avoidance and stabs in the back until it’s too weak to live?
If Muslims have always hated America and Freedom so much, why did they never bother attacking you until after the first Gulf War?
Personally, I think the War on Terror is nonsense. The assumption that all terror is linked together, and that it can be defeated with military force is absurd*. You can destroy AQ and the Taliban, a choice I strongly approve of, but in the meantime a dozen more groups will spring up. You can’t defeat an abstract noun. I’m sorry about the WTC, it was a tragedy, but it wasn’t the worst thing in the world ever to happen, and other countries that you sneer at have been dealing with terrorism longer than you. You can’t fill people with terror of American retaliation when they are willing to die anyway.

Maybe you didn’t advocate democracy in the Middle East, FE, but that was one of the failed rationales of the Iraq War. The utopians are the ones who thought that the Middle East would be transformed by American intervention. The realists are the ones who warned you that intervention would result in a miserable disaster that would only make things worse. So spare me the straw man that leftists are dope-smoking hippies who get our foreign policy out of bong pipes and Mao’s little red book. I’m not calling for isolationism, I’m calling for being smart instead of tough.

*Actually, the War on Terror had one unexpected benefit - it stopped American funding for IRA terrorists.

Posted 03 Nov 2007 at 12:11 pm ¶

canuckistani wrote:

In other words, “understand” becomes synonymous with “excuse”, thus justifying inaction rather than the necessary punishment/action such crimes deserve. This is perfect for the Left which believes that a US war is never justified. The only wars they support are communist/socialist ones or one being directed AGAINST the US. Thus Fidel, Che, the Sandinistas, Mao, and the Viet Cong are heroic icons but the US is the perpetual villain.

You don’t actually know a lot of “leftists”, do you FE? I could have cut and pasted your complaint from RedState or Malkin or some other site that makes its living from characterizing leftists as crazed loons and drug-addled fools without the sense to pour piss from their own boots. And if this is going to be how you view us, well, let me know and I won’t bother trying to talk to you, since it’ll just be wasting both of our time.
I’m not going to deny there are a few nutcases on the extreme fringe, and like the nutcases on the extreme right, they get more press than they deserve. But that isn’t us.
Barring the nutcases, I do not know any mainstream leftist who has ever said a US war is never justified. I’ve stated on the record here that I support the War in Afghanistan, and I would support an invasion of Pakistan if they can’t manage to get the Al Qaeda safe areas under control. I supported US action in Kosovo and in Somalia, though that one didn’t work out too well for you. I’ve never had a positive thought about Che, Mao, the Sandanistas* or the Viet Cong, although I will admit that I enjoy seeing Castro play you guys like a 50-cent kazoo.
I’m a leftist by any American definition because I support trade unions, public health care, abortion rights and the divorce of religion from any aspect of the state. I don’t approve of military action, but recognize its necessity when diplomacy fails. I care about the environment, and support the Kyoto protocols. I think SUV’s are wasteful and ostentatious, and ought to banned if one is in a state of war.
But there’s nothing there about hating America, and loving Marx, and holding the hands of poor misunderstood Osama bin Laden. My drugs of choice are Guinness and single malt scotch, which I consume in moderation, and I enjoy good rock music, which, I think we can all admit, the leftists have got sewn up.
So here’s the deal - since I have never indulged in calling the right wing posters on this site any of the names my angrier compatriots indulge in, how about you drop the ridiculous strawman image you have of leftists as drug-addled hippies and apologists for tyranny and we can have a discussion worth having.

*Sandanista was an awesome album by The Clash. My sympathies go no further than that.

Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 1:56 pm ¶

canuckistani wrote:

Oh ho, the “no true Scotsman” argument.
1) All leftists admire Marx.
2) I’m a leftist, and I do not admire Marx.
1) Then you are no true leftist.

If you claim to know Marxists in this day and age, I’ll believe you, but I suspect that they are a) students who latch on to boneheaded opinions b) emigres from the Eastern bloc who remember the good old days when they were commissars c) yanking your chain for a laugh. But really, it’s like finding French Royalists - their time is past, and everyone knows it, including them.

Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 1:41 pm ¶