Tom Delay should resign from Congress. Did he do anything illegal? I've no idea. Campaign finance laws are like the tax code: so complicated as to lose all meaning to the average citizen. But whether or not Delay broke any laws is beside the point in my mind. He is the poster child for the peddling of Washington's largess to special interests.

He is the Republican version of Dan Rostenkowski. Did Rostenskowski break some minor federal laws? Perhaps, but the larger problem with the former Democratic Ways and Means Committee Chair was not that he committed 'mail fraud' but that he used his position in Congress to take my money away from me and give to his constituents, his campaign donors, and his ideological allies.

Congress is full of politicians who engage in quid pro quos with special interests. But some are worse than others. Tom Delay is one of the worst.

Is Ronnie Earle a partisan hack? That's a given. But even partisan hacks sometimes get it right, even when they are motivated by, well, partisanship. I've no idea if he's gotten it right here, but again, that is the least of my concerns.

There is a second and unrelated reason Delay should resign. Tom Delay hurts the Republican Party and helps the Democratic Party. I don't really care if Delay hurts the Republican Party. I am a big believer in the two-party system--as long as those two parties are Republicans and Libertarians. What I am not a big believer in are the statist principles at the core of Democratic philosophy and which are increasingly becoming part of Republican practice.

As long as the Democrats remain the party of bigger government as opposed to the Republicans just being the party of big government, then anything that helps them win cannot be good for the country.

The perception of corruption and ineptness in Washington by the public is uncannily familiar. I smell 1994 in the air again. The Democrats only need to come up with their own Contract With America--some coherent alternative vision based on a 'reform' agenda--and they will win back the House of Representatives.

So, Tom Delay, do us all a favor: resign. Spare us all the headache of putting a party in power who wants even more government so that it can dole out even more favors to even more special interests, campaign donors, and ideological allies. The country is in bad enough shape with you helping to run it, let's not make it any worse.

This will serve as my one and only post on the Delay scandal. The Jawa has spoken.

More Delay reaction from RINOs here at The Politburo Diktat. UPDATE: Due to heavy schedule here, I've been kind of out of it. Michelle Malkin has big roundup here. Ahhh, and check out the two last paragraphs from Captain Ed. UPDATE II: Professor Chaos, truth detector. Hawkins is right, but he needs to go go, not just go. UPDATE III: Chris Abraham, right on. Rusty Shackleford, 'bedwetting right'?? Are you kidding me?--Update: I have been assured that I was not part of the 'bedwetting right' alluded to here. Good to know.

UPDATE IV: Ok, John from Wuzzadem pretty much has the 'don't get on the indict Delay bandwagon yet because this just gives the moonbats fuel for the fire' argument summed up--sorta.

UPDATE V: Let me make myself clear:

Happy?

UPDATE VI: Willisms de-links me because I don't drink the party kool-aid at every turn, even after I try to reassert my street cred by calling on Leftists in Congress to do the same. Very unclassy. PS-had I realized you weren't on the blogroll I certainly would have added you, especially if you had asked. And, BTW, The Jawa Report is 'skinnable'. If you want a light background with dark text, simply click on the link in the upper right corner.

What I've never understood is people who put party loyalty above principle. It's the same reason I think the modern Democratic party has largely become a farce and an anti-American institution. They oppose the war because, er, they have to because, er, they're the party of opposition.

I'm not going to support Delay simply because he is the enemy of my enemy. This isn't war, no one is going to die if Delay goes down, he's not that important to my agenda--which is winning the war on terror.

There is something deeply disturbing about people who think it is their duty to be the propoganda arm of the Republican party and who think it an act of betrayal to oppose any one or anything that they are for.

I, for one, encourage reasoned disagreement. And, as always, I am open to having my mind changed if there is some angle that I haven't given enough thought to.

UPDATE VII: Let me get the two sides of the argument straight. One side, my side (now joined by Pieter Dorsman), thinks defending Delay helps the Democratic party by associating the party with perceived misdeeds. The other side, most of my readers are in this category (I'm looking in your general direction Filthy), think that if Delay goes down then the Dems come out on top and will go after the next politician they hate--thus, we must support Delay so that this doesn't happen.

Is this a fair presentation of the two sides of the argument?

UPDATE VIII: Loyal reader Marcus Aurelius disagrees.

UPDATE IX: We are officially in a blogfluffle.

UPDATE X: For John at Wuzzadem. I'm not supporting Delay's indictment. How should I know whether the charges are true or not? I just want him gone, gone, gone. It's a logical fallacy, in my mind, to equate someone resigning from office because they're pathetic scoundrals (which Delay is) and hurt the overall cause, with supporting those that wish to see him in jail. Anyway, those following the debate should probably go read John's post. But I wonder, isn't the greater pack mentality the reflexive defense of Delay because he's 'our guy' than we few who dare call for his resignation?

And for Beth, long-time blog-friend, I'd say that the Left hates Delay for a number of reasons, and that, yes, one of them is that he's effective. Mostly the effectiveness they hate him for has to do with the Texas redistricting push that he was largely responsible for. But just because they hate him for those reasons does not mean that I must also hate him for the same reasons. I hate him for the same reason Newt Gingrich hated the Democratic leadership of the 1980's--they were spendthrifts and Washington insider influence peddlers of the highest caliber. I did not support the Democrats when they drummed Newt out of Congress. Tom Delay, though, is no Newt Gingrich.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:18 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 1171 words, total size 8 kb.

Here is a letter I received from Dubai. I thought you might like to read it. Notice how the self-proclaimed not an antisemite accuses me of being a J-O-O.

Dear sir,

Ive visited your website, n i read almost everything u have there. Dont u think ur too biased?

Karim,
Yes, I am biased. This is my personal website reflecting my personal opinions. By definition, then, this site is biased.

Im an arab muslim who lives in the United Arab Emirates, in Dubai.. You
probably odnt know where that is, cause Americans are too busy to think of
the outside world normally, unless it concerns energy probllems. Dubai is one of the only 5-Star cities in the world (There are only 5 5-star cities).

I know where the UAE and Dubai is. Nice place. I believe Michael Jackson is there now. Of course, by 'nice place' I mean nice as long as you stay within specially designated zones where we infidels are allowed to act like infidels. I'm not so sure I would like the rest of your country where I could not openly practice my chosen religion of South Park Universalistic Hedonism (Missouri Synod). I am required to shout 'Allah is a Buddhist' three times a day at the top of my lungs or I will be excommunicated.

Many foreigners live here, Including European and American people, who happen to love it here.

Personally I'm more into liberty than making a buck, but I understand the allure. The beaches, from what I've seen, look pretty kick ass. Any topless ones?

Dont you think you make us all sound like people who are ready to put guns to the heads of every american and kill them ?

No, I do not. I certainly hope not, at least.

I Have numerous American and English friends who would disagree. I love my american friends, ive lived with them almost all my life, we share respect and trust, and so do our families. We do not seperate Muslims from Christians (that is one of the biggest sins in Islam by the way), we do not see things that way.

I guess you are not a good Muslim then, or at least not a traditionalist, since the Quran and Hadiths explicitly place Christians not living in second-class dhimmi status as part of dar al-harb--a seperate nation. Perhaps you are a reform minded liberal Muslim who has rejected Sharia, most of the Hadiths, most traditional interpretations of the Quran, and has decided to join the 21st Century? I hope so.

We are all peacefull people, who happen to be ill-treated by your government.

Since when has the U.S. government done anything harmful to the people of the United Arab Emirites? Oh, by 'we' you mean 'Muslims'. I thought you didn't seperate people and that was like a big sin or something?

Look at Palestine. Israelis Have been destroying the homes of familes whos sons have suicide bombed places in Israel. U might think "hey, they deserveit, let the bastards take it all, "

Yes, I do. I only wish they made bigger tractors. Hey, how do you people in the UAE treat Jews? Oh, wait, all of them were forced to leave.

But What do u think it takes a man to decide to suicide and kill himself?! Lots of guts, and desperation.

Very true. And hatred. And faith that Allah will accept him into paradise for killing Jews.

Desperation caused by Israeli Forces who kill children and familes, and let kids watch their parents rot infront of them while they surround their house.

Then perhaps the fathers should not be terrorists? That would go a long way in solving that problem.

You dont know a thing about what we fell, you just look at the Israeli perspective.. your probably a jew too, and i dont mean it as an insult.

Again with the we thing. I don't take it as one. I'm not a Jew, although I'm cut, but I would count myself in good company if I was one. Did you know that Natalee Portman is a Jew? Not that it's important, but I'd definitely convert for a pice of that. And if you don't mean it as an insult, then why make the accusation? Unless you think there is something wrong with that?

You have to open your eyes. Your people are rated the most close-minded people on earth, and yes you are.

I'm sure the people of the UAE are much more open minded. I have a Bible, a Book of Mormon, a Theravada, and a Rig-Veda sitting around the office. How about I come to your country and pass them out on the street? Since your people are so 'open-minded' let's see what kind of reaction I would get. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:25 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1589 words, total size 9 kb.

Did the 9/11 Commission Report leave out mention of Iraqi agents arrested in Germany that could link Mohammed Atta's Hamburg cell of al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein's regime?

Captain Ed had made this speculation earlier here, not claiming that such a link existed but only that this needs further investigation.

I replied in this earlier post that maybe this should be looked into, but that the speculation that such ties could exist were unwarrented by the facts.

He in turn put up another post on the subject, this time wondering whether or not the evidence for Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague ought to be looked at again.

Captain Ed and I have been going back and forth on this both in the comments section here and through e-mail. The gist of what Ed was saying was that in light of the Able Danger revelations, it is possible that the 9/11 Commission was predisposed to leave out certain bits of evidence that would run contrary to their findings. It is a good observation, one that I would agree with, but on the grounds that that is just par for the course in any type of research that has to sift through tons of data points.

Another valid point he makes is that his earlier post simply calls for an investigation into what the Iraqi agents were doing in Germany--with a bit of speculation thrown in their to boot. Fine by me. The 9/11 Commission Report is a flawed document just like all other government reports. It is not the final word on 9/11 and those that treat it as such fail to grasp the enormity of the task the Commission had under time constraints. I suspect the next twenty years will produce countless dissertations on the subject by Ph.D. candidates, each one contributing a new piece of information to the overall story of the attrocities that took place on that day.

One of the points that I made to Ed in an e-mail was regarding the validity of his source and his interpretation of the story. My objection was simply that an English synopsis of an Arabic newspaper in Germany may not be the most reliable source. Especially when that source claims the CIA was brought to Germany--something that I am sure they could not have known. My experience with Arabic papers is that any person wearing a business suit and working for the U.S. in any peripheral capacity can be accused of being a 'CIA Agent'.

Ed took up the challenge, and lo and behold, one of his army of readers was able to produce a corraborating account. So, according to MSM reports at the time, we have two Iraqi spies caught in Germany. The non-Arabic sources also mention nothing about the CIA or FBI getting involved and also nothing about a plot for Iraq to involve itself with fundamentalist Islamic terror groups to strike at US interests.

Ed is right that it would be nice to know what those Iraqi spies were doing in Germany. I second the motion. I'm not sure that such knowlege would have improved the 9/11 Report in any fundamental way, but it might have.

To imagine, though, that the fact that there were Iraqi agents in Germany somehow may be the missing link connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11 is grasping at straws, in my opinion. Many of us on the right would like to believe that such a connection existed because we believe that that would somehow bolster support for the war. But the justness or unjustness of the Iraq invasion ultimately does not rest on whether or not the Baathist regime had anything to do with 9/11.

Further, the war we are fighting in Iraq now is a different war than the one we fought to overthrow the Hussein regime. It is not simply another phase of the same conflict, it is a different war. We are fighting different people and we now have different goals. In the invasion of Iraq we had the goal of toppling a hostile government that we had been at war with for a decade. Now, we are fighting Islamist jihadis engaged in a struggle to build a Taliban-like state in the vacuum created by the fall of the Baathists.

The second conflict is directly connected to 9/11. We do not need to look to a German Iraq-al Qaeda connection to see this, we simply need to look at the facts as they exist on the ground right now.

What is the name the jihadis have taken on themselves in Iraq? Al Qaeda. Who have they pledged their allegiance to? Osama bin Laden. The three main insurgent groups in Iraq (al Qaeda, The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, and The Islamic Army in Iraq) all share the same general political philosophy as the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. All are part of the network of global jihad. They are our enemies and it they who we are fighting in Iraq today.

We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, today. Unfortunately, many in the MSM do not understand the nature of the enemy in Iraq. To concede Iraq to these terrorist forces would be to create a nation state parrhia just like Afghanistan. Iraq would become the next place where large-scale jihadi training camps would operate openly.

We do not need to rewrite history to create a link between Iraq and 9/11. But if we wish to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again, we must begin by making sure Iraq does not fall to the hands of al Qaeda terrorists who would love nothing more than to create another safe haven from which they could operate.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 6 kb.

Scroll to end of post for update.

Is the 9/11 Report flawed? Yes. But that does not mean there was a conspiracy to keep information out of the report. It is the inherent nature of government reports, all government reports, to be flawed. If you don't want a flawed government report then you should not ask the government to report on anything.

Do the Able Danger revelations impeach the entire 9/11 Report so that nothing in the report should be believed? No. Of course not. It would be silly to have ever imagined that the report represented reality unbiased and unfiltered.

The 9/11 Report represents a consensus view on intelligence failures that led to the 9/11 attrocities. Consensus views, by their very nature, are never complete and are never 100% accurate. They can't be. But the alternative to producing a consensus view is producing competing reports, each with their own set of biases, each with a different set of assumptions, and each with a different focus and emphasis.

So, when Captain Ed began speculating that there may actually have been operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, I was a bit taken aback. If I read him correctly, his reasoning is: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:34 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1819 words, total size 11 kb.

Bet that headline got your attention. All right, my last long, long word on this for a while and we can go back to posting on GWOT stuff. Rusty, thanks for your indulgence.

You can't be a libertarian and support tyranny, nor can you support slavery. If all men are created equal before God, then slavery is an abomination and no man is naturally the subject of any other. A slave, or a subject, may have his own will, but he is not free to exercise it except insofar as it comports with his master's.

Likewise an addict may have a reason most of the time, and a complex inner life, but he is in the end a slave to those who will provide him with the means to satisfy his addiction. The worst cases--and you can spare me the accounts of the white collar friends of yours who appear to sail through life without a care snorting and shooting up everything in the Harrison Act--I said the worst cases, and there are far too many of them--will kill and rob and mortgage their house and blow the baby's college fund and sell their bodies to satisfy their masters. An addict, or for that matter someone tripping or stoned, is not a free man. In many cases, you can't even commit murder when you're high--under the law your "mental defect" can prevent you from reaching the mental state required to form the mens rea for intentional homicide. more...

Posted by: seedubya at 02:45 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1150 words, total size 7 kb.

Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:33 PM | Comments (100) | Add Comment
Post contains 995 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Yeah, but what's your position on bestiality?

Llamas, excluded, of course.

Posted by: Editor at August 10, 2005 02:52 PM (adpJH)

2 The bottom line is, shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 10, 2005 03:06 PM (x+5JB)

3 Not in my mind. A free people must, by definition, be free to do harmful things.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:09 PM (JQjhA)

4 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior. So, isn't it concievable that legalizing drugs (beyond alcohol) would come with an increase in criminal behavior? Or do you think that drug use would stay at its present levels?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 03:15 PM (jPCiN)

5 No, I think drug use would rise--unfortunately. But most of the serious criminal behaviors associated with drug use have to do with their price. Their price is high because of the drug war. People need money to support their habits. Circular problem.

But my stance on the drug war is not one built on cost-benefit analysis, which is how most pro or anti drug-war arguments are built. I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 10, 2005 03:22 PM (JQjhA)

6 "...shouldn't governments be obligated to outlaw things which can be harmful to its citizenry?"

THIS is the base idea from which fast food gets banned for being fattening and promoting obesity.

And that "can" really stretches. Premarital sex, or sex without protection "can be harmful to [people]" via STDs, etc... So the Government needs to ban, crack down on, and prevent premarital sex? Is AIDS not as bad as a coke habit? Worse, better, difficult comparison?

Oh, here's a brilliant one. Unprotected sex from behind (avoiding the "a" word) is particularly likely to transmit STDs. So we should really ban this form of behavior. How well do you see that going over?

Also, how far a step is it from the government banning bad things; to the government mandating good things.

A couple hours of exercise a week in half hour increments is good for you (duh). A government that mandates and enforces exercise from its citizenry because lack of exercise is bad for you would be obscenely stupid.

People must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The alternatives are a nanny state that cares for you and dictates what you can and cannot do from cradle to grave; or a government that cherry picks some things as "bad enough to ban" and others that are not.

Now the 3rd option (some banned, some aren't) relates to what we have now; but the line isn't well defined. The target of "too bad to allow" keeps moving on every issue, and the bans get arbitrary and foolish.

Unless you have a very clear, very specific line you want drawn, I doubt you want to promote society going down this road.

The line you've drawn in your initial statement bans fast food, smoking, drinking, premarital sex, bungee jumping, parachuting, etc. as "can be harmful" (adding easily avoidable, not required, and identifiable as harmful; as those are the requirements to try to get a law codified).

Oh shoot, I completely forgot about mental anguish (hence not just physical harm, but mental harm as well). I mean, if we're promoting "wellness" in the citizenry we'll need to care for their mental and spiritual well being too, no?

But I'll save that for later. This post is too long as is.

Posted by: GekkoBear at August 10, 2005 03:27 PM (X0NX1)

7 Harmful drugs are the same as cancer, smallpox, polio, etc: Get rid of them anyway you can.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 03:30 PM (CBNGy)

8 Oh wait a minute. Alcohol is potentially harmful. We should ban it.
Ooops didn't we try that already.

Posted by: Howie at August 10, 2005 03:42 PM (D3+20)

9 Hmm...I'll clarify my own position on this later tonight. Rusty, would you prefer a new post or an update to this one?

PS I'm very much for effective, mandatory treatment for drug users. It's pretty hard to get clean in prison. Fortunately that's mostly what we're doing.

Posted by: See-Dubya at August 10, 2005 04:17 PM (fUAK4)

10 I believe it is a matter of personal liberty.

This really is the meat of the issue, but if the personal liberties of everyone else must be diminished to unacceptable levels so that an individual can maximize his, this is not a fair trade off.

If the government in Amsterdam does not give its heroin junkies enough dope, they will commit crimes to get it.

I won't even get into the issues of what it could do to the productivity of the country as a whole and how that can affect our personal liberties in the long run.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 10, 2005 04:32 PM (jPCiN)

11 Governments should only ban things that causes citizens to
harm other citizens. Since most hard drugs causes the user to
turn to crime to get them, then they should be banned. Using
mary jane while driving should be, and I think most states, is
banned.

Posted by: Butch at August 10, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)

12 I have been witness to the evil of Methamphetamine. I rejoice in every arrest, every lab bust, every conviction. It is cheap and even if made non-illegal, which is marginally different from being legal, it will be evil. Meth destroys humanity. Meth users should lose everything and everyone around them, and be isolated to remote islands with no hope for return. Meth producers should be shot on site.

Posted by: kstumpf at August 10, 2005 05:12 PM (Kv4B9)

13 Butch:
that's the same sort of vagueness that would allow the government to disarm citizens, with the reason that "guns" harm other citizens.
no thanks.

Posted by: dave at August 10, 2005 05:38 PM (DO6vD)

14 Hmmm... does all this mean your pro-choice?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 02:22 AM (REz6/)

15 "The Libertarians I hang around with try to pretend that drugs aren't all that bad. The usual drug that is called not bad is Marijuana. Marijuana is not bad, it--and by inference other drugs--ought to be legalized."

Sounds like you don't know any libertarians, only libertines. Many libertarians hold the same view you do--i.e., legalize it, but when you do I'm still not touching it.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at August 11, 2005 08:26 AM (IsoyY)

16 Very good distinction, Unabrewer. One that I am aware of. But, seriously, if you've ever been to a Libertarian event you'll meet a whole lot of libertines.

Prof,
No. But that is because abortion is wrong because it kills a child. Homicide is not a valid choice under any libertarian definition. Unless you believe a baby in the womb is just an appendage of a woman--like a mole-then there is no moral justification for it. The real disagreement is the point at which a fetus becomes 'human' and the epistemology of 'life'.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 10:50 AM (JQjhA)

17 Good argument about legalizing drugs from a liberty point of view.

However, however tough it is to get drugs legalized, how much tougher do you think it will be to pass the laws that put the cost of the consequences on the actor instead of on society?
Crazy sex is already okay. You win, so to speak, there. AIDS funding is never going to be sufficient--ask the advocates--no matter how much it is. And you can talk, if you wish, about putting the costs of AIDS on actors, but you'll have a hard time, a really hard time, getting the costs off you and other taxpayers and on to the actors.
Compared to that, or to rehab, getting drugs legalized is going to be a slam dunk. Not that it's easy, but telling people, you pissed in it, you drink it, is NOT going to happen.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at August 11, 2005 01:12 PM (tuope)

18 Unabrewer is right, and Rusty, your answer was unsatisfying.

The first sentence of your post was "Every one that I admire is wrong about the drug war. And I mean every one."

Could it really be true that you don't know or admire any libertarians that aren't libertines?

Well, you know one now!

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 01:27 PM (XB4NN)

19 While I agree with your viewpoint, as a nation, we and our governments are as addicted to the drug war as the addicts are to their drugs. Many police departments would lose much of their federal funding and half to layoff significant numbers of officers.

The war on drugs is an employment program for thousands of Americans with no other saleable skills.

Posted by: Timothy at August 11, 2005 01:30 PM (H+TEN)

20 I have a really novel theory about drugs.

People take pain relievers to relieve pain. Who knew?

Addiction or Self Medication?
Heroin
Genetic Discrimination
A test for PTSD

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:32 PM (PRJ2z)

21 Drug prohibition is Republican Socialism. A price support mechanism for criminals.

Any one learn anything from alcohol prohibition? Any one at all?

Tell me what the #1 date rape drug in America is?

I'll give you a clue. It is legal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:35 PM (PRJ2z)

22 Dr Rusty --

If, by "like," you mean "am opposed to laws prohibiting use of" then I agree with your characterization of the Dem, Libertarian, and Rep, points of view.

The reason I say this is, I have actually *never* used any illegal drugs (and I'm in my late 30's), but I'm still against laws prohibiting use thereof.

Posted by: Me at August 11, 2005 01:37 PM (BL/U4)

23 I want a calling from the some resident Llama: is it an Instalanche whene some rental punk brings the funk?

I stand athawart the Sitemeter and say "NAY!"

(how's that..."athwart"...)

You owe me a dollar.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:39 PM (kiH79)

24 And good sweet Jeebus must be crying, for these new colors, just, like, teh suck.

You twirp adjunct.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:41 PM (kiH79)

25 Fatwa this!

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at August 11, 2005 01:45 PM (kiH79)

26 If people take pain relievers to relieve pain then the way to reduce the consequences of drug use is to relieve the people's fookin pain.

How hard can it be?

Almost every thing most people believe about drugs including the site owner is rank superstition.

Drug use does not respond well to the usual enticements (i.e. demand is inelastic) because people in pain do not like giving up their pain relievers.

Of course this directly contradicts the voodoo theory of addiction: drugs are the devil's spawn and they cause addiction. They get an evil hold on some people (why not all people - well you know - some people are more moral than others) and do not let go. I call this the Stupid Design theory of addiction.

Wait, wasn't this what people of another era used to say about alcohol. Talk about recycling. Well, never mind.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:49 PM (PRJ2z)

27 Shouldn't the government be obligated to outlaw things which can be helpful to its citizenry?

Like pain relievers for instance?

Aspirin is the direct cause of 500 to 1,000 American deaths a year. Yet children can buy it.

It is an outrage.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 01:57 PM (PRJ2z)

28 The one part of the problem that you are neglecting to address is that drugs are physiologically addictive, whereas other self-harming behavior is not. And things that are physiologically addictive are not a matter of choice-they are a matter of physical obligation. You are right; I don't care if someone else doesn't feel like getting up and going to work (i.e. doesn't choose to get up and go to work). But it would be different if something removed that individual's choice to get up and go to work (sickness, mental illness, physical incapacity, drug addiction). I, for instance, would be opposed to allowing the physically and mentally handicapped to starve to death simply because they don't choose to go to work. Libertarians may feel differently.

So without choice, your libertarian hands off approach doesn't work. And yes, we have a tough time defining 'choice' (i.e. do people really 'choose' to eat to much? Should fast food be illegal? Alcohol?). On the margins, its tough to really define 'choice.'
But outside of the margins, its not. If a healthy kid doesn't go to work and claims its because he doesn't want to, I'm comfortable accusing him of 'choice' and not being willing to fund his lifestyle 'choice.' At the other end, a heroin addict's 'choice' has been taken away from him. One way to stop this from happening is to just really really try to convince people not to try (and become addicted to) heroin, and then sell it anyway. Another way is to make heroin illegal. And our (my) society would be better without a whole lot of individuals addicted to heroin than with them.

Steve

Posted by: Steve at August 11, 2005 02:09 PM (R+XcO)

29 You know meth is given to military pilots to enhance their performance.

I would revel in seeing those guys busted like the common criminals they are.

Besides prescribing the stuff interferes with the black market. See the recent Supreme Court decision in the Raich case for further details.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:13 PM (PRJ2z)

30 Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior.

They are probably right that there is a correlation between drug use and criminal behavior.

However, and repeat after me whenever you feel these regulatory urges coming on - "correlation is not causation." Any number of things could be causing the correlation, and I doubt very much that it is the psychotropic effects of whatever these people are ingesting.

It could be that criminals have a lot of contact with the black market where drugs are sold. If this is a factor, then outlawing drugs actually contributes to their use by criminals.

Dr. Shackleford, I think your average libertarian doesn't really believe drugs are harmless in all cases. Rather, they look at the drugs that society manages to tolerate (alcohol and tobacco), and conclude that many of your softer drugs, at least (pot being Exhibit A) are far less harmful than these.

Posted by: R C Dean at August 11, 2005 02:18 PM (ifq/U)

31 Steve,

Physiological addiction is not a problem. Detox fixes that.

The problem is that even after detox some people return to their drug habit.

My theory: detox does not fix the pain. Only fixing the pain eliminates the desire for drugs.

Well I guess Steve has brought us back to another devil theory of drugs. i.e. addicts are out of control.

BTW Steve did you know that according to Dr. Lonnie Shavelson 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually abused as children?

Perhaps instead of a war on drugs we need a war on child abuse? What are the odds of that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (PRJ2z)

32 I was with the article right up to here:
"If you knock some strange chick up in a moment of ecstasy inspired passion, it's your problem. I don't want to send you to jail, I don't want to send you to rehab, I'm not going to say that what you are doing is okay- it's not okay. It's just not my problem."

I think it is your problem, my problem, everybody's problem. It's just not a problem that should be solved via coercive taxation and the legal system. This is the essential distinction between the libertarian who believes in voluntary solutions to societal problems and the atomistic radical individualist who doesn't, in practice, acknowledge that society exists and it solves problems whether or not the government gets involved.

Government shouldn't get involved because government solutions to the problem have been demonstrated (over many years and many destroyed lives) to be very bad for this class of problems. We need experimentation and innovation to find better solutions, not a regression to some primeval state which never worked in the first place.

Posted by: TM Lutas at August 11, 2005 02:20 PM (z/jms)

33 "But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers." So, why argue?"

There will always be murders...so why have anti-murder laws? Bad argument there, Kurt, and an extremely poor rationale for drug legalization.

Really the argument comes down to this:

Personal liberty is a good thing and we should have lots of it. But with liberty comes responsibility. Drug use makes it impossible to exercise that responsibility. Thus, drug use should be illegal.

Alcohol as the counter-argument? Alcohol is a weak drug (as available for purchase, anyways), and overconsumption can be punishable by law in several different ways. Other weak drugs are legal as well. Caffeine, nicotine. Nearly every narcotic drug by comparison gives its effects in a single dose.

So no, there's really no good argument for drug legalization.

Posted by: Mike M at August 11, 2005 02:21 PM (vtiE6)

34 According to the US Justice Department the only drug that is known to be correlated with criminal behavior is - TADA - alcohol.

We are going after the wrong drug!

Ha Ha Ha.

Drugs and Violence. Let me quote:

“The stereotype is of the drug-crazed criminal,” said Robert Nash Parker, the lead investigator on the project. “The reality is something quite different.”

Parker, a professor of sociology, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on drugs, alcohol and violence. He said a survey of crime victims showed that more than one fourth of the assailants in violent crimes were reported by the victims to be under the influence of alcohol while fewer than 10 percent were under the influence of an illegal drug. The Presley Center study found that in cases of homicide, alcohol is “overwhelmingly” the drug most frequently mentioned.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:36 PM (PRJ2z)

35 !!Rock n Roll!!
There is a good argument for drug legalization!
This joints for you Mike M!

Posted by: gijoe at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (aja61)

36 Great post, you nailed it.

Thanks for sharing.

And thanks again for the Saddam torture post. That's a classic.

Posted by: TallDave at August 11, 2005 02:37 PM (+zD27)

37 I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home?

It is already well established in law that a person who commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol or other substance is still responsible for the crime (unless it can be shown that the person took that intoxicant without their knowledge or permission).

This is not to say that I think drugs are safe, or a good idea. I personally have never used drugs and don't intend to. But for me to decide that another person should be jailed for the mere act of ingesting cocaine is immoral, because it infringes on their individual liberty. Their ingestion of cocaine, in and of itself, harms only them. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant.

Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable.

Purity and potency uncertainties only add to the risks of using drugs. Someone taking cocaine cannot be totally certain whether it's been cut with LSD (which alters the nature of the trip and makes it more dangerous), or baby powder (which alters its potency and makes taking a predictable dose impossible, thus making overdose more likely), or whatever.

People should have the free choice to engage in this sort of vice, and the quality of the product should be reliable. I like margaritas, and I drink socially on occasion. I know that the alcohol I buy is exactly what it claims to be and will not contain wood alcohol, antifreeze, or any other contaminant that might increase the risk to my health. Drugs should have the same classification in our culture.

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 02:40 PM (Xi2ZE)

38 I have one question.

Can anybody point me to 1 instance in the history of man where a prohibition has worked and has not created a criminal underground to take advantage of it.

Just one.

Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome. Spend the money instead for treatment on demand. The ones that dont want treatment...well Darwin will prevail and if the drugs are available no one will get hurt except the one responsible for taking the drugs.

By the by I'm a somewhat conservative republican.

Posted by: GC at August 11, 2005 02:43 PM (oer0z)

39 Mike M.

Alcohol weak drug? If a new drug it would be a schedule II narcotic and only available to doctors in emergency cases where no other alternative can be found. Such as antifreeze poisoning.

Too much booze can render you unable to stand or walk this is called alcohol poisoning. And yes you can die from it. What usually happens is you are so passed out that you don't notice that you jsut thew up and you breath stomach acid into your lungs and drown in your own vomit. Pretty good stuff huh. Weak drug my ass it's the best and most powerful. Inject you a few ccs of everclear and then come nd tell me it's weak. Heck just kill a pint of old crow that shojld do it and if it don't you my friend are an alcoholic. Nothing liek some drunk acting like booze is water.

Posted by: Howie at August 11, 2005 02:44 PM (D3+20)

40 Mike M,

There really is no good argument for alcohol legalization. Or aspirin legalization for that matter.

Drugs Kill. M'Kay? Some kill more than others.

BTW There really is no good argument for food legalization. You eat too much it can kill you. Not to mention choking deaths. Food needs to be administered only under a doctor's supervision. Ever see a food addict? Truly disgusting.

In fact all nutrients should be administereed by IV under a doctors supervision. Let us eliminate those needless deaths. Especially of children.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 02:48 PM (PRJ2z)

41 hmmm...i see one problem with your position, Dr. Shackleford.
Meth labs? could it possibly become so cheap that that make-your-own equivalenced the legal market version? Meth labs poison their immediate environment, poison the kids of the lab owners or renters, poison the firemen or policemen called in to clean up, poison the neighbors. will you be able to get a "brewer's license" for making some quantity of meth for your own personal family consumption? will there be meth lab inspectors that insure that you are making it safely?

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 11, 2005 02:58 PM (JREvR)

42 GC,

Only 30 years?

National heroin prohibition has been in effect since 1914.

Over 90 years.

I guess we have not had enough experience with heroin prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.

Pot prohibition has been in effect since 1937 (with a short hiatus during WW2 - hemp rope and twine don't you know).

I guess we have not had enough experience with pot prohibition to draw any conclusions. Except that the penalties are still not stiff enough.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:02 PM (PRJ2z)

43 matoko,

We used to know what the answer to meth labs was.

The answer in the days when meth was legal were called drug stores. Ever hear of them? In those days no one ever heard of meth labs. I wonder why?

Capitalism may have had something to do with it. You know. Price and availability.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:06 PM (PRJ2z)

44 This thread is just great.

Superstition abounds.

Blaming drugs for the evils of drug prohibition.

Nothing new.

We used to blame alcohol for the evils of alcohol prohibition. Watch an episode of the "Untouchables" to get the flavor.

People are just as dumb as they ever were. Which is confirmation of Einstein's famoous dictum: The most abundant element in the universe is stupidity.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:11 PM (PRJ2z)

45 The best written work I ever read about drugs and the law was written by Gorge Jonas for Saturday Night Magazine in the early nineties. He basically made the very honest argument that drug use would rise if we legalised them and that this rise in use would increase costs to society in terms of more individuals battling addiction BUT that this price is well worth paying if you look at what we get in return in terms of personal responsibility, freedom from the state and the elimination of THE MAJOR SOURCE of REVENUE for criminals.

We would be better off both individually and collectively if we decriminalised drugs and regulated them through fines and civil court proceedings as opposed to criminal courts. Let the tort system deal with the issues drug use creates.

Unfortunately the DEA is a terrible vested interest and many Republican politicians are addicted to the power that the fear of drugs creates in parents. It is so easy to play the demagog when the voters reward you so.

Posted by: Northern Oberver at August 11, 2005 03:13 PM (L0dY/)

46 WRT Meth...

It's nasty stuff, but there's one thing that people don't consider. If high-grade cocaine and amphetamine were available at the drug store for a reasonable price (as they once were) who in hell would do Meth? Meth was invented as a result of the drug war. It would not EXIST if cleaner, better quality recreational drugs were legal. Using it as an example of why we should spend our LE and judicial resources on the "drug war" is truly missing the point.

Posted by: Barry at August 11, 2005 03:17 PM (lxp2D)

47 BTW any one know why cocaine was made illegal?

There were lots of scare stories in newspapers about cocainized black men raping white women.

In a word - racism.

Pot - that was all about cheap Mexican labor.

Opiates? cheap Chinese labor. Oh yeah - taking advantage of whie women under the influence.

Drug War History

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:19 PM (PRJ2z)

48 Drugs do not cause addiction (they can cause habituation).

Chronic pain causes chronic drug use.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:24 PM (PRJ2z)

49 "Ask any cop or judge or social worker and they will tell you that there is an absolute link between drug use and criminal behavior."

If drug use is a criminal act the link between drug use and criminal behaviour is 100%.

If drug use is not a criminal act then drug use related crime would fall by 100%.

Meantime, if you drive under the influence, abuse your children or rip off corner stores to support your habit I say, "Bring back the lash!"

Ahh, the lash.

Posted by: Flea at August 11, 2005 03:27 PM (/D/GV)

50 There is one ironclad rule about drugs. Kind of a Gresham's Law.

The harder the enforcement the harder the drugs. And the more direct the administration methods.

People inject heroin because it is too expensive to eat or snort.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:28 PM (PRJ2z)

51 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive. Some feel the carryover into harming society gives government to responsibility to become involved. Others disagree and have good arguments to support their disagreement. Such arguments, pro and con, are heard even in the issue of seatbelts and none have been conclusively superior to the others. One argument does support a measure of government regulation and that is that children, none of whom are always under their parents control, make bad decisions that can be very harmful. One such decision is to become addicted to drugs; a result that can easily last a lifetime.

Posted by: willis at August 11, 2005 03:31 PM (qJ2gx)

52 From 1920 to 1933 there was a direct correlation between alcohol and criminal behavior.

Since 1933 that correlation has been somewhat attenuated.

I wonder why?

Must be a change in diet or the water.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:34 PM (PRJ2z)

53 willis,

Drugs are destructive only if you believe that people relieving their pain chemically is destructive.

So do you favor outlawing aspirin which kills 500 to 1,000 Americans every year and can be bought over the counter by children?

BTW Bayer Heroin was for 20 years an over the counter drug. How did America survive?

Tincture of cannabis was in the pharmacopia for hundreds of years until 1937. Why didn't it destroy the country? Especially since there was nothing to prevent individuals from growing their own.

During the age of sail governments sometimes passed laws making people grow hemp. How did humanity survive it?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 03:41 PM (PRJ2z)

54 Oh, here comes the meth meme:here at last is the one true evil drug that will drag society down the toilet. Every ten years or so the professional drug warriors tout a new one: heroin in the fifties. pot and LSD in the sixties, cocaine in the seventies, crack in the eighties, and ecstasy in the nineties. Tobacco all the time. They even tried to stir up an early meth scare circa 1991; remember "ice"?

The propoganda piles up and suddenly everyone thinks they have a new idea. No wonder nose rings are so popular.

Posted by: Brett at August 11, 2005 04:15 PM (Iymzh)

55 M. Simon:

You talk so much, and persuade so little. How about producing some statistical evidence that "people only take drugs to relieve their pain," or abandon that monotonous assertion. Perhaps your definition of "pain" extends to "the agony of having to get out of bed and face the day working at a dead-end job because you chose not to learn marketable skills," in which I could see your point but am not persuaded.

Did anyone claim that the presence of hemp would destroy humanity? Where did that straw man come from?

While I personally support drug deregulation if coupled with the Left's abandonment of taxpayer funding of universal health care, you are starting to persuade me to reconsider. The worst side effect of whatever it is you're taking appears to be the loss of ability (if ever you had it) to construct rational, persuasive arguments in support of an easy-to-defend thesis.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (OWbi0)

56 I thought the Dutch had already tried this. All it has done is made the situation worse. Now they're backtracking.
Making All drugs legal, there is nothing to stop them from being used on the corner across from the neighbourhood school. Or in your next door neighbours house. The abuse of alcohol in this country is already a big problem, lets make drugs as easily accessable from the nearest convenient store.
So what will folks be arrested for when abusing driving, DUI for alcohol, will the charges for driving under the influence of drugs be the same?
Our society is abusive enough as it, let's not make it any easier for the pie holes to abuse it any faster or easier. You're talking about sliding down the toilet quicker than we're already going.

Posted by: quark2 at August 11, 2005 04:48 PM (hvepP)

57 The real problem for society with drug abuse/use is the problem that comes along with any other self-destructive behaviour: the direct costs to our over-coddling society. Put it another way, I will support the legalization of drugs right after you remove soceity's subsidization of the consequences of drug use (and other stupid or silly behaviour), meaning:

Get rid of Medicare!
No more welfare!
No subsidized housing!

Seriously, since I'm sure that libertarians are also against these programs, all they have to do is eliminate them and I will be with them 100% on the drug thing. The problem with our quasi-socialist society is that the gov't has a financial stake in your health and well being, which leads to even more stupid government over-reach, all in the name of protecting their "investment" in your carcass - the war on tobacco, helmet and seatbelt laws etc.

Posted by: holdfast at August 11, 2005 05:15 PM (jvO9O)

58 GC said:
Why is it we keep doing what hasnt worked in 30 years expecting a different outcome.

I believe that is, in fact, the popular definition of "stupid".

Posted by: Anne Haight at August 11, 2005 06:04 PM (Xi2ZE)

59 I'm agnostic on the drug legalisation/keep them illegal debate. I will say from personal experience that few law enforcement officers like the way the system, is set up now. Between the horrible waste of time involved in messing with small time users and the massive amount of money that is available for corrupting police, prosecutors and judges, all we know is that what we're doing isn't working. In the Dept I retired from, about the only way to get arrested for 'recreational' amounts was if we just wanted to pile another charge on someone because (s)he was an asshole. Other than that, if the bosses needed more dope busts, we'd make more dope busts. If, instead, they wanted us to crack down on red light runners, okay, fine. We did what kept the bosses off our asses, the bosses did what kept the County Commisioners and newspapers off theirs.
I'd like to point out, though, that the most effective drug treatment programs out there have exactly the same success rate as do the self-help groups, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. The self-help groups cost the taxpayer nothing.
Me? I have no answers. I just wish I were smart enough to be like the people on both sides of this argumant and who are absolutely sure that I were the one who is right.

Posted by: Peter at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (ywZa8)

60 And is alchohol a drug?

Everybody must believe in something and I believe I'll have another drink.

Posted by: blackminorca at August 11, 2005 07:31 PM (ywZa8)

61 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!?

You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes.

In the name of Liberty(tm) and Freedom(tm) you would deny the most basic freedoms to people and communities everywhere - to affect the nature of the towns and cities they live in. Do you think that every-Mom and every-Pop will feel free and liberated when criminal scum are selling drugs to the every-Kids on every street corner in every-Town without fear of sanction. (not to mention all the porn and other miseries you'd inflict on us, our fraught struggling families and our delicate and vulnerable kids. You'd sell us into slavery just as sure as the Commies would).

Genuinely smart conservatives know we live in an imperfect world; there are no perfect answers; there are no flawless political theories; and real freedom and liberty are a constant balancing act between the freedom of people acting as individuals to control their lives and the freedom of groups of people to influence their communities.

If drugs become accepted and assimilated into our lives and cultures then the people in their humble wisdom, via their representatives, can vote to make them legal or not on a case-by-case basis. Many communities may be reaching this point as regards Marijuana, and indeed the case could well be made that the Federal Gov't should butt out and leave this all to the states (even here in Australia from whence I write).

But I think the grand Libertarian Theory-Of-Everything can safely be chucked in the trash can marked 'failed political theories of the 20th Century'.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 09:31 PM (rqQ22)

62 I don't think anyone has a good answer to the question of how much government interference in personal behaviour is acceptable. Drugs are destructive to the individual and society, but individuals have a right to be self-destructive.

I think you just answered you own assertion. "Individuals have a right to be self-destructive," and--and this is big, folks, so don't miss it--their problem is not my problem. They're the ones responsible, right? Leave it up to them.

With regard to drug-related crime, it is almost all related to the problem of getting drugs in the first place--stealing, fencing, even an occasional murder is the result. After all, drugs are heinously expensive (being illegal and all).

What, on the other hand, is the violence caused by using drugs? If you're speaking of alcohol, the damage is vast. But if you're speaking of heroin, well--you can have a well-behaved heroin addict working in your store, helping customers and all, and never know it. As long as he gets his hit today (to prevent the awful consequences of withdrawal) he'll be perfectly fine.

One the third hand (?--I've lost count) what about the chronic pain patient who can't get the drugs he needs because his doctors are all scared spitless of the DEA and won't prescribe? Well, they suffer needlessly. And those fortunate few who do get the meds they need for chronic pain are incredibly grateful. As long as they take them as prescribed there will be no problems at all, although if a patient makes a mistake and does not refill his meds when due, he may discover that he is indeed physically dependent on them. But that's a small price to pay. Believe me. I'm that patient.

The drug war creates crime unecessarily due to the high price of illegal substances, and people will steal and sometimes kill to get them. It also artificially inflates the price of the product, further spurring crime. The drug war makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a chronic pain paatient to get what he needs. And what good does it do? Next to nothing.

Ending the drug war, on the other hand, ends the artificially high prices caused by the war and therefore ends the crime. Period. And perhaps more importantly, doctors are free to prescribe whatever they think is appropriate for their patients, DEA be hanged.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:02 PM (XB4NN)

63 Um, your position IS the libertarian position.

Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party has been overtaken by druggies, pacifists, libertines, and hedonists.

But you shouldn't confuse the two. Your position is exactly libertarian.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at August 11, 2005 10:08 PM (ru0sP)

64 What is it about you super geniuses that makes you so darn dumb!?

You libertarians are just like socialists really, in as much as you think your marvellous theories combined with your massive intellects can find the answers to everything, regardless of the evidence of your eyes.

To quote Heinlein, "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." You can forget all other labels--this summarizes it all. We libertarians fall into the latter category. And we're not nearly as arrogant as you seem to think.

And it's the evidence of our eyes that convinces us, day by day, of the validity of our professions.

Posted by: Obi-Wan at August 11, 2005 10:13 PM (XB4NN)

65 In order for government to be "moral" it must stand by to allow people to become addicted, because during those first stages of addiction, they are still able to satisfy the libertarian ideal?

You have a problem with the government intervening to stop a 23-year-old mother from taking meth once a week so long as she can keep changing her baby's diapers?

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at August 11, 2005 11:23 PM (4BysG)

66 Fair go, American mates!

I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything. Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government?

It's particularly galling because, with your close association with conservatives, you know that old-fashioned out-dated, trial-and-error, muddle-through conservatism produces vastly superior outcomes, but it just isn't gosh-darned 'elegant' enough for you! (isn't that right?)

I've seen the effect of hard drugs on friends and loved ones. I'm old enough to have known a time when law enforcement was much stricter. Your theories sound enchanting, that's the most hateful thing of all. God protect us from yet another great sounding but viciously destructive socio-political theory.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 11, 2005 11:46 PM (rqQ22)

67 Daryl Herbert,

What if there is no such thing as addiction?

What if it is just people in pain taking pain relievers?

Addiction or Self Medication?

The idea of "addiction" is superstition.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:48 PM (X4/+i)

68 In this new world of legalized drugs, who do you see as the manufacturers? Who will take on the responsibility of producing a product that meets government standards for safety? Oh, you say there won't be standards?

Then mark off 'safer' drugs as an argument for legalization.

What will the cost of drugs be when you factor in liability insurance for the manufacturer? No liabilty, you say? I've got a million hungry lawyers that beg to differ. Sounds like criminal elements and Joe down the street likely will remain the major producers of drugs.

So much for putting the drug cartels out of work.

Buy them at the local 7-Eleven? Another million lawyers waiting to pin liability on anyone selling a dangerous product.

So much for putting the drug dealers out of business.

With all recreational drugs now legal, what about the FDA and prescription drugs? Why should there be laws requiring prescriptions? If those laws stay in place, just classify your miracle cure as a recreational drug and you are in business. Just need a slick commercial and a Swiss Bank account and you are set.

Welcome to the wild wild west of medical quackery, brought to you courtesy of drug legalization.

As others in this thread have stated, as long as we are a nanny state, personal responsibilty when it comes to drugs is a myth.

So much for your drug use only being your problem.

I don't believe for a second that our current system is perfect, or even good. I am open to debate.

I would appreciate those suggesting this major change provide a bit more substantive arguments that look a bit more deeply at just how society would change if drug legalization occurs.

Posted by: FRNM at August 11, 2005 11:54 PM (Pkcb7)

69 Kip,

The idea of "addiction" is superstition.

Heroin
Genetic Discrimination

It is you "drugs cause addiction" folks who are doing the ugly experiment.

Think logically. What would you expect to happen if the problem was your keeping people in pain from their pain relievers?

Most people who try drugs do not get "addicted". How does your theory of drugs explain that?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 11, 2005 11:59 PM (X4/+i)

70 FRNM,

I'm with you. Nothing can be done. We will need to keep the criminal subsidy (prohibition) in place forever.

We just need to accept the 2,000 innocents a year killed in turf wars.

I also note that legalizing alcohol in 1933 is a complete failure.

How To Put an End to Drug Users

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:10 AM (X4/+i)

71 Kip,

I don't know what it is about super geniuses.

I do know that folks like you are in thrall to a superstition: "drugs cause addiction".

OK. So tell me about food addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, gambling addicts, etc.

Genetic Discrimination
Big Mac - heroin attack

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:16 AM (X4/+i)

72 As it happens this debate is going on in my home state of Victoria (Australia) right now.

As best I can tell the argument goes like this.

"Our kids should have the right to experiment with 'party' drugs, because they tell us it's fun and to deny our precious darlings the right to any indulgence would be grossly unsophisticated, besides we like the odd snort ourselves, anyway the percentage of them who are harmed by drugs is way under half, and we can afford expensive rehab for those few anyway, and the worst thing of all would be for our kids to get criminal records (yeek, how lower class). Apparently there are 'other' kids in 'other' suburbs who don't know how to handle hard drugs, but we don't move in those circles, and we could hardly draft laws on the basis of what's best for people of that sort or we might find ourselves back in the stone age, or the 1950s (whichever came first).

"Some neaderthals also seem to think it would lead to an increase in criminal activity, but they don't seem to understand the pure logic that when nothing is illegal, no crime can take place, hence abolishing these laws would be a significant step towards a completely crime free society."

- signed, a bunch of rich lawyers and academics.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:25 AM (rqQ22)

73 holdfast,

What if drug use is not self destructive behavior?

What if it is just a matter of people in pain taking pain relievers?

Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains?
Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs
PTSD Pot Alcohol & Substance Abuse
Aftermath
Police and PTSD
The Pain Enforcement Administration

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:29 AM (X4/+i)

74 kip,

So tell me: what causes addiction?

Without an answer to that question trying to solve the problem is impossible.

When I design an object without the knowledge of what causes stress failue, I rarely get the design right. It is too heavy or too light.

So how can you control the drug problem without knowledge of what the real problem is? What I see is similar to how the Black Plague was dealt with in the Middle Ages. People in masks going around trying to scare off the problem.

Voodoo.

We have used the "drugs cause addiction" model to formulate policy for over 100 years. We are not meeting with any significant success.

Perhaps the model is wrong.

If it is chronic pain that causes chronic drug use then it is the prohibitionist who is the criminal.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 12:40 AM (X4/+i)

75 I can accept (from the modest amount I've read), that your Federal Gov't has greatly overstepped its powers as regards drug enforcement (and a great many other things by many accounts), and I do think doctors should be left more or less unmolested to prescribe as they see fit without fear of criminal prosecution (except in the most extreme cases, eg. where someone has died) - loss of license would be punishment enough for most unethical behaviour.

But when you start playing with semantics, comparing Big Mac 'addiction' to Heroin addiction, and trying to define real problems away - problems that are not just words, that are heart-breaking and disgusting realities I have seen with my own eyes - well, sorry to say it, it makes you sound like a socialist. They play these kind of word games all the time you know, I'm long past being fooled by them.

When a word doesn't exist - eg. it gets debased or defined away - the problem doesn't go away. You just make us invent another term to describe it and we end up on the same merrygoround the PC-word-ists have been annoying us with these last 30+ years.

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 12:50 AM (rqQ22)

76 Jonathan,

You ask for evidence. I have presented links to articles which have many links to the evidence. The evidence is not statistical. It is medical.

This kind of trauma coupled with that kind of genetics causes the implantation of pain/fear memories which are relieved by drug use.

I can tell you the main organ in the brain involved: the amygdala. I can tell you that the CB1 receptor is part of it. I can tell you about endorphin receptors. I can link the various "kinds" of addiction to the same brain chemical pathways. I can tell you how to predict who is susceptable to long term addiction problems. I can tell you how to predict who will "get over it". I can tell you why 20% of the folks returning from Iraq will have long term PTSD problems. I can tell you why for 80% the problem will be short lived. I can even show (in a general way) why 5% of those with long term problems will "get over it" every year without intervention. I can even show why "drug rehhab" as currently practiced is just for show.

Much better than statistical evidence.

However, as is evidenced by your comment you have read none of it.

I'm sorry, under those circumstances, there is nothing I can do to help.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:00 AM (X4/+i)

77 Kip Watson,

Have you read the "Big Mac" article?

I show how food, sex, exercise, and heroin fill the endorphin receptors.

In other words I have a unified theory of addiction.

I'd like to see some rational counter claim instead of just an exclamation: "it can't possibly be so".

However, that is exactly what superstition is. The substitution of belief for evidence. I have evidence.

What have you got?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:09 AM (X4/+i)

78 Kip,

I am not redefining addiction. I'm dealing with specific organs, chemicals, and receptors. i.e. science.

I have showed you my science. Please show me yours.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:17 AM (X4/+i)

79 I have shown in my articles that PTSD is the #1 cause of what is commonly refered to as "addiction". i.e. people with severe pain/fear memories take drugs for relief.

So far the only counter to that assertion is the "drugs cause addiction" model.

Of the two models which is the more predictive?

If dugs cause addiction why doesn't every one who tries drugs get addicted? My model answers that question. The "drugs cause addiction" model can't answer that question except to talk about "addictive personalities". What is an addictive personality? What traits do such personalities have in common? The "drugs cause addiction" folks have no answer to that question. I know. I have asked professionals in the field. Lots of them. However, I'm willing to be educated.

Tell me what is an "addictive personality" and what traits such personalities have in common. And please. I do not want a theory that explains 50%, I want one that explains 100% as my theory does.

In the general population 20% have a genetic makeup that makes them susceptable to long term PTSD. Of that 20% about 1/2 get sufficient trauma to get a PTSD problem. Of vets returning from Iraq it seems that 100% of that 20% are getting sufficiently traumatized to cause long term problems.

This is not just academic for me. I want to understand the problem so we can deal with it. I want to look in the right direction so we can advance the science and either ease the pain or find a cure.

Read "Aftermath" and "Police and PTSD". That will give you a handle on causes.

Read "Addiction or Self Medication?", "Heroin", and "Genetic Discrimination" for some of the science.

Read "Big Mac...." for the unified theory of addiction.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:44 AM (X4/+i)

80 So much of the problem is moralized. It is not a moral problem in the way that is commonly understood. It isnot about lack of self control except in the most extreme sense.

If you were in a lot of pain and found something that gave you relief, how much self control would you have in relation to that something. In general, not a lot.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 01:58 AM (X4/+i)

81 Goodness me, Mr Simon, you really are the proof of the pudding!

- You dismiss the wisdom of generations of conservatives (going right back the Opium War) as 'superstition' because it doesn't jibe with the half omelette of scrambled facts you currently have on your plate. I must say, think that in itself proves the arrogance of those who believe they have pure scientific theory behind them. And isn't making major policy decisions based on a few medical trials or scientific theories exactly the 'petri dish' situation I described earlier?

- You present as momentous the obvious fact that many people are drawn into hard drug addiction from emotional or physical pain, as if that somehow makes the hell of addiction acceptable, or not even a problem. Difficult though such pain is, hard drug addiction in the medium or long term will do nothing but make things infinitely worse.

(although I will say that the unwillingness of many doctors to prescribe strong narcotics when warranted by severe pain is without doubt a contributing factor in some cases of addiction and does need to be addressed.)

- You hold fast to the belief that a tubby fellow who can't lay off tasty burgers is the exact twin of a tortured being whose life and soul are evaporating due to the horrible effects of hard drugs, simply because doctors can detect the same brain chemicals in both individuals. As if the plain truth, that stands before us in pain and beyond our means to help, is suddenly eclipsed by a few readings on a computer printout that may or may not mean anything at all.

Not wishing to be personal, I wonder if you are someone with the beginnings of a drug problem and one heck of a case of denial - if so, please open your eyes, sir, what awaits you is simply not worth it.

If not, you really are the living proof that only someone as smart as you clearly are could be so dumb!

Posted by: Kip Watson at August 12, 2005 02:00 AM (rqQ22)

82 Quark,

It is true the liberal Dutch have a problem. 17% of the Dutch folk have tried drugs in their lifetime.

In America we are doing much better. Only 40% of Americans have tried drugs.

We have been trying to explain it to the Dutch for years. They just don't get it.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:10 AM (X4/+i)

83 Kip,

There was a lot of "evidence" during the black plague that men in masks could ward off the plague. Every body believed that. Well enough to get them to pay people in masks to walk the streets.

So far you have presented no science.

I have. I have said that the endorphin receptor is the common thread between food, exercise, sex, and heroin addictions. You can actually falsify my data. Is that endorphin connection valid?

So far all I have seen from you is: "everybody knows", "it is common knowledge", and "history shows". That is what we call in science: superstition.

Where is your science?

What are the connections? What are the receptors? Where are they located? What is the genetics? What are the chemicals involved? How did the systems evolve? What are their origins? As we look deeper into the science those questions can be answered. Will "history shows" fill in any of those blanks?

What history shows is that the desire for drugs is pretty inelastic (i.e. even high penalties do not deter core users). Can you explain that? I can. I can explain it by science - no moral theory required.

My lack of a moral theory of drug use offends a lot of people. I think it is a medical question. Many seem to prefer it as a moral question.

To each his own I guess.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 12, 2005 02:32 AM (X4/+i)

84 "I have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, family, friends and neighbours as a petri dish for their delightful new scientific theory of society, freedom, life and everything." - Kip Watson

Hrmm. I kinda have a serious problem with people wanting to use my community, gamily, friends, and neighbors in their less-than-delightfully-old and never ending quest to prove that if you make something illegal, stamp your footsies and wish REAL HARD - you can really really make prohibiton work *this* time. Really you can.

Haven't we had enough decades of that arrogant and irresponsible form of government?

Posted by: Ironbear at August 12, 2005 07:14 AM (zR442)

85 back to meth...the only way other drugs will supplant it is if they are cheaper. government subsidized cocaine prices?
people will make their own if there is a profit.
and you still have to deal with the whole grow-your-own, make-your-own cottage industry if controlled substances are legalized.
i don't see a problem with grow-your-own cocoa or marijuana, but make-your-own meth is scary.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 12, 2005 10:24 AM (gNc4O)

86 Why are drugs illegal in the US? Is it because they alter the mind, and can influence one to make poor decisions? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol is legal. Is it because of the social cost? No. That cannot be it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. Is it because drugs are harmful to one's body? No, that cannot be it. Alchol and tobacco are legal. Can it be because of 'addiction'? No, that cannot be it. Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are legal. If you claim that drugs are illegal because of any of the reasons I've outlined, you should be crusading against alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine as well. I haven seen no evidence of that in this thread. If none of the reasons I've presented are 'the reason', what is?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:39 AM (deU1G)

87 Matoko:
Please inform me of the make-your-own cottage alcohol industry. Alcohol is far more cheaply and safely made in the home than meth is. Yet, there isn't a large black market in alcohol. Why not?

Posted by: p-dawg at August 12, 2005 10:43 AM (deU1G)

88 I won't even bother trying to respond to any specific comments posted above - not that I wouldn't like to, but there are too many to keep track of. So, you'll just have to be content with my own take on drug legalization... which is as follows:

It seems to me that America's drug war is at least as much about our cultural hang-ups over drugs as anything else. Several people here have commented on the absurdity of drug prohibition while alcohol is legal. Well, you can chalk that up entirely to a cultural/historical accident. Alcohol as a recreational drug has been part of the human experience since basically the dawn of mankind, and with the exception of Prohibition has generally been accepted as such by Western civilization, in spite of its well-documented legion of attendant social and medical ills.* Marijuana and other rec drugs, on the other hand, are relative Johnny-come-latelies to the rec drug scene, and have therefore proven much easier for drug warriors to demonize, even though they may or may not actually be more harmful than alcohol - hence the aforementioned cultural hang-ups.

The same hang-ups, of course, work against any effort to legalize these drugs, even for medical purposes such as with marijuana. Even if it became generally accepted tomorrow that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, that would likely not be enough to satisfy most cultural conservatives who simply cannot get past their hang-ups about the "wacky weed". Most would presumably favor promoting medical alternatives to cannabis instead, or at the very least alternative methods of ingesting the active ingredients in cannabis other than rolling it up as a joint and smoking it.

Of course none of this even covers the larger Puritan, anti-hedonistic streak of American culture that isn't even that comfortable with the idea of legal alcohol**, much less a whole smorgasbord of legal rec drugs made generally available (not to mention stuff like legalized sodomy, pornography, gambling etc. which are already here but beyond the scope of this discussion).

The upshot of all this is quite simple: The day mainstream American culture gets over its hang-ups about drugs that are presently illegal is the day when drug prohibition is doomed - and not a day sooner.

*Indeed, I might point out that alcohol, and only alcohol, has its American legal status enshrined in nothing less than the U.S. Constitution itself, specifically the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and explicitly makes alcohol regulation the purview of the states.

**Believe it or not, the Women's Christian Temperance Movement and other like-minded organizations do still exist in the U.S. today. There's even a minor political party called the Prohibition Party that not only wants to bring back alcohol prohibition but extend it to tobacco, gambling and such.

Posted by: Joshua at August 12, 2005 12:44 PM (5Xc3J)

89 Hmmmmm! Mention drugs and 89 responses.
Is this somehow reflective on our bloggers.

Matoko: We have meth labs all over the rivers down here. The popular way is on houseboats. Keep them moving no smell. The law comes dump evidence overboard. Apparently, they buy sudafed a cold medicine over the counter at Wal-Mart. Just send in several people and all go to different registers during busy hours. I used to have a liquid fertizer tank containing ammonium nitrate at the end of one of my pastures. The sheriff told me they caught teenagers stealing it one night and confessed that they were making crystal meth with it. I never knew it was missing.
Interesting what you can learn on the Jawa Report.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 12, 2005 10:12 PM (CBNGy)

90 I'm against restrictions on all drugs, including prescription meds. I'm in my early twenties and have never done drugs or even been offered any (sheltered upbringing...) but I was treated like some sort of slimy gutter junkie when I was practically dying of wisdom-tooth pain and tried to get my second vicodin prescription filled. It was terribly humiliating.

I'm an adult, and fully capable of making my own decisions. Neither my government nor my pharmacist has to save me from myself.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 01:42 AM (7OhrX)

91 M. Simon: Are you saying cocaine causes black men to rape white women but doesn't cause white men to rape black women. Ha, Ha. Just gets crazier and crazier around here.

Sarah two last names: When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind.

I use the drug alcohol. As everyone knows I am living proof that it affects your ability to spell.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 13, 2005 07:53 AM (8MCDk)

92 "When you are 40 and have children you will change your mind."

What, you mean when dementia sets in? Sure. Maybe I'll also become firmly convinced that I'm a duck.

Posted by: Sarah Brabazon-Biggar at August 13, 2005 09:30 AM (7OhrX)

93 Anne> I actually agree with Rusty 100% on this issue. If someone wants to get drunk in their own home, that's legal. So why isn't it legal to get stoned in your own home?
> ...
Anne> Legalization of drugs in the U.S. would, overnight, destroy the black market industry in trafficking them, and a good amount of the associated organized crime would vaporize. Drugs would become cheaper, and their quality would be consistent and reliable.

If you read Anne's post and did NOT IMMEDIATELY SEE the problem. then YOU are part of the problem. The problem of idiots who do not think.

Let me spell it out for the simpleminded. Legalizing pot has no effect whatsoever on the sale of harder drugs, the ones that do much more serious damage. Those gunshots that wake you up at 2 A.M.? Those shots aren't being fired by two cancer patients fighting over the last hit of 'medical' pot in the city, you moron!

And yet, idiot after idiot denounces the 'evil' of drug laws, while slyly talking only about the bad effects of pot, which are far less serious than most drugs. Show some honesty and tell us about how wonderful it would be to legalize the wonderful aspects of crack, you charlatins!

If you only want pot legalized, 90% of the arguments against drug laws are off limits to you, including violence, swelling jail populations, and all those other clever little tricks where you blame the laws for the actions of the lawbreakers.

Got it?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 13, 2005 11:24 PM (mcKoW)

94 Ryan Waxx,

About 70% of female heroin users were sexually molested as children. Give you a clue?

Drugs are a symptom.

So if as seems likely only people in extreme pain take pain killers (and cocaine IS a pain killer) then what is the problem?

Heroin

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:35 AM (9CsiD)

95 I'm 60, have children, and have changed my mind.

I used to believe in just pot legalization. Now I believe in legalizing all drugs and disbanding the DEA. Perhaps they could put the effort into counter terrorism say. Or tracking down pedophiles.

Why pedophiles get probation

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:42 AM (9CsiD)

96 greyrooster,

I didn't say that. Newspapers around 1910 said that.

It is the usual moral panic bit.

The next crack epidemic could be rock 'n roll. No wait, that has already been done to death.

Did you know meth use was in decline well before the latest round of scare stories?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 14, 2005 06:56 AM (9CsiD)

97 Sarah two names. If you allow or advocate the using of hard drugs around your children you will be a duck. Leader of a flock that runs around quacking all day.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:40 AM (CBNGy)

98 Lots of good info on this subject. It's Sunday. I'm in my own home. I will now indulge in my favorite drug. A beer on the porch with some friends. I know its against the law. I just can't help myself.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 14, 2005 10:52 AM (CBNGy)

99 M. Simon,

OK, I'll bite. If a fixed fraction of humanity gets more relief from their pain with illegal drugs than the rest of us, how come 40% of Americans have tried them but only 17% of Dutch?

Posted by: Jeremy at August 14, 2005 02:41 PM (uGQet)

100 Because being a consummate liar is a necessary prerequisite to getting a job at a poll company?

Posted by: Ryan Waxx at August 15, 2005 06:08 AM (taayn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My head just exploded.

I was joking about this here a while back. But John Tierney at the New York Times is serious.

Jeff Harrell is pretty hacked off, too. Don't go here if you mind the sailor-talk.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman, who actually studies this stuff, has more fact-filled (though less rhetorically satisfying) thrashing of Tierney's folly.

UPDATE II: Rusty responds in Why Everybody is Wrong About The Drug War

Posted by: seedubya at 11:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it just me, or is Eleanor Clift retarded? So let me get this straight: every single candidate that Markos 'Screw Them' Zuniga raises money for, including Paul Hackett, has lost, yet Eleanor Clift thinks that Kos is somehow an effective Democratic strategist?

Ok, maybe she's not retarded, but at a minimum she is the poster child of the partisan Washington media. Note in this Newsweek article, written by Clift, that the Washington Post sent no less than three reporters to swoon over Kos at a left-wing blogger forum (hat tip: Meme Random). That's right, three reporters! And to cover what? The fact that Kos endorsed a candidate that almost won in an off-year low-turnout election? The last time I checked, almost didn't count in politics. Hand grenades and horse-shoes, yes. Politics, no.

Here's how Clift describes serial loser Kos:

Leading the charge was Markos Moulitsas, founder of the progressive Daily Kos, which attracts hundreds of thousands of daily visits and is considered one of the most popular political blogs on the Internet. For Democrats desperate to find their way back to a winning coalition, Moulitsas, 33, has emerged as one of the most creative thinkers and activists in the progressive ranks. The Post team, along with reporters from other national publications and scores of political operatives, had come to get a glimpse of the future.

Moulitsas is opposed to the Iraq war but says that isn’t what drew him to Hackett.

“It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine … We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.”

I get the feeling it took every ounce of self-restraint Eleanor had to keep herself from throwing her panties on to the stage at Markos.

The boyishly slight Moulitsas responded with an engaging smile, saying that he wished he could claim he was a grand visionary and that his blog was part of a master plan to take over the world. He had no idea it would take off the way it has. It was his way of dealing with the angst he felt as an Army veteran who opposed the Iraq war at a time when any disagreement with President Bush was thought to be almost treasonous. Moulitsas is no stranger to war. He had spent part of his youth in El Salvador, his mother’s native land, during that country’s brutal civil war. Back home in Chicago, he enlisted in the Army at age 17 and spent two and a half years with an artillery unit in Germany. After college and law school, he ended up designing Web pages in San Francisco. He supported the bombing in Afghanistan but was so viscerally opposed to the invasion of Iraq that he was driving his wife and boss and cubicle mate crazy, he recalls. “It was either start a blog and just vent or lose my entire social circle,” he said. Pretty soon he had 100 online visitors, more than he could accommodate in his house, he remembers thinking. When he hit 1,000, he thought to himself, “I’m done,” but he kept going--and now he’s Moses leading Democrats to the promised land.

Hell, Benedict Arnold was a national hero. He was just 'anti-war' not 'anti-American'. He just wanted the war to end so that American soldiers could go back to their farms and not die for the neo-con vision of an American empire. Hell, George Washington didn't even supply his troops with enough shoes to last the winter. And that chickenhawk Thomas Jefferson didn't even volunteer his own sons for the war!

Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nuthouse notes that on the Markos has a reality quotient of 0.4. But who's more out of touch with reality: Kos or the left-wing Washington press corps fawning over him?

Others: Talk Left thinks the article is inspiring. Me too. I'm inspired to go out and buy a Tom Jones album.

MyDD plays down Kos role. Aw shucks, don't give me credit for Hacket losing.

Iowa Voice--right on the money. Bill Quick, too.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:33 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.

Punk's not dead, oh no! Hat tip Professor Chaos. Any other Jawa authors should feel free to post their results here. I have a feeling we're a regular Breakfast Club of bloggers.

More below the fold. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 5 kb.

Just in case you were listening, yes, that was me on Hugh Hewitt this afternoon. And, yes, I think their is a strong case to be made that pointing nuclear weapons at Mecca would be a rational deterrent to the forces of Islam using WMD against the United States. I made that point last year here and here.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:55 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

So I learn from Charles Johnson, who must have some sort of masochistic tendencies because he spends so much time reading Kos, that the asshole himself decides to compare the religious-right with the Taliban. This in response to Iowahawk's little funny here and Ted Rall's screed in which he calls Ward Churchill a patriot (he must mean patriotism in the same way that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were patriots). Idiotic on a scale I haven't seen since 8th grade debate. Hitler was a vegetarian, you are a vegetarian, therefore you're a lot like Hitler! Nice. Anyway, most of the lunatics on the Left who believe this stuff have must be slippery slope retarded, equating, for instance the religious-right's school voucher dreams to the madrassas run by the Taliban.

In the spirit of Kos' logic, I present to you the reasons why Kos and his Leftist friends have more in common with the enemy than they think.

Religious Practice
Al Qaida/Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
Kos Leftist Taliban: We tolerate you as long as you practice in private
The Right: Religion can be practiced anywhere, including public spaces

Religious Freedom
Al Qaida/Taliban: Forbidden in Koran
Kos Leftist Taliban: Forbidden in Constitution
The Right: Inherent part of Christianity

Church State Relations
Al Qaida/Taliban: The religion of the State is Islam
Kos Leftist Taliban: The religion of the State is Atheism
The Right: no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Equal Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Different punishments depending on sex
Kos Leftist Taliban: Different punishments depending on race
The Right: Equality before the law

Freedom of Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: No
Kos Leftist Taliban: Ok, as long as you, you know, don't offend anybody.
The Right: Ok, as long as you don't incite to violence or criminal acts

Terrorist States
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good
Kos Leftist Taliban: Not any worse than U.S.
The Right: The enemy

Terrorists
Al Qaida/Taliban: Freedom fighters for Allah and against Imperialism
Kos Leftist Taliban: Freedom fighters against U.S. Imperialism
The Right: The enemy

Religious Law
Al Qaida/Taliban: Koran and Sharia only source of law
Kos Leftist Taliban: Religious law is ok in other countries because it's their culture
The Right: Secular governments for all countries

Human Rights
Al Qaida/Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct
Kos Leftist Taliban: Human rights are a Western construct and only applicable to Western countries
The Right: Human rights are universal

Blame America
Al Qaida/Taliban: Blame America first
Kos Leftist Taliban: Blame America first, ask questions later
The Right: Give America benefit of doubt

Versions of Events
Al Qaida/Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
Kos Leftist Taliban: When facts are in dispute, believe terrorist version
The Right: When facts are in dispute, believe U.S. soldier's version

Torture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Good if we do it, bad if you do it
Kos Leftist Taliban: Bad if we do it--because we're the only ones that do it--oh, and every time you feel uncomfortable that's torture.
The Right: Bad, but most of what passes as torture is not actual torture.

One World Government
Al Qaida/Taliban: Support a one world government (caliphate)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Support one world government (UN)
The Right: Supports present nation-state system of sovereignty

Child Molestation
Al Qaida/Taliban: Ok, just marry her first (Aisha)
Kos Leftist Taliban: Hey, kids are sexual beings too
The Right: Immoral and disgusting

I guess two can play at this game, eh? Any other suggestions?

Update Pundit Mark ads

Religious Symbols:
Al Qaida/Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed (i.e. those Buddist statues in Afghanistan)
Kos Leftist Taliban: non-Islamic religious symbols must be destroyed and defaced, preferably with public funds.
The Right: All religious symbols are OK, even if displayed on public property like a park or courthouse.

Related from Ace.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:50 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 5 kb.

Seems San Francisco's "medical" marijuana clubs (hey, if everyone puts "War on Drugs" in smartass quotes then I can do it too) were actually just illegal drug clearing houses and money-laundering schemes for the Asian mob. The DEA busted three of them and found they were also distributing, um, "medical" ecstasy.

I'm flabbergasted. Speechless, really. You mean to tell me that this wasn't just a virtuous, earnest effort to reach out to troubled, anguished souls?

"An affidavit unsealed Thursday said that one of the suspects, Enrique Chan, 26, described in detail how the clubs were used as "a backbone" for illegal sales. The affidavit said Mr. Chan estimated that only half of the people who bought medical marijuana were really sick.

"You'll get busted, but you remember, you got to beat the prosecution in court," Mr. Chan told an undercover agent, according to the affidavit. "So if it comes down to a battle in court, what are you gonna do? You're going to bring patients in court, like really sick patients with cancer, have them sit on the stand for you. And no jury is gonna try, is gonna convict you."

In other words, organized crime is cynically going to hide behind cancer patients to protect its business. Not only was half of the marijuana used in the stores not for sick people, but the warehouses that grew the stores' ganja grew far more than the stores even needed:

"One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said.

The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said.

I am just shocked and appalled at this blatant disruption of these kindly hippie/ Tong bagmen's shiny, happy lifestyles. In fact I'm so shocked and appalled that I'm going to go have me a big glass of "medical" bourbon and smoke a "therapeutic" Partagas.

UPDATE: Now, with new Blockquotes (tm) Technology! Here's another thing to keep in mind. There's no suggestion here of how many of these people actually suffer from, say, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and are unresponsive to other treatments like marinol, which I think are the real hard cases here. In fact, this AP account suggests some of the ailments may be a smidge less horrific:

"I'm scared," said Kathleen Prevost, who said she uses marijuana to control her post-traumatic stress disorder. "All I want to do is have access to my medicine."

Now if you'll excuse me, my ADHD is acting up, and I need some "Medical Cocaine". Oh, and that reminds me: I wrote a little about medical methamphetamine and the Commerce Clause right after the Raich decision.

Posted by: seedubya at 04:12 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

Sometimes when I discuss my odd--for the blogosphere--opinions about drug legalization with people (I'm against it), I get told, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental economics."

For today, I'll save my several retorts to that in favor of an observation. Did you notice that no one ever says, on this issue or any other, "Dude, you clearly lack a basic grasp of fundamental sociology"? Why is that?

Anyway, this is just a prelude to a link to Captain Ed's spot on comments on that Hezbollah cocaine smuggling ring they busted in Ecuador and the US: "Snort Cocaine and Fund More Bombings".

Pretty much, yeah.

UPDATE: Rusty responds. One-two-three-four I declare a blog war! more...

Posted by: seedubya at 03:16 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1369 words, total size 9 kb.

Will somebody please punch Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas in the mouth? I'm not kidding (although I may be speaking in haste and out of anger). Some remarks are so disgusting that they are fighting words. Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States. Via my blogfather Charles Johnson over at LGF this from Markos Moulitsas Zunigas who has clearly gone beyond the pale:

The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command. And Dick Durbin had the balls to say it so on the Senate floor.

Almost all of the accusations of 'torture' are NOT REAL TORTURE. Instead, they are minor instances of harsh treatment--the kind of treatment you probably wouldn't want to be subjected to--but they aren't TORTURE.

There are some instances of abuse and perhaps even the occasional act of real torture, these, of course should be investigated. But to say that the occasional abuse is somehow equal to the institutionalized and routine torture of the Saddam Hussein regime is disgusting, immoral, and anti-American.

If even the worse accusations turn out to be true, which I do not believe for an instance they will be, they would be nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein routinely did and on hundreds of thousands of victims.

You, Kos, are a certifiable idiot whose blind partisanship is disgusting and unethical.

Warning: Graphic images follow. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:50 AM | Comments (194) | Add Comment
Post contains 679 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It reminds me of the old Liberal slogan:

Feed the terrorists, Starve the incapacitated.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 12:16 PM (8e/V4)

2 There is a real movement afoot to change the meaning of the word torture. We cannot allow it to happen, as it will end up hurting those poor souls in the world who actually do endure it. There is real torture going on in Cuba, but it is not occuring on US owned soil.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 12:19 PM (jPCiN)

3 Neither Kos nor Durbin give two shits in a flying rats ass about any of the Gitmo detainees. It's all about partisan politics, which makes it even more shameful than if they did believe what they're saying. The people of Illinois should seek to recall Durbin.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 16, 2005 12:21 PM (RHG+K)

4 Libs will just tell you that torture is part of their culture so, it is okay if they do it to eachother. What I don't understand is how libs can call stacking Iraqis Torture.

Loonie liberals is just be plain stupid

Posted by: ob snooks at June 16, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)

5 I think I will smack the piss out of a hippy today on the way home. Maybe I will key a Hybrid car too.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 12:49 PM (yBHNA)

6 Yep, this is the party that wants to lure us to their side. They do it through Howard Dean's insults, "Dick" Durbin's moral equivalencies, backing AI's comments, re-electing Boxer, Pelosi and Byrd for the sole purpose of their obstructionism, standing up for Ward Churchill, demeaning the intent and purpose of the Minutemen, etc.

Did I miss anything?

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 01:16 PM (fl6E1)

7 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 01:21 PM (0yYS2)

8 You all have missed the point! Kos is so right. I mean, don't you see the similarities? I will list them, just for your eduction:

Saddam used Abu Ghraib, and so do we!
Saddam imprisoned people, and so do we!
Saddam's guards has guns sometimes, and so do ours!
Saddam jailed many Muslims, and so do we!
Saddam killed a multitude of people in custody, and so... err, scratch that one.
Saddam had a mustache, and so do some of the people in our government!
Saddam's prisoners didn't like the fact that they were in prison, and neither do ours!

I just don't see how people can be so blind... duh!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 16, 2005 01:38 PM (Wsn+K)

9 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason.

Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough.

Posted by: Misha I at June 16, 2005 01:41 PM (t4bIp)

10 The treatment of these terrorists is outrageous, why this very week I heard they were using 'titty twisters' and 'chinese rope burns' on these poor terrorists, I certainly hope we can get these concentration camps closed down before they allow the use of 'wet willies'

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 01:42 PM (fsJ2z)

11 Partisanship over Principle. Now if i were to post those pics at the liberal message board I attend, they'd tell me that I was being harsh. Because they can't handle the truth. Only their truth. Unbelievable.

ps. your url form still wont take my homestead address, says its questionable. whats up with that?

Posted by: jm at June 16, 2005 01:46 PM (PfEpD)

12 jm,
Sorry, don't know what the problem is....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 01:50 PM (JQjhA)

13 Oh, and if you haven't clicked on that last link at the bottom of the post, I'd highly recommend it.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 02:00 PM (JQjhA)

14 It's a bird! it's a plane! No, it's...

The Liberal Avenger! Able to look bring chuckles to everyone everyone for spouting cliche-ridden nonsense!

How much money does the Democratic Party pay you, Junior?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:14 PM (x+5JB)

15 Markos Moulitsas 'Kos' Zunigas served in the US military? I never would have guessed that in a million years. Rusty: Do you have a link or prior post?

Posted by: Bob at June 16, 2005 02:20 PM (s6nMp)

16 No, but I saw him interviewed on C-SPAN awhile back. He uses it to level the accusation of 'chickenhawk' on all who support the war but who have not been in the military.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 02:23 PM (JQjhA)

17 Rusty,
next to each one of those photos, put up that photo of Private Englund holding the leash of the prisoner. And ask, "which picture would you rather be in?"

Posted by: rbj at June 16, 2005 02:28 PM (uW2T+)

18 "No, but I saw him interviewed on C-SPAN awhile back. He uses it to level the accusation of 'chickenhawk' on all who support the war but who have not been in the military."

Forgot the exact phrase for this logical fallacy. It's like saying you can't support a concept without experiencing it firsthand. Thus, a person could never support care for the elderly unless he or she were 65.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:35 PM (x+5JB)

19 Rusty, I did a post on this issue but your trackbacks aren't working. The post is here:

http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/06/daily_kos_final.html

Posted by: Richard at June 16, 2005 02:39 PM (xFeJi)

20 Torture is Torture

Above you said that some torture took place at AG.
It doesn't make any difference who the better torturer is. Torture is Torture and Torture should not be allowed.

Posted by: MJM at June 16, 2005 02:42 PM (gUdrU)

21 What we did in AG, was that not torture?

When someone mutilates themselves over the course of an "interigation" due to the environment of the "interigation" is that not torture?

Thanks to our own HISTORY of torture, we now have to face the fact that unless we are 100% open and transparent with our prisoners we WILL face criticisms justified or not that will be impossible to dissaude with "Trust us"

Remember...the day AG happened changed everything...blow it off as "frat-like" pranks...but some of them were Saddam worthy.

Posted by: Rob at June 16, 2005 02:43 PM (/9rfp)

22 They're going to keep on until they push someone to start doing something about their treason.

Tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough.

Posted by: Misha I at June 16, 2005 01:41 PM


It's treasonous to object to the government using my tax dollars for acts that will make my family less safe? Gosh, that's funny, and here I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. I didn't realize this was already a conservative dictatorship.

Someone's going to start doing something about our treason? Ohmigosh! This can only mean the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are going to have to blog about this the rest of the day! With no supper! Oh the humanity!

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 02:46 PM (eY2Ws)

23 This sounds a lot like the "dialogue" I had to endure circa 1970.

Kos was over the top, terrible, but there are real, substantive questions about our treatment of prisoners. Abu Ghraib happened. There are active investigations of prisoner deaths, not just one, I seem to recall 20 or so.

Now maybe you feel that all these prisoners deserve whatever they get. You are entitled to your opinion, and although I disagree I'm not interested in doing you bodily harm.

The substance here is the question of how we should treat these prisoners. Why isn't that discussed, as opposed to really useless rhetoric?

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 02:49 PM (hsrIx)

24 Conservative dictatorship? Wow - Gramma, I'm guessin' you haven't been to Canada lately to get your pills.

Posted by: Editor at June 16, 2005 02:50 PM (adpJH)

25 This must not be allowed to stand. Either the Democrats hold these clowns responsible or we hang it around their collective necks and make them the party of UBL.

This is the most disgusted I have been with the Democrats - they are a disgrace.

Posted by: Kate at June 16, 2005 02:51 PM (46XGB)

26 The looney avenger wrote:
"It is sick how you neocon fascists try to dodge the responsibility of Abu Ghraib and the US neoimperialistic and corporate abuse of democracy and social justice."

You forgot to add "running dog capitalists". Glorious Leaderâ„¢ says 10 point deduction.

"how much does Jawa get paid by PNAC and the GOP to post this?"

Glorious Leaderâ„¢ says 5 point deduction for failure to capitalise. (Ironic, huh?)

"where does his money come from?"

Duh, evil capitalists, of course. Glorious Leaderâ„¢ says 10 point deduction foir missing the obvious.

"You just a front for a crypto-fascist neoconservative cabal and an an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against "terrorism.""

Glorious Leader™ says 5 point deduction for dropping a word from the Evil White Oppressor® language. Nice scare quotes though, but it won't do you any good.

"We need to stop the hate and regulate these "warbloggers" - overthrow Bushco now!"

Glorious Leader™ says 20 point deduction for being soft. Instead of "regulate" you should have written "reeducate". Also, you made no mention of the plight of the oppressed gay transgendered indigenous ethnic minority dolphins or their struggle against the Evil White Oppressor®.

Your grade is a disloyal and counterrevolutionary 50 out of a possible 100. Disgraceful. You are almost a running-dog capitalist with such a performance! I bet you even have thought about getting a job! you disloyal wretch!
If you wish, you may appeal your grade to the Peoples'Glorious Struggle For Truth®. Your appeal must be worded only in adjectives, half of which must be directly taken from The Little Red Book© or the Communist Manifesto©. It must be written in your own blood, in triplicate. It won't help you though, we know what you've been up to. You may not use the ACLU to help file your appeal, and we will know if you do.
If you do not wish to appeal, you may simply sign a confession to being disloyal to the Partyâ„¢, and report for Reeducationâ„¢, which you will do anyway before it's over. Oh yes you will. Or you can just save us the paperwork and play Russian Roulette with a Partyâ„¢ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 02:52 PM (0yYS2)

27 Why doesnt someone steal this jack asses identity:

http://www.vialls.com/iraq/traitors.html

Posted by: Salamander at June 16, 2005 02:56 PM (V40IZ)

28 For the record, I didn't post that comment above purportedly from me.

It was Basil from Basil's blog.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at June 16, 2005 02:56 PM (kgBuS)

29 Kate, your threat is hollow. Most Democrats expect to labelled traitors nowadays. You just haven't caught up to current rhetoric.
I suggest that the next step would be to ban the party as traitorous. Haven't heard that one yet, but I expect someone will use it sooner or later.

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 02:57 PM (hsrIx)

30 Kos served in the Army as an artilleryman *during the run up to Desert Storm*. He signed up out of high school. His unit was preparing to be deployed, but then the Bush41 showed some restraint and didn't move the Coalition Forces into Baghdad.

As to his patriotism and such, Kos stated during an interview with a Boston University publication in 2003 that his near-deployment experience caused him to rethink the nature of his participation in the US Army (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it) and, besides, that he'd gotten the education benefits that he originally enlisted for anyway, so he got out. All of which is fine, so far as it goes.

My reaction, as a former enlisted man (4 years, 2 tours in Korea, mid-80s) is that Kos is rather an idiot for bringing up his military service.

Color me skeptical, Kos was a gunner, a 13-series guy, one who fired guns-that-go-BOOM!!!, and he somehow never quite figured out that the point of his training was to prepare him and his buddies to point that big piece hollowed out metal towards an enemy target.

So, for all his post-military education, his accomplishments as a musician, and the fact that Kos, per another interview, took a tango class in college to meet women I don't know that he's all that bright. But he did serve. In the Army.

As for my own military background, since this is the touchstone that Kos and former Delta Force Operative James Wolcott use in their 'chickenhawk' arguments, I was a Korean cryptologic translator in the mid-80s - soon after I got my training orders I figured out that somehow I would end up in Korea.

If Rusty needs one, I can email him a 'Serviceman-by-Proxy' which will grant him plenipotentiary powers to call Kos an idiot with the full blessing from a guy who served for a full year longer.

I even figured out which Korea I'd be stationed in.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 16, 2005 02:57 PM (F8Ixb)

31 Ok, let's try this:

Take a huge step back, forget about politics.
breath out.

And ask yourself: Is Torture ok?

If you say 'yes', please go ahead abd follow IM's advice:
play Russian Roulette with a Partyâ„¢ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol.

Posted by: MJM at June 16, 2005 02:58 PM (gUdrU)

32 Anyone who has their air condition on right now is torturing everyone in the building. Anyone listening to Top 40 is doing the same. Anyone who is a woman and not acting submissive is torturing the men in the room (as per the Koran). SHAME! SHAME!

Posted by: KILLYOURSELVES at June 16, 2005 03:04 PM (Gi7oA)

33 The difference is that Saddam is depraved, and a moral abomination, and we are a democratic example for the world to follow. Throwing this 'kos' guy aside, the US should not stand for the abuse of prisoners in our custody.

Another thing: the real perpetrators of 'moral equivalence' here are those suggesting that this is okay because US torture is not as bad as Baathist torture.

Bottom line: Saddam and his Baathist government tortured people and put down insurections brutally, sometimes using chemical weapons. Some US troops have abused prisoners. Some US troops, 'private contractors', and intelligence agents have tortured prisoners (sometimes to death). The first is awful, the second is awful, and the third is awful. All need to stop. How you 'rate' them is up to you.

Posted by: A.M. at June 16, 2005 03:10 PM (Du4Of)

34 Liberal Avenger, trying to weasel out of what he previously posted, wrote"
"For the record, I didn't post that comment above purportedly from me.

It was Basil from Basil's blog."

Tsk, tsk, tsk, comrade. We have your confession, don't try to blame another! You are not sufficiently loyal to the party and must be purged.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:16 PM (0yYS2)

35 Rusty:

Good fisk. The use of the "T-word" in reference to US practice at X-Ray amounts to the hystericism of wimps. I have a friend who was taken by US Military Intelligence and locked inside a 2x2x3 foot box for ten hours. While one might tend to regard such an experience as "torturous" (and it has been fatal on occasion) it was in fact only inflicted on volunteers. It was part of his training. Imagine being confined in the fetal position inside a dark and airless box for ten hours!

I don't think there's anything we do to "enemy combatants" that's, frankly, half as bad.

Which, by the way, suggests a strategy for dealing with interrogations that bypasses all of the hysterical nonsense, and gets right to the heart of the matter. The standard is simple. We are empowered to do anything to a detainee that an uncoerced member of our own services will volunteer to undergo.

That should put the weakling hystericism of people like Kos right out the door. And I can't think of any other straightforward standard that would settle the matter so completely.

More later...

Posted by: Demosophist at June 16, 2005 03:20 PM (FVRfJ)

36 MJM, your question is appropriate. But the problem is, many of the Bush Administration's most outspoken supporters will either refuse to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Or, they will flip-flop -- one day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim "well this isn't torture! we just don't engage in that sort of activity," and the next day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim, "torture? damn straight! and we'll do it again and again and again if it keeps us safe".

During the Presidential campaign last year, flip-flopping was seen as a bad thing by Bush supporters. But the times, they have a changed. (How convenient.)

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:20 PM (eY2Ws)

37 The "BUT IT WAS STILL WRONG, SO IT WAS THE AME" should try to answer this:

Is 5 less than 10?

200 less than 10,000?

Or are they the same?

Posted by: TPS Reporter at June 16, 2005 03:24 PM (Gi7oA)

38 MSM, in a pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the truth, wrote:
"Torture is Torture
Above you said that some torture took place at AG.
It doesn't make any difference who the better torturer is. Torture is Torture and Torture should not be allowed."

Of course, it's not worth mentioning when it's done by anyone other than Americans. Torture is fine in Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, etc., but if an American discomfits a terrorist in any way, it's heinous and brutal.

...and in another post:
"Ok, let's try this:
Take a huge step back, forget about politics.
breath out.
And ask yourself: Is Torture ok?
If you say 'yes', please go ahead abd follow IM's advice:
play Russian Roulette with a Partyâ„¢ issued Makarov 9mm automatic pistol."

In which case, I advise all liberals to kill themselves. Now. Liberals have always condoned torture by Communist and Islamic regimes by either excusing it or ignoring it.

You liberals are all monumental;y treasonous pieces of shit and should all be purged in the style of your beloved "Uncle Joe" Stalin. A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:25 PM (0yYS2)

39 "I think I will smack the piss out of a hippy today on the way home. Maybe I will key a Hybrid car too."

Filthy Allah: I don't care what you do to hippies, commies, kosacks and other members of the deranged left. But if you key MY Hybrid (the one with the USAF sticker and Blue Service Star decals) I'll put a big hole in you with my Python and smack the piss out of your lifeless body!

Oh, and I hope Durbin finds himself in a real gulag in his next life.

Posted by: Don Miguel at June 16, 2005 03:26 PM (+KixN)

40 Oh Jeeze - Assless Chaps gave you a link and didn't even have the courtesy to trackback? Not that there's anything wrong with that *cough**cough*.

Posted by: Editor at June 16, 2005 03:29 PM (adpJH)

41 Let me remind liberal readers that almost nothing that is being claimed as 'torture' by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other organizations is actually torture. It may be 'like' torture or might be an 'abuse', but it certainly isn't torture.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 03:30 PM (JQjhA)

42 So kos was in the Army eh? He volunteered to join, almost got deployed, and suddenly became a pacifist. There is a word for that; it's coward. I went to Desert Storm, and I saw quite a few guys crying about "I didn't sign up to go to war" crap. What did they join for? I'll tell you, they joined because they wanted to get the benefits, but without having to do more than absolutely necessary to earn them. Kos is a gutless, spineless, simpering coward, and he hates the military because he hates himself for being too chickenshit to do what real soldiers do. If he ever grows some balls, he should have the decency to stick a gun in his mouth, though at the rate he's going, somebody else will probably do it for him. Not soon enough either.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:31 PM (0yYS2)

43 These Libs whining about "torture" are just trying to legislate morality. I hate when Libs do that.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 03:35 PM (8e/V4)

44 Rusty: semantics don't help if people in our custody died due to mistreatment. "Abused to death"?

Posted by: SLE at June 16, 2005 03:40 PM (hsrIx)

45 Excellent site here. I especially enjoy the fact that commenters here to stick to facts and issues without resorting to openly fantasizing about liberals being harmed, tortured or killed.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:43 PM (eY2Ws)

46 >>>"Or, they will flip-flop -- one day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim "well this isn't torture! we just don't engage in that sort of activity," and the next day they will pound the table and loudly proclaim, "torture? damn straight! and we'll do it again and again and again if it keeps us safe".

Gramma, MJM,

I'm a conservative that's ok with torture, AND who does not think we've used torture at Gitmo or Abu Graib. Was that too complicated for you? or was I "flopping"?

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 03:43 PM (8e/V4)

47 BumperStickerist:

98G?

I was a 98G, A/102ndMI 88-90, myself.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 03:46 PM (zShs1)

48 Libs just make shit up and throw it against the wall and the commie press just licks it all up

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 03:54 PM (yBHNA)

49 Carlos, thank you for responding. If you can stick to that position for at least a few days, we'll document you as Conservative Non Flipper #1.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 03:56 PM (eY2Ws)

50 >>>"Carlos, thank you for responding. If you can stick to that position for at least a few days, we'll document you as Conservative Non Flipper #1"

Gramma,

no problem, I'm happy to oblige. In a few days when you get around to documenting it, perhaps you can show me all those other conservatives that you've documented as "flip-floppers"? Even a single solitary name will do. Thanks.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 04:04 PM (8e/V4)

51 Very interesting postings, by very interesting people.
I am not one of those who believes that people who have not been there have no right to speak on the subject.
I firmly support, and serve at the blessing of the very rights that I have been born with in my beloved Land.
I am not going to try and state all the Iraqi people whom have met us with open arms, thanked us for what we have done and continue to do so in their own beloved land; nor am I going to waste my breath describing the Incredible men that have lost their very lives protecting the innocent-and hesitating to protect themselves when confronted with combat that could Kill Innocents. those men that I have known, and continue to serve with, are too great of Heroes subject their stories to a forum were any implicite hate for what they did and do permeates.
However, I would just like to state for the record:
as I prepare for the land of the Euphraties once again--
Excepting the Esprit de Corps, and fighting spirit of the men that I serve with...of whom the hardcharging, Can do, Honor Courage and Committment is the baptismal water they are ordained in--

Not one MARINE has, or ever will, be taken PRISONER by these Enemy in Iraq (or the Afganistan). WHY?
We know that not a one of us would ever be granted QUARTER, as we do for them.
WE would be tortured and Killed, BEHEADED and GUTTED on video, for the world to forget even more quickly than they do those who already have been.
Consciousness and bare hands would keep me in the fight, while when they throw down their arms, they get Air-Conditioned Meals of the kind not found in an MRE I've choked down.

For that, please do not forsake those that believe in exactly why they have volunteered, to give their life for those to always continue to have the right live and speak as freely as we do now.

remember 9/11. I was there. and Loved and Lost.

Posted by: USMarine at June 16, 2005 04:05 PM (FzIQt)

52 Carlos, could you elaborate on your "I'm a conservative who's OK with torture" statement? Are you OK with torture generally? Or is your position maybe more along the lines of, it's OK for the Bush Administration to use torture in the GWOT? And if it's closer to the latter, are there any limits to your position -- i.e., in terms of who we torture and how we torture them? FWIW, these are sincere questions, I'm just trying to understand your position. Thank you.

Posted by: Gramma Millie at June 16, 2005 04:25 PM (eY2Ws)

53 I suppose it must be mentioned again to some here that in the US, when actual cases of abuse and/or torture are proven, we prosecute. In Saddam land, you might get promoted, or at least not tortured yourself, maybe.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 04:34 PM (lVjfM)

54 Correct 98G,

but in Air Force terms at the time I was a 208x4G.

I was at Skivvy Nine from 84-86 ... we probably worked the same communications of interest.

Language training at the Presidio of Monterey, back when they still had beer machines in the dorm. View of the Bay, Cannery Row and the Dream Theater right down the hill ... man, it was torture, using the current working definition of torture favored by Kos and his ilk.

Yes, I said ilk.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 16, 2005 04:36 PM (u6K4W)

55 It reminds me of the old Liberal slogan:

Feed the terrorists, Starve the incapacitated.

Carlos, I already have that covered, but thanks for mentioning it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2005 04:38 PM (CO4eV)

56 Covered here, that is:

http://www.cafepress.com/confederateyank.19671982

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2005 04:40 PM (CO4eV)

57 Gramma,

I'm in favor of doing what is necessary and effective to extract information that we have reason to believe will actually save American lives.

That does not mean I'm in favor of torturing, or even humilating people, just for kicks, as appears to have happenned in Abu Graib-- but neither am I all broken up about it cause it couldn't happen to better people.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

58 Confederate,

that slogan is apparently making its way around the web. I saw it at LGF.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 05:00 PM (8e/V4)

59 The US sets the standard for human rights, worldwide. Washington itself has reiterated that the US is the leader in this regard.

These folks are being treated no different than Americans would like to see their own sons and daughters treated when they are captured by foreign fighters.

Posted by: Thoughful at June 16, 2005 05:44 PM (BFEfg)

60 Gramma, can I put a (admittedly rather silly) hypothetical to you. Say you had proof positive of a nuclear weapon placed in a unknown but heavily populated city on a 24 hour countdown and you actually had in custody the terrorist who had planted the bomb, now you know the man had an absolute urine phobia, so would you allow your interrogators to urinate on the man if you knew this was the only possible way of obtaining the whereabouts of the bomb?
This is obviously a very unlikely scenario i.e the choice of urinating on the man or sacrificing a million or so innocents, but the simple fact is that a *similar* scenario isn't. There may well come a day when someone with just your ideals is faced with such a choice.
I'd assume your answer to the question would be no, but if it isn't, what lengths would you go to to extract the information?

Posted by: John at June 16, 2005 06:01 PM (I3B5B)

61 BumperStickerist,

Yep, those were definitely the days. Monterey was sheer hell on Earth. Especially having to look at all those civilian women.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:03 PM (zShs1)

62 Butch,

Dammit.... I had a very long answer, and it got swallowed. Crap.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:07 PM (zShs1)

63 [Wow! Google Desktop Search is *definitely* my friend - it found my comment in my browser cache. Good thing I hit the Preview button before my comment disappeared into the ether. Good thing I thought to try GDS....]


Humane and just treatment, indeed. The "just" part of that means we can and *should* treat criminals as criminals... and if the "illegal" in "illegal combatant" means anything, it means that they are war criminals.

Guess what's included in the range of punishments for war crimes? Hermann Goering wasn't given a sentence of 20-to-life, y'know.

What makes a legal combatant? The rules I see most often (from Article 4) are

a) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates,

b) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance,

c) carrying arms openly, and

d) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

That's an "AND" proposition, not an "OR." All four criteria have to be met. AFAIK, only a) is routinely the case with the current enemy.

Now, I'm not saying that illegals should be executed at the point of capture. I *am* saying that if captured, there ought not to be days, weeks and months between capture and execution. Prisoners, both legal and illegal combatants, are as a matter of course secured and moved to a central location of some sort while in the field, before being sent off a longer distance, as is the case now, to a prison camp of one sort or another.

This is going to sound harsh to a lot of folks, but I'm inclined to think that a standing General Court ought to exist at the collection point, that illegals brought in for processing should be liable to trial on the spot, with the troops who did the capturing present as witnesses at the trials.

Mind you, I'm not terribly thrilled by the idea, but if the laws of war are to mean anything, then the first thing that has to be done is to punish those who break those laws. That doesn't mean executing everyone - but it sure as hell means that illegal combatants should know that they are subject to that punishment if captured.

As Bill Whittle noted in "Sanctuary," http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html (the first three sections), those who break the rules endanger not only our own soldiers, but the truly innocent civilians.

OK, I've gone on long enough.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:11 PM (zShs1)

64 Double-crap... I made the previous comment on the wrong thread.

Posted by: Russ at June 16, 2005 06:27 PM (zShs1)

65
Forgot the exact phrase for this logical fallacy. It's like saying you can't support a concept without experiencing it firsthand. Thus, a person could never support care for the elderly unless he or she were 65.


Or that you can't be anti-crime without having been a police officer or have a right to voice any concern about fires without serving as a firefighter.

Gitmo is not Dachau, it isn't even Manzanar. It's more like Rikers Island. Abu Ghairb... much of the stuff that happened at Abu Gharib, and by people who were prison guards in their civilian life. What Durbin and the rest need to consider is what's happening in American prisons, recognize any similarities to Abu Gharib and Gitmo(especially when they clamor for Ken Lay to experience prison rape for Enron's shenanigans) and do something about this problem or quit acting like it's the worst crisis in the world except if it happens to our own.

Posted by: h0mi at June 16, 2005 07:38 PM (zpJBl)

66 MJM sez "Torture is Torture"

Ok...let's go with this a bit. "R*ape is R*ape", correct? And no decent person would advocate or apologize for "r*ape" right?

Now, the question then becomes, "what is r*ape?"

What? You think you know what r*ape is? Au contraire! While YOU may think r*ape is forceable/unconsented sexual intercourse that is only ONE aspect of r*ape.

If a female gets "caught up in the moment", has sex and wakes up the next morning with regrets..

that's r*ape

Been sexually harrassed? Had to listen to a dirty joke against your will? Feel you were pressured to engage in a little grabass at a party and are now embarrassed?

Tantamount to r*ape and if you have ANY QUALMS about the definition then, by golly, you are SUPPORTING R*APE and are NO DIFFERENT than Ted Bundy!

Gender-feminists have engaged in this politicization of semantics for years. Stake out the verbal turf, make it your own, stretch the definition all out of proportion then demonize anyone that hesitates to kiss your boots with the worst aspect of the word.

Regret = r*ape
Dirty jokes = sexual harrasment
al Qaeda terrorists = POWs or civilians as defined by the Geneva Convention
sleep deprivation/Christine Aguilera music/no food for 18 hrs = TORTURE

What a bunch of whiney-assed quisling prom-queens! they won't like us..whaaa NO WONDER Osama boasted he would win because Americans have no belief in their own values. You idiots are perfect dhimmi material and I am ASHAMED to call you fellow citizens.

Posted by: Darleen at June 16, 2005 08:05 PM (FgfaV)

67 I envy the trust of big government exhibited by some of the posters here. It must be comforting. Imagine if Hitlery Clintoon, with the help of the MSM, becomes president. Would you trust her with the electrodes and mentsrual blood. I can just see the homosexual orgies. To me nothing is more scary than big government conservatives. You could call them social conservatives or theocrats or fascists. The Union is in danger from within. War is coming to our shores. Us liberals will wear blue like the sky and water. You conservatives will wear red,like the blood of christ when he faced the executioner. When the war is over we'll use Gitmo for the war profiteers and traitors in our government. Instead of putting Reagan on Rushmore, we'll rename Gitmo "The Reagan Rape Rooms" as a reminder to the nation builders and arms merchants that the meek will indeed inherit the earth. It's just the waiting right now.

Posted by: tinkletoes at June 16, 2005 08:47 PM (68M32)

68 If you get me to him I will either beat him to a pulp or die in the attempt.
An old exJarhead

Posted by: Rod Stanton at June 16, 2005 09:02 PM (5XW4C)

69 tinkletoes, put down the joint.

Posted by: SPQR at June 16, 2005 09:35 PM (xauGB)

70 for the love of God, mates --

I drifted over here to see what goes on in the minds of the conservative right these days, and I have to say -- IT AIN'T MUCH!!!

30+ prisoners have been TORTURED TO DEATH by US soldiers. An estimated 20 of these did not even belong in the prison -- were picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

USA is not an isolated nation -- this is the reality we have to live with, that the rest of the world now regards us as a regime that uses torture.

Happy with that?

The conservative right is looking more Hitlerian every day.

Posted by: astonished at June 16, 2005 09:50 PM (9mP8a)

71 Speechless. Seriously. Where are the Scoop Jacksons of the Democratic Party?

Posted by: Will Franklin at June 16, 2005 10:04 PM (Wnw6K)

72 >>>"The conservative right is looking more Hitlerian every day."

Leftard,

are you saying there's something wrong with being hitlerian? I happen to like it. Run along now back to your loony bin and report what you saw here.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 10:09 PM (8e/V4)

73 astonished:

Please provide a source for your claim that 30+ prisoners have been tortured to death by US soldiers. And for the estimate that 20 of them did not belong in the prison, along with the criteria used to determine whether they were "in the wrong place at the wrong time" or were legitimately imprisoned.

Thank you.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 10:10 PM (eNuaW)

74 Also, unless you can produce evidence that torture is sanctioned by the US government (as opposed to, say, investigated when it is alleged and prosecuted when it is proved), I can only conclude that the absence of evidence is enough for you and "the rest of the world" to regard us "as a regime that uses torture".

In which case it would make no sense to care what you and the rest of the world think at all, as your beliefs would be paranoid fantasies.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 10:30 PM (eNuaW)

75 I tried to trackback to this post and was unsuccessful. Links related to my post below can be found on my site www.lumponablog.com.

This post could also be titled: On the Equivalency of Rap Music and Beheadings

Next time you hear Dick Durban and other democrats whine about the conditions at Guantanamo, remind them that this is an island paradise compared with places of real torture.

Daily Kos has joined the madness and decided to compare US torture tactics to those of Saddam Hussein. If only it were true.

If you have the stomach for it, you can see the beheading videos and other acts of violence by the terrorists in Iraq at Young Nationalist. WARNING: These videos are extremely graphic and not easy to watch. Make your decision to view them carefully.

After watching these, any time you hear a Dick Durban or Daily Kos dare open their mouth and complain about our treatment of captured terrorists you will know the danger of liberalism in your bones. You will remember how the New York Times and other liberal media inundated us with images of Abu Gharib and ignored the horrors in these videos. You will also remember that many liberal media outlets still insist on calling the men who commit the atrocities in these videos and images insurgents.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 16, 2005 11:08 PM (zzzPq)

76 Look, go read the post at Kos before you flame off. He is not saying that torture under the US is as bad as under Saddam. It's not, and NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. What he was saying is that torture is equally wrong, no matter who is doing it.

People on both sides have to learn to read things in context before spouting off. No lefties love Saddam or his torture chambers. We just do not want to see that sort of thing happen under our watch either, because, even if it's not as extreme as the horrible pictures above, torture is just plain wrong. I would assume that most reasonable people on the right would also agree that it's not ok for us to torture people. Am I wrong?

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:08 PM (/Enlv)

77 Folks,
There is no equivalency between the state policy of the use of torture (i.e. death, dismemberment, scarring) in Saddam's Iraq (or for that matter, in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.) and the actions of a few soldiers on the night shift at AG. That's why we have laws and actually enforce them to deal with the bad apples. There is no neocon conspiracy, (sorry to disabuse the notion for the lefty loonies), there is no policy of true torture - no nada. The bankrupt concept of leftists to try to make the arguement that there is a US policy to torture is just wrong. Actually, leftists should know torture when they see it since most of the truly murderous regimes in the past 100 years have been leftist, socialist, national socialist, or communist. I also find it entertaining that the left continues to move the goal-posts when it comes to US behavior - the US military is by far the most humane, most discrete, most law abiding, and most discriminating war machine ever fielded, period. I would never support the policy of real torture - but if a hard interrogation is what is necessary, then so be it.

Posted by: WS at June 16, 2005 11:16 PM (KCsjG)

78 >>>"What he was saying is that torture is equally wrong, no matter who is doing it."

sigh,

Sigh.....no, it's not. You Lefties are so black and white-- no nuance whatsoever.

If we torture a terrorist to gain intelligence that saves lives it not "the same" as Saddam torturing innocent civilians to tyrranize them and prop up his kleptocracy.

Not that we're torturing anybody. You have no evidence that we are (and no, abuse is NOT torture).

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:19 PM (8e/V4)

79 sigh:

Torture is not "equally wrong" if the definition of torture has been modified so that in the one case it refers to dripping acid on someone and in the other it refers to exposing them to Christina Aguilera.

Toture is also not "equally wrong" if in one case it is done for the sheer sadistic pleasure of watching ones' political enemies die in horrible pain and in the other case it is done to obtain information that will save innocent peoples' lives.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 11:20 PM (eNuaW)

80 Absolutely. Anybody who tries to compare GTMO and Abu Ghraib under U.S. control to Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein is not rational, and may be a f*cking moron. If anyone makes such a comparison to my face, I'll say, "You are a f*cking moron."

I purchased "Voices of Iraq," a documentary filmed in Iraq last year. An Iraqi man is asked what he thinks about U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib, and he laughs, pulls up his shirt to reveal healed bullet wounds, and says that he was shot at Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein.

It's our job to stop the liberals in 2006 and 2008. I'm not overly conservative, and I'm no Republican, but I'll side with anyone to keep these idiots away from power.

Posted by: Brian Blazevic at June 16, 2005 11:20 PM (b2Y3g)

81 "I would never support the policy of real torture - but if a hard interrogation is what is necessary, then so be it."

Ok, but don't you think we ought to be really crystal clear about what the distinctions are, rather than leaving that to the judgement of individuals? There's a real slippery slope there: if one punch is ok, why not two, and so on so forth. When does "hard interrogation" become torture?

Well, one answer is that we have international guidelines that make that distinction, and we wouldn't be having this argument if we agreed to adhere to those guidelines with all of our prisoners. Even if you don't like the Geneva Conventions, you still need to have a crystal clear and open policy about what does and does not constitute torture.

Part of being the "good guys" means never sinking to the "bad guys" level.

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:30 PM (/Enlv)

82 sigh,

out of uniform POWs are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, and if we treat them humanely it's because that's the kind of people we are-- not because we're obligated to by treaty.

But we're not interested in your clumsy moral equivalencies. Torture and abuse are not the same thing. Neither is torture for the purposes of saving lives the same as torture for the purposes of propping up a tyrranical dictatorship, i.e., your "gulags".

You Kos types only show how moronic you are with your stupid moral equivalencies that almost never fit. You are to blame for an entire movement of anti-Libs who call themselves South Park conservatives, and that should tell you something.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:39 PM (8e/V4)

83 The guidelines themselves are vague, sigh.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984

Article 1

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


So, what is severe pain or suffering? Confinement to a hot room? A cold room? Poking in the chest with a finger? Light pushing? Sleep deprivation? Flashing lights? Loud music?

Those are tactics that were approved by the US government. Someone asked, "can we do this?" and was told "yes".

None of these comes close to the line, as far as I am concerned. Punching is not allowed as far as I know, and a number of invstigations into allegations of assault are underway.

In addition, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to illegal combatants.

Posted by: Morgan at June 16, 2005 11:44 PM (eNuaW)

84 Morgan:
"exposing them to Christina Aguilera": If that's all that was going on in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it's misleading to choose that part of Durbin's statement as an example. Go back and re-read his comments and focus instead on the sitting in urine and excrement part. Forget about the comparison to Saddam, because that just clouds the issue. The question really is: Is it ok for us to be holding prisoners in these conditions? Doesn't that sound more to you like the work of a repressive and cruel government? Unless you are one of those people who thinks that criminals lose all their rights (which is not what our justice system is founded on), then it should make you at least a little uncomfortable.

"done to obtain information that will save innocent peoples' lives": Can you or anyone else prove that the information we've extracted under these methods has in fact made us safer? I don't think so. I'll grant you that intent makes some difference, but the truth is that we have no idea what's going on down there or whether the ends in anyway justify the means. Another reasonable question might be whether all the detainees at Gitmo are bonafide, in-the-know terrorists with valuable information to be extracted. Again, hard to say, but I'm going to guess no.

Posted by: sigh at June 16, 2005 11:47 PM (/Enlv)

85 Durbin's "sitting in excrement" statement comes (I think) from a report by an FBI agent assigned to Gitmo. An odd report, actually.

The agent stated in the report that "a couple" times, he/she entered interrogation rooms at Gitmo, and saw detainees chained to the floor in a fetal position (his/her writing is poor - it is unclear whether the detainees were chained so that they could not move from a fetal position or were simply restrained from leaving and had laid down, though he/she does note that there was no chair, which would seem to indicate the latter).

He/she goes on to state that these detainees had "usually" defecated and/or urinated on themselves, though it does not say whether this was their idea (an attempt to get someone to come close to clean them up?) or not.

I believe it was the same agent who stated in a previous section of the report that the only "non-FBI approved tactic" he/she had seen was wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag.

Durbin has exaggerated the report, and you were fooled into thinking that we were holding prisoners in piles and puddles of their own excrement.

One other point. These are not criminals. They are illegal combatants engaged in war against our country. Holding them indefinitely is a kindness. They could be shot.

As for whether all of those held have valuable information to give, I doubt it. I don't see anything wrong with using all legitimate methods to find out.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 12:20 AM (eNuaW)

86 One last comment, and then I've got to stop (dam...blog...addiction).

Without going through them one by one, let me say that I will concede some of the points that have been made, but dispute others.

Let me just say that this comment really cuts to the heart of the matter: "if we treat them humanely it's because that's the kind of people we are". That's really what this is about. Where do you draw the line between acceptable methods and torture (or abuse -- I can't say that I take a great deal of comfort in saying that we don't torture, we abuse), and how does that distinction reflect on "the kind of people we are"? I feel that those kinds of distinctions are really the measures of our greatness as a nation. And any time there is some grey area, I think we ought to take a step back and think about it. Maybe Kos' and Durbin's comments don't read that way to you, but that's what I feel this is actually about.

As a final note, I'd like to thank the people who responded respectfully. I don't think this stuff is always black and white, and most of the time when you actually get down to it, there's really some reason why there are two sides to the debate - this stuff is sometimes not so simple. To the people who immediately jumped to insults and generalizations, well, you're the reason political conversation in this country degenerates into simplistic shouting matches. I'm disappointed to say that we've got people like you on our side.

Posted by: sigh at June 17, 2005 12:33 AM (/Enlv)

87 >>are you saying there's something wrong with being >>hitlerian? I happen to like it. Run along now back >>to your loony bin and report what you saw here.
>>Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 10:09 PM

Carlos,
Who lives in the loony bin, me opposing torture or you making fond of nazism?

Posted by: astonished at June 17, 2005 01:40 AM (9mP8a)

88 sigh:

I agree that things are not black and white, and that there are some things we should not resort to in order to obtain information. Much of the difference in where people draw the line can be traced to the seriousness with which they treat the threat and how effective they think various methods will be.

I think the threat is very serious, and therefore object when people try to draw the line on "acceptable methods" somewhere on the nice side of "yucky" - as though the only legitimate way to obtain information would be to shower detainees with gifts until they loved us so much they would tell us anything. Somehow I suspect that just won't work.

To your last comment. If we disagree on the intent of Durbin's and Kos's statements, it may be because, in my view, both Durbin and Kos have a long history of blind partisanship. They don't want to seek or spread the truth - they don't care much for their country, either - they only want to say things that harm their enemies. If that means telling the truth, great. If it means twisting the truth, no problem. If it means lying, well, so be it. They are quite willing to insult and make generalizations to further their partisan agenda. They are very much like those whose behavior you decry.

Durbin didn't read the report he did because it showed that detainees were being tortured. It did not. He read it because it was lewd, and graphic, and might cause people to decide on an emotional level, without thinking, "that's horrible, this administration is horrible".

And now I also need to unplug from the blogs.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 01:53 AM (Yci9I)

89 "Kos hides behind the fact that he was in the military as if it gives him license to level any criticism he wishes on the armed services of the United States."

You sir are correct. Any American can level any criticism they wish at the armed services of the United States. One doesn't need to have previously served to offer up criticism(or praise). The 1st Amendent gives us that right.

Posted by: puzzled at June 17, 2005 02:44 AM (moq9v)

90 hmmm,
Quite scary in here, what with all the lunatics ranting that torture is OK if our guys do it, cause you see our guys are the good guys and while if the baddies torture then they are evil but if the goodies do then thats OK cause we are going it for the right reasons, forget the fact that the victims may actually be innocent ( what innocent, you must be a liberal idiot, noone is innocent our guys never ever capture the wrong guys, never ever bomb civilians, or shoot our allies) forget all that, a civilized nation should not torture people full stop, and forget the degrees of torture nonsense, what is wrong is wrong.

Posted by: liberal Idiot at June 17, 2005 04:06 AM (fxYIm)

91 Carlos,

So TORTURE is ok with you? Can you look at that statement and totally agree? Because it means that if I torture YOU, you'll be ok with.

You scare me, really

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 04:42 AM (vCCcy)

92 Kos = Hitler

(Just kidding, Kos is obviously not even close to Hitler. But above does illustrate the insanity and stupidity of today's so-called "liberals" and their propaganda)

Posted by: Kos = Hitler at June 17, 2005 08:14 AM (Gi7oA)

93 >>>"So TORTURE is ok with you? "

MJM,

yup. And if you Lefties in your hatred for America decided to bomb our cities I'd personally torture you, MJM, too. I'm make you wear an underoos hat and I'd point my finger at your wiener to embarrass you, and then I'd get really rough and have some sexy naked broad rub her titties in your face. As you can see, I'm a monster.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 08:17 AM (8e/V4)

94 Nobody here is saying that torture is ALWAYS morally right (thought clearly sometimes it is...i.e. Ticking Bomb scenerio, etc).

And pointing out that the US is NOT THE SAME as the Nazis, Soviets, Saddam, etc is NOT saying that torture is ALWAYS morally right either (though that is how you lefties desperately want to spin this).

Leftism = Slave Morality. Never forget this. They WANT you to feel guilty, to accept that 1+2=6, that 20 is larger than 200. DON'T FALL FOR IT. It is just misdirection, and (given the posts of lefties here), they can't even do it well.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 08:19 AM (Gi7oA)

95 sigh says

"To the people who immediately jumped to insults and generalizations, well, you're the reason political conversation in this country degenerates into simplistic shouting matches."

Let's see, could it also have something to do with actual representitives of our country equating the actions of our military to those of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia. Do you suppose that the insults might stem from an anger towards anyone who could condone that? Since it's not true, it only aids our enemy and must make those currently sacrificing for us wonder why they even bother.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 17, 2005 08:28 AM (lVjfM)

96 Say goodbye to the moral highground. Before you had G.W.B. and 9/11 I usually could perceive the US having it.

But now your just ruled by fear.

And like Yoda says: fear leads to anger, which leads to hatred which leads to the dark side.

by the way: Torture cannot be morally right in any situation.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:15 AM (vCCcy)

97 no, fear leads to Dhimmitude.
Yoda was on the wrong planet.

Posted by: stevezilla at June 17, 2005 09:25 AM (5pZhc)

98 MJM,

our enemies don't give a rat's ass about no moral highground, and it does me no good when I'm dead. I too used to be naive and spout empty platitudes back in my Lib days. Then I grew up and became a man and put that kind of tomfoolery behind me.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:26 AM (8e/V4)

99 Your enemies?

Who are your enemies?

And why would you die by their hand?

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:38 AM (vCCcy)

100 MJM,

anybody who kills innocent Americans is my enemy. And they will die because of silly Liberals and their empty platitudes like "moral highground".

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:41 AM (8e/V4)

101 MJM:

It is widely accepted that homicide is morally justified in self-defense and defense of other innocents.

To say that torture would not be justifiable under those same circumstances seems inconsistent.

Do you disagree with the first statement? If not, could you explain your thinking regarding the (apparent) contradiction.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 09:42 AM (eNuaW)

102 Dhimmitude is dead on. Liberals (such as MJM) either want to become slaves or want YOU to become a slave.

Sorry MJM, but I would rather be free than be a slave. If your "moral highground" means submitting to people who beat the shit our of women, stone gays to death and fly jetliners into office buildings, I guess I am not on your "moral highground."

PS: It is YOU who is ruled by fear, especially fear of those you percieve as your "betters" (i.e. Europe). You might enjoy serfdom in the herd...but I will never submit.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 09:43 AM (Gi7oA)

103 ok, that was a hollow statement:

anybody who kills innocent Iraqi's is my enemy. And they will die because of silly Americans and their empty platitudes like "democracy".

Just to show you that perception is everything.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 09:47 AM (vCCcy)

104 MJM,

When a civilized society is threatened by savages who will one day have the capability to wipe out a large number of us, not only is torture okay, it is morally mandated. Our survival trumps theirs. If you ask me why, I will tell you that it is because I want to survive. In a time of war, that is my morality - it is that simple. I may also point out that our civilization offers far more to society than the fascist theocracy of our enemies. In the end this is our war to loose, and it is people who think like you who are working - consciously or unconsciously - towards victory for the savages.

The reason that I believe that China will one day overtake us as a superpower is that they are not so ignorant as to allow themselves to be hypnotized by their own love affair with the human mind. We would be wise to do the same.

Civilization is nothing but a ephermeral veneer that shields us from savagery. People who think as you do have the luxury of pontificating about the world from a place of safety, shielded away from the raw life-and-death struggle of war. You confuse your naive concepts of the world with the way that the world actually works. People like you are dangerous.

Rome proudly displayed their own form of moral superiority while the barbarians knocked at the gate. We all know how that ended.

The fact is, when dealing with people like these you would be wise to sink below their level. Only a fool would stand transfixed by the creations in their own mind of such an undefinable conceptual framework as moral superiority. Who defines this morality? What the hell does moral superiority mean anyway?

Talking and debating morals is okay for a civilized society in times of peace. It keeps us busy and helps us learn something about ourselves. However, in times or war against an enemy willing to kill themselves in order to murder as many of us as possible, all this talk and posturing is for ignorant fools who should still be sucking their thumbs.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 09:47 AM (mkMY1)

105 Just to show you that perception is everything.

MJM,

it's not hollow, it just means that people have reached a point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. In a democracy, we settle that by elections. But in war, we settle it with guns by blowing the other guy away. I'm in favor of blowing them away, they're in favor of blowing us away.

To quote Wellington, hard pounding this, gentlemen, let's see who pounds the hardest. Now THAT'S what I call moral high ground.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

106 Carlos,

Well put and to the point.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 09:53 AM (mkMY1)

107 MJM is almost parody, I couldn't have asked for a better example to illustrate the concept of Leftism being Slave Morality.

He is willing to put his "morality" above his freedom, life and the lives of those he loves. The net result of this "morality" he pimps is slavery, mass murder and tyranny. He calls this wretched state "the higher ground" -- though it looks like Hell to me.

Leftism is twisted and sick. It is insanity. MJM and Kos are either insane and sucidal...

...or are they just calculating their words will drive us mad enough to submit to them and call them Masters?

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 09:58 AM (Gi7oA)

108 Thanks Lumpy. But if I quote Wellington, I should at least quote him right. He said pound the LONGEST, not hardest, and he was right. Victory is about staying power, and the Left is sapping our staying power.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 09:58 AM (8e/V4)

109 Rooster, is that you?

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:00 AM (8e/V4)

110 Morgan,

This is not an easy question, but I'll try to answer it.

concerning statement 1#: If someone tries to kill me or someone I love then they are dead.

statement 2#: this statement just doesn't have the same sense of urgency to it than statement 1# has. there must be time for you to do something else, besides spending valuable time torturing someone which may result in nothing.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:08 AM (vCCcy)

111 Carlos,

I was unaware of the Wellington post error.

When you stated the "I'm in favor of blowing them away, their in favor of blowing us away", you described the morality of war. To the other side and to outsiders, it may not seem moral. But when you pause a moment to look in on your children you begin to feel as if pulling out all of the stops against these savage bastards is the most moral thing that you could do.

Liberals do not understand survival. They proved it in the last couple of elections and continue to prove it every time they open their mouths.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 10:09 AM (mkMY1)

112 >>>"Liberals do not understand survival. They proved it in the last couple of elections and continue to prove it every time they open their mouths."

Lumpy,

I won't deny their "good intentions", but you have touched on something that goes to the core of Liberalism. It's a destructive ideology, as you've suggested-- even to themselves!

They are willing to kill the Democratic party for the sake of the "moral highground" because Liberalism, in its self-destructiveness, is primarily about idealism, not realism.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:15 AM (8e/V4)

113 What if torture will prevent someone from killing you or someone you love? What if the same person is already a criminal (mass murderer, rapist, etc), who should already be executed for a capital crime? So, in this case, is it always wrong to...

* Raise or lower the tempature from 40-100 degrees
* Flush a piece of paper down a toilet
* Play rap or pop music for a length of time

Are any above equal to th 12 million murdred in Nazi concetration capmps? Or the 2.5 million who were killed in the gulag?

PS: I know worse torture was done too, but the we can discuss what degree of torture is right only when we have 1) defined torture and 2) accepted that sometime torture is morally necessary.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:16 AM (Gi7oA)

114 torture is morally necessary?

this roughly equates to: Evil = Good

how far you've fallen already.......

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:21 AM (vCCcy)

115 MJM,

torture = evil? Always?

What happenned to the complex and "nuanced" shades of gray Libs we've all come to know and love?

and they say conservatives are black and white.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:26 AM (8e/V4)

116 I like movies. Remember "Dirty Harry," when the detective, in order to get information, stands on the wounded leg of the psycho who kidnapped a girl and put her in a hole with only so much to air to breath? That was against the law, but I believe it to have been morally justified. Libs called the film "fascist," but call it good detective work. Just like getting valuable information out of terrorists using whatever coersion is necessary is good detective work. The wacko in the film, and the terrorists--We're talking about criminals here, folks.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 10:29 AM (x+5JB)

117 "torture is morally necessary?"

Sometimes, just as all violent force sometimes is.

"this roughly equates to:"

My view roughly equates to reality. Meanwhile your twisted "worldview" comes no where close to reality.

So are you...

1) Insane and suicidal?

2) Just lying about your beliefs in order to trick us into giving you power?

Which is it?

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:30 AM (Gi7oA)

118 Who said I was a liberal?

Yes, torture is evil. It scars the torturer and the one tortured in ways I cannot even imagine. What good can come of it?

leftism = slave mentality: torture will prevent someone from killing me? more likely someone will try to kill me after I tortured them.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:33 AM (vCCcy)

119 MJM: You have not defined torture. You have not shown how torture is different than any other type of violent force (which you already agreed is sometimes necessary).

Read the "Dirty Harry" scenario above. Your example is contradictory, as you already said it torture (which you leave undefined) is always wrong - so who cares if it MIGHT stop someone from killing you?

Maybe I was too hard by calling you either insane or liar (terms we use for sick adults), maybe you are just a silly child...

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:38 AM (Gi7oA)

120 MJM:

A fair response. With regard to #1, good. At least we can count on you when the danger comes to your home. That's better than nothing.

With regard to #2. It is fairly easy to imagine a scenario in which information leads to the capture of someone who has released a bioweapon somewhere in a large city - maybe he even told us himself. We don't know what the pathogen was - he won't say, and we don't know where to go to find out - he won't tell us that either. In any case, the number of people equipped to search for it is limited due to a finite supply of appropriate detection equipment.

We need to identify the source and the pathogen quickly to prevent the spread of the disease through quarantine and to allow treatment to those who may have been exposed before it is too late.

Obviously we should do what we can to search for the pathogen. Obviously we should also try to get the information from the terrorist.

What methods would be appropriate?

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 10:42 AM (eNuaW)

121 >>>"It scars the torturer and the one tortured in ways I cannot even imagine. What good can come of it?"

How bout saving lives. That's a good that can come of it. And in principle I would be willing to be "scarred" to save my friends and loved ones. Apparently you wouldn't, because you would selfishly choose to preserve your misguided moral purity. Dude, that's a faux high ground from where I'm looking at it. It's a caricature of morality, not real morality. Time for you Libs to grow up into adulthood and leave your childish way behind you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:42 AM (8e/V4)

122 OK, you define torture and then I'll let you know if I agree with your definition.

I do not contradict myself: torture is premeditated and not a spur of the moment self-defense act. And Dirty Harry is a movie character, not a real person.

No, it would seem that I am the only sane person on this board.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 10:50 AM (vCCcy)

123 What would be the reason for torture?

* Punishment, revenge, cruelty or even deterrence -- We can agree that these are probably unwise and hope our policies are not based on these. Is this unclear to leftists?

* To gain information -- Again, as illustrated above, there are cases in which this is necessary.

What are the acceptable degress of torture? I have yet to see how playing loud music or raising the tempature or flushing a piece of paper down a toilet are the same as electorshock, the rack, breaking limbs, etc. (or the same as a gulag!)

Who should be the target of torture? I think everyone agrees that innocent people should never be tortured. But what about those in process of planning mass murder (of possibly millions of people)? What about ununiformed enemy combatants (who technically could be summarily executed)?

Leftists as "nuanced"? Please, they are more black/white manichean than anybody (especially when it comes to defining conservatives/US/Bush/military as Officially Evil).

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 10:54 AM (Gi7oA)

124 >>>"No, it would seem that I am the only sane person on this board."

Insane people don't know they're insane.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 10:55 AM (8e/V4)

125 I don't need to define torture, as I don't see it any differently from any other less-than-lethal violent act. And such acts are sometimes morally necessary to inflict on other people.

War is premeditated and often leads to death. Is all war always wrong? Arrests by the police (which often use violence) are premeditated, is this always wrong?

The fact Dirty Harry is a movie character is irrelvent. It was being used as example of a possible real world situation.

I doubt both your sanity and your ability to piece together a concept. Your specialty seems to be barfing up cliches and abstract leftist talking points.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:04 AM (Gi7oA)

126 "And Dirty Harry is a movie character, not a real person."

MJM: Thanks for clarifying this. But one may look at something "not real" to prove a point or to get people thinking about an issue. It's more real than a hypothetical situation, no? Answer this question if you've seen the film. Do you believe the detective was wrong to get the information that way?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:04 AM (x+5JB)

127 Morgan,

A very nice scenario you've got there. But is flawed. When a pathogen has been released in the environment you will not find out about it until it is too late. Because a terrorist wants to succeed so he won't tell you/me/us about it until we know it has happened. In a large city the population is higly mobile and the best you can hope for is containing the pathogen in the city.

You cannot stop someone who is determined to die, and he won't help you by telling you what he will do ( no neon signs pointing to the terrorist).

We could play this game for all eternity, you crafting scenario's until I agree that I am tempted to torture the suspect.

But all the scenario's would need 1 thing: time.
How much time does it take to break someone? And will he speak the truth when broken?

And remember the motivation of the terrorist is:
every moment I hang on, I'm killing someone else.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 11:22 AM (vCCcy)

128 MJM: There are no guarantees. But one, in that position as interrogator, has to try.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:32 AM (x+5JB)

129 MJM:

It seems that you have now decided that torture is always wrong because it never works (produces no information, false information, or anything it does produce necessarily comes too late to do any good) and/or it is impossible to catch a person who has information that might allow us to save lives.

If these things are true, you are right. Ill-treatment of any kind to obtain information is never justifiable, because it never, ever works.

At least your resort to these fallback rationalizations indicates that you see some circumstances under which some things that some people call torture would be justified - it's just that you've asserted that these circumstances can never exist.

So that's where we disagree, and that's where I'll leave it. Nice chatting with you.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 11:39 AM (eNuaW)

130 " But one, in that position as interrogator, has to try."

What, and spite his precious ego? Much easier to say "all torture is wrong always" and pat yourself on the back as "morally superior" even if it leads to your own slavery or death or hurts those you claim to love.

Rememeber: If the terrorist is cocain addict and you deprive him of his drugs (a painful process) it is torturing him, which makes you the same as Hitler. If you stick a terrorist behind bars and he says "I hate being confined, it's torture to be here!" then you are worse than Pol Pot.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:41 AM (Gi7oA)

131 MJM,

your Liberals beliefs have all the trappings of a religion.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 11:42 AM (8e/V4)

132 It never works and/or it is impossible to catch a person? Based on what evidence?

History is filled with thousands (possibly millions) of people who talked to authorities under pressure and gave information leading to arrests/captures.

US detectives and DAs do this on a daily basis.

It is insane and ignorent to pretend otherwise.

Please.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 11:46 AM (Gi7oA)

133 How do we really know kos was ex military? Just because he says so? Lots of liberals do that. My bootcamp was rougher then what they are enduring....

Posted by: M Evan at June 17, 2005 11:58 AM (xYQ4W)

134 Notice to visiting leftards.

Those of you who have come here from kos or whatever piece-of-garbage, sedition-spouting waste of cyberspace you normally inhabit take note of the following: We, the people who feel that the security of the nation comes before the comfort of murderes, have had it with your crap. You hate George Bush more than Osama bin Laden. You think worse of conservatives than you do of terrorists. You would see us lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just so that you could use it against the GOP. We are sick of your lies, your slander, your sedition, and your treason.
One day, maybe soon, we could get hit again with another terrorist attack. The probability is very high, and you all seem bent on hobbling those whose job it is to protect us. If that happens, be warned, it won't go well for you. We are many, we are pissed off, and we are capable of acting. If you continue to side with our enemies, you will be treated as enemies, because to many of us, there is no difference between a terrorist and those who give them aid and comfort.
If we have another 9/11, don't go out with your anti-American protest signs, because I think that if you do, you might not like what follows. This isn't a threat, it's an observation. We've had it with your crap. You are like a sickness that plagues this country, and if you don't amend your ways, you will be purged. If you can't bring yourselves to love your country more than some twisted fascist ideology, then you should leave and go someplace where your views are more in line with the mainstream, like North Korea.

The clock is ticking down on you, it's time to decide which side you're on.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 17, 2005 12:49 PM (0yYS2)

135 Did you hear Durbin try to defend his despicable rant today? He said the Nazi, Soviet, Pol Pot references were appropriate, given the "context" of the FBI memo. Wow! Imagine how different history would have been if the worst things the Nazis, Soviets, or Pol Pot ever did were the things described in the memo.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at June 17, 2005 01:06 PM (6+o02)

136 Morgan,

No, torture is just inherently "wrong".
Because I noticed that this had no effect I described why torture doesn't work.

Just take a look at 9/11: No terrorist on the radar, until it was too late to stop them.

----
And another quote: Fear is the mindkiller.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:21 PM (gUdrU)

137 How about this for a quote:

MJM = Slave Morality

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 01:30 PM (Gi7oA)

138 Nothing constructive to say huh?

You are a slave to fear, bow before your Master.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:37 PM (gUdrU)

139 You are projecting. It is you who is driven by fear. Look how you fear to answer my questions? Look how you dodge my arguments? Shameful.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 01:48 PM (Gi7oA)

140 How dare you, Senator Durbin? How dare you compare conditions at Guantamo Bay with the Nazi death camps, the Soviet gulag or Pol Pot's killing fields? How many millions of people have died at Guantanamo Bay? How many total? ZERO. The very comparison shows a colossal ignorance of history. Lavrenti Beria and Reinhard Heydrich would look up at you from whatever circle of Hell they currently occupy, ask, "How many millions of prisoners have you killed?" and when you told them "Zero, but we made some of them VERY uncomfortable," they would laugh at you for the rank amateur that you are.

Senator Durbin needs to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. and maybe make a road trip to Cambodia to visit the museum there that commemorates the two million people killed by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. He needs to look at the pictures from the liberation of the Nazi death camps by Americans at the end of World War II, he needs to re-read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's works, and then he needs to ask himself the question: What do all of these have in common? The answer: In every case, the prisoners were systematically being starved to death. Starvation is the tool in every tyrant's toolbox. Contrast with the prisoners at Gitmo, who actually have GAINED weight while in captivity. They are probably better fed, better housed and receiving better medical care than they ever have in their lives. And then there's another question: How many people in Cuba, outside of Guantanamo Bay, even HAVE air conditioning at all? How many of our soldiers in Iraq? Damn few.

Finally, Senator Durbin needs to remember exactly who these prisoners are. One of them is the man who was believed to be the "20th hijacker" from 9/11, who was turned away by an alert Customs agent. The jihadis at Guantanamo Bay would slit Senator Durbin's throat as soon as look at him, and would ululate "Allahu akbar!' while they did it. Indeed, if not for the heroic actions of the passengers of Flight 93 on 9/11, jihadis just like those at Gitmo would have flown that plane into either the White House or the Capitol Building where Senator Durbin works. Frankly, on 9/11 and for about year thereafter, I would have had no problem if the guards at Gitmo had repeatedly Tasered the testicles of every jihadi there to get them to talk.

These prisoners are not legitimate prisoners of war covered by the Geneva Convention; they were in civilian clothes and as such could have been shot out of hand when they were captured. The fact that we didn't do that shows more loudly than Senator Durbin's windy speech that we most assuredly are not like the Nazis, the Soviets or the Khmer Rouge. And consider that many of them have been repatriated and of those, about a dozen have been recaptured, with others doubtlessly killed fighting against us. If anything, we have been too kind to them.

One last word for the Senator: Don't be such a Dick, Durbin.

Posted by: Clyde at June 17, 2005 01:51 PM (T2PVS)

141 Oh I see,

you were equating criminals with terrorists and interrogation with torture. And you actually expect an answer?

Here goes: No amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 01:57 PM (gUdrU)

142 Perhaps it is time that we all take another look at the beheading videos again. I can't set a link in the comments section, but I have a link to correct section in Young Nationalist on my blog (just click on Lumpy below and look in the first story).

MJM, have you ever had the opportunity to view these videos? If not, please take a few moments out of your sheltered life to do so. While viewing, it is helpful to have Dick Durban's comments as well some pictures from Abu Gharib nearby for comparison. I am sure that you spent hours agonizing over the Abu photos and cursing your own country, so thirty minutes of your time should not be asking too much.

Let us all know what you think.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 02:04 PM (mkMY1)

143 MJM:
I was equating nothing. It is a fact of reality that people talk during interrogations (under pressure) and that this often leads to arrests/captures. What you call "torture" is what is called "pressure."

So quit dodging and give me an arguement otherwise. Provide evidence that nobody in history has ever cracked under pressure and nobody has ever been caught as a consequence.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 02:05 PM (Gi7oA)

144 MJM,

Libs are TERRIFIED of not being approved of. You crave to be liked and approved of. We conservatives couldn't care less.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:10 PM (8e/V4)

145 Lumpy,

I don't need to see the beheading video. I hope you'll find the people that made the tape and kill them.

Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen. This does give me some perspective and objectivity.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:20 PM (gUdrU)

146 >>>"Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen."

So then why should we give a flying fuck what you think? My god, don't you have a country of your own to criticize? Go criticize your own damn country. Americans are going to do what we believe is in the best interests of our country, and we're not going to take counsel from craven and cowardly Frenchies and foreigners such as yourself who only wish to see America fall to its knees.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:30 PM (8e/V4)

147 Yup,

Torture is in the best interest of your country?

Maybe we don't want to see you crash and burn?

Yeah, you don't need any advice, you're doing just FINE. Never mind that your president LIED to you, never mind that your bleeding to death in Iraq, never mind the deficit.

Unilateral Self-Destruction ;>

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:37 PM (gUdrU)

148 MJM,

a little bit of torture would have worked wonders on Mohammed Atta before 9/11. It would have averted the attack and the subsequent invasions of the middle east.

An unlikely scenario you say? Perhaps. But it just goes to show you that a little bit of torture CAN be in our best interests.

This is such a rational point, I can only assume your politics are not rational, but religious. You are a Leftwing fundamentalist.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:41 PM (8e/V4)

149 MJM:
You would be better off cutting and pasting from here:

www.spinline.net/cy/lefterator.pl

Too bad I wasted my time attempting a discussion with a Left-Bot.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 02:41 PM (Gi7oA)

150 >>>"Besides not being a Liberal I'm also not an US citizen."

Lumpy,

"not being a Liberal" is code for Leftist. When you think someone's a Liberal but he denies it, assume he's a Leftist that believes Libs are too namby pamby. I've usually found that to be the case.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 02:44 PM (8e/V4)

151 Carlos,

Still the question remains: How much TIME does it require to break someone? If you had Atta 12 hours before 9/11 and tortured him, could you've prevented it? 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours?

Your not rational, believe me, you're the person whose ok with torture, remember?

Left-Bot, Right-Bot, which leads me to another piece of advice: replace the democrats and republicans with new and more political parties. Could be refreshing for you and quite possibly could get you out of your trenches.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 02:55 PM (gUdrU)

152 It is ironic that today's "liberals" are not very liberal.

Liberalism used to mean "individual freedom" - now it means socialists (just as "progressive" means regressive and reactionary).

Posted by: L at June 17, 2005 02:56 PM (Gi7oA)

153 How much time depends on the circumstances. But it is still possible to extract information...and you have YET to prove otherwise.

YOU'RE not being very rational and English must be your second language.

Nor do you understand the two-party system.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:05 PM (Gi7oA)

154 Let's see MJM, you won't/can't define torture, but you know it is inherently wrong, though homicide isn't, but you won't/can't explain your reasoning.

You are certain that torture (which you can't define) can not extract useful information, though you won't/can't reply to criticism of that notion.

You know that "no amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening", which, given that you are certain that no useful information can be gained through its use, would seem to be a necessary conclusion (even if we don't know what torture is). Albeit one that rests on an assertion that has been challenged, a challenge to which you won't/can't reply.

You feel that tactics intended to pressure a person into disclosing information in the course of an interrogation of a suspected criminal can not be equated with the use of tactics intended to pressure a person into disclosing information in the course of an interrogation of a suspected terrorist. You won't/can't explain why this is, though it would seem to rely on terrorists not being people in the same way that criminals are.

You also seem to think that if it wasn't possible to obtain information from people whom you did not have them in custody, it must, therefore, be impossible to obtain information from those you do. Or maybe it's impossible to get information about someone else. Or something.

Okay. All very, um... Avoidant? Unsubstantive? Illogical?

Let me leave you with a challenge. You stated: "No amount of torture will prevent a terrorist act from happening." I believe that interrogation of terrorists in custody might extract information that leads to the prevention of such an act by others. Torture (whatever that means - let's say holding someone in a cold room) might be more likely to extract that information.

Here is your challenge - to answer a question:

Where am I wrong?

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 03:05 PM (eNuaW)

155 >>>"Your not rational, believe me, you're the person whose ok with torture, remember?"

You may call me "immoral", and that's fine. But that's a religious statement, and in no way does it make me irrational. We've all given you reasons why it is rational, but you've offered only platitudes for why it's not, i.e., it's not "nice." Do you see how the secular Left has replaced traditional religion with one of their own creation? It's so obvious. You don't believe things rationally and you adhere blindly to platitudes as if they were holy scripture.

>>>"Still the question remains: How much TIME does it require to break someone? If you had Atta 12 hours before 9/11 and tortured him, could you've prevented it? 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours?"

That depends on how effective the torture was. Christina Aguilera songs probably would not have done the trick. But putting his balls in a vice might have worked wonders.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 03:11 PM (8e/V4)

156 "Christina Aguilera songs probably would not have done the trick."

I would write the word "Allah" on a napkin and flush it down the toilet. Or maybe "Bob."

OH the humanity! What a Nazi I am for flushing a napkin down the drain! It's a gulag!

Posted by: NUANCED at June 17, 2005 03:15 PM (Gi7oA)

157 Morgan,

Because I felt that differing meanings of torture were in use I asked someone on this board to give me their version of what torture means, that was never given but if you are so desperate for it:

Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions.

Why torture cannot yield useful information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Incrimination_of_innocent_people
This is so basic that I thought it needed no clarification, my mistake.

The interrogation of a criminal and the torturing of a terrorist is not the same thing. Different term with different semantics are used. Thus again, this is so obvious I thought I did not need to clarify, my mistake (again)

Concerning the new scenario: Welcome to the wonderful world of adaptive terrorism, your terrorist in the cold room, won’t break before his terrorist cell buddies discover his absence. And because terror strikes are probably cell structured and probably have redundancies incorporated into them the attack just goes ahead, even if you manage to dismantle one cell.

So in conclusion: you tortured, the attack happened anyway, maybe the body count was less but you prevented nothing.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 03:35 PM (gUdrU)

158 Carlos,

Immoral behaviour is a sign of an irrational mind.

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 03:51 PM (gUdrU)

159 I don't have time to read all the comments here, so apologies if I'm repeating anyone's points. I have just a few points to express.

1. I'm a liberal, and quite stridetently anti-Bush.
2. You are clearly right, and Kos clearly is being stupid and partisan.
3. The nazi-comparison Durbin made is fairly par for the course in political rhetoric. I don't like Durbin's use, but, let's not forget this is a bipartisan failing.

Posted by: Michael R at June 17, 2005 03:53 PM (7NWu1)

160 Your definition is horribly flawed (problaby because it was lifted from an online message board).

How are physical or psychological the same? If I insult your mother (whom you love) am I torturing you? Define "severe" in a reality where perceptions are subjective?

Your weaselly dodge of the interrogation issue is pathetic. Interrogation is an action, regardless if it is used on a criminal or terrorist. Don't bother trying to blame your own lack of understanding on "semantics."

You won't answer, because you don't think for yourself.

Your :example" is completely stupid. It is a fact of reality that humans are not omniciant or oppnipitant. Your "example" assumes the opposite.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:54 PM (Gi7oA)

161 "let's not forget this is a bipartisan failing."

So Durbin is the VICTIM here?

Wow.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 03:56 PM (Gi7oA)

162 Michael R,

my hat is off to you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 03:58 PM (8e/V4)

163 At least I give a definition, you didn't remember?

consult a dictionary: interrogation does not equal torture.

I answer, I think and I don't follow the partyline, I haven't yet had the pleasure of you doing the same.

it's omnipotent, and some careful planning can take you far. Terrorism is quite simple, all it takes is an immoral person and some hardware, or boxcutters will suffice in a pinch.

mmm torture is immoral too, the US must then be turning into a terrorist spawning ground

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 04:05 PM (gUdrU)

164 L=SM

No, please be more charitable. I simply meant to keep in mind this is a problem in our national political discourse on both sides of the aisle. *IF* anyone were to think "it's only the other side," then such blindness only exacerbates the ineffectualtiy of the debate. I think recognizing this as a common failing of both parties allows us a common ground.

Posted by: Michael R at June 17, 2005 04:07 PM (7NWu1)

165 MJM:

That's roughly the definition I posted last night from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Now if we define "severe", we'll be on our way. Difficult to do, isn't it. Maybe examples would work:

Dripping nitric acid on a person bound to a chair: Severe
Attaching electrodes to a person's genetalia and turning on the current: Severe
Crushing fingers in a vise: Severe

Christina Aguilera: Not severe
Hot/cold rooms: Not severe
Stress positions: Not severe

Your link regarding incrimination of innocent people under duress is not pursuasive. Of course people may say things that aren't true in an attempt to get out of the situation. They may also provide real information. Even if I have to put 10 people under surveillance to find the one that is really plotting, I'm a lot better off.

You still have not explained why the interrogation of a criminal and the torturing of a terrorist are not the same thing. You've stated that they are different, but have not explained why a terrorist won't talk under pressure but a criminal will.

How do you know how quickly my terrorist in a cold room will break? He may talk in an hour, he may not. Your entire "time" argument sounds like a rationale for more severe techniques - you know, the ones that actually qualify as torture - not a reason not to use them.

And what is the artificial time limit on these things? Terrorist attacks aren't generally planned in a day (at least, not by al-Qaeda). If it takes a month to get him to talk, but he names names, that's a group that is out of commission as a terrorist cell. Maybe a coordinating contact (you know, the guy who you think is probably around to tell the second cell that the first one was compromised), or a moneyman, too. Maybe their records with names and contacts of other terrorists.

Take out the terrorists, and you take out future terrorist acts. Simple, really.

So I didn't have to torture, though Senator Durbin might call it so, I rolled-up an entire network of terrorists, and I prevented any number of future attacks.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 04:09 PM (eNuaW)

166 No, you cut and pasted something from a message board.

"Torture" is subjective, interrogation is a real action.

You follow a party-line so much I think you are a parody or satire (hope I didn't spoil the joke).

Too bad you didn't use a dictionary for the rest of my post, or else you would know what "omnipotent" means.

But thanks for the "non-partisan" US bashing. It shows how open-minded you are (which is not very).

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 04:09 PM (Gi7oA)

167 Michael R: Understood. You are being all fair and balenced and all that. Good for you. Maybe you can bring the Party of JKF and Scoop Jackson back to life.

Posted by: Leftism = Slave Morality at June 17, 2005 04:14 PM (Gi7oA)

168 I didn't leave the asinine comment above that is attributed to me. It was somebody from your side, folks. A sign of the desperation felt on the right these days, perhaps?

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at June 17, 2005 04:50 PM (kgBuS)

169 Morgan,

hot-cold rooms: define hot and cold?
stress-positions: how long?

I can't believe I actually have to tell you what what is but here goes.
Interrogation: not usually associated with severe pain
Torture: associated with pain, curel and unusual punishment.

criminal vs terrorist: I believe we have a little misunderstanding, in your previous scenario I highlighted why a terrorist would not talk, in this particular case his motivation was to increase the body count.

taking out the terrorists reduces future terror strikes? Look at Iraq, those suicide bombers just keep coming don't they? their taking out themselves at a rapid pace but they don't seem to run out of volunteers.

let's forget about the artificial time limit and answer me this. Has the torture prevented anything at all that we know of?

--- L-SM

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is the power to do absolutely anything. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.

I haven't bashed the US, nor do I feel a particular need to. (if you really want me too I'll give it a try though ;->)

Posted by: MJM at June 17, 2005 05:32 PM (gUdrU)

170 Can't trackback, so just letting you know I've linked as well

Posted by: urthshu at June 17, 2005 05:36 PM (2qJi3)

171 Define hot and cold - sorry, since the thread was prompted by Senator Durbin's statements, I assumed you were familiar with them and would recognize the reference. Hot = "probably well over 100 degrees" (that's actually from the FBI report, Durbin apparently left out the "probably"). Cold = air conditioning turned down so that a barefoot man shivers. Stress positions - not specified by the good senator.

Interrogation and torture are independent concepts. Torture is something that may, or may not, occur during the course of interrogation. As are any techniques that fall short of torture.

Re: terrorists not talking. You've indicated why a terrorist won't want to talk, but criminals also don't generally want to talk. They talk during interrogations, which include techniques to put them under mental and physical stress, and they talk to get out of the situation. Why wouldn't terrorists be subject to the same technique?

These techniques exist on a continuum from less severe to more severe. There are two questions I'm interested in. The first question is "where do you draw the line?" Saying that torture is not allowed, even offering a definition that specifies that torture causes "severe" pain, without providing some kind of specification regarding where "severe" sits is minimally informative.

The second is "do the justifiable techniques vary with the situation?" This is more-or-less the same question as "Is it ever justifiable to torture someone?", though you could have a hybrid system in which the justifiable line slides up to, but never beyond, the "severe" line.

You seem to be arguing that the "torture/not torture" cutoff = the "severe/not severe" cutoff = the "justifiable/unjustifiable" cutoff in all situations, or for the hybrid, in which "severe" = "torture" and is the upper limit for justifiable (I'd say probably for the hybrid - I feel comfortable asserting that most people would say that techniques that are justifiably used with hardened criminals and terrorist suspects are not justifiably used when trying to determine whether a child threw a spitball).

So now you're king, and I'd like to know what techniques I can use in the course of interrogating suspected terrorists. Or common criminals. But I'm afraid to shine a light in his eyes, because it might be called torture.

Does taking out terrorists prevent future terrorist strikes? Of course. Those terrorists will never strike. That others do hardly invalidates the point.

As for whether torture has prevented anything that we know of, I don't know that there has been any torture to prevent anything. I certainly am not privy to the information gained during interrogations of detainees.

I do know that techniques that fall on what I would call the non-torture side of the line can be effective in eliciting truthful confessions and other information, and it is reasonable to think that more severe techniques, by increasing the motivation to get out of the situation, would be even more effective.

I also know that networks have been rolled-up much as I described, as when Abu Farraj al-Libbi was captured and interrogated in Pakistan in May. I don't know what techniques were used in the interrogation.

Posted by: Morgan at June 17, 2005 06:23 PM (eNuaW)

172 Great job, Rusty; thanks for the reminders.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at June 17, 2005 06:49 PM (Y99DR)

173 hmm... not real torture. nice argument. what about the hundred or so suspicious deaths at US military prisons, or the two or three extremely well-documented cases where US soldiers killed perfectly innocent civilians in the interrogation process? I guess that's not real murder. If the people in Gitmo are guilty of something, prosecute them - charge them with a crime - make their names public - allow outside communication, humanitarian aid. It is my belief that most of the poor souls at Gitmo have nothing whatsoever to do with international terrorism and are essentially political prisoners being tortured to extract information they simply don't have.

PROVE ME WRONG. prosecute or at least charge them with crimes, make their names public and allow them to build a defense. Detaining people secretly and indefinitely is EXACTLY the sort of thing the Nazis and Russians did. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?

Posted by: money mo at June 17, 2005 07:03 PM (0LopM)

174 >>>"PROVE ME WRONG."

money mo,

we don't have to prove JACK to you. It's you who's got to prove something, and so far you've got SQUAT-- just rumour and innuendo. And that's exactly why your side constantly has to fall back on hyperbole, because the simple facts are the matter are so boring and mundane. Gulag schmuuulag.

Posted by: Carlos at June 17, 2005 07:51 PM (8e/V4)

175 Dear Senator Durbin,
Let's play a game of pretend. Let's say you are my prisoner and you have information about the enemy I need. I am trying to make your situation stressful enough that you will answer my questions about Al Quida. Lives are at stake and I need to get answers. However, I'm a compassionate interrogator so you can have your choice of stressors. Just answer these questions.
1. I have a set of bolt cutters and a pair of women's panties. You have your choice of answers. Shall I remove your fingers one by one with the bolt cutters or would you prefer to be humiliated by putting the panties on your head?
2. I have a bundle of sharpened bamboo slivers and the thermostat in your cell. Would you prefer to have slivers placed under your finger and toe nails one at a time or to have the temperature in your cell turned down to 50 degrees?
3. I have a rubber hose tipped with a lead ball and I also have a tape recorder with rock music on it. Would you rather I methodically beat you on your legs and arms with the rubber hose or play very loud rock music to you all night long?
4. I have dental forceps and a cloth hood with a small stool. Would you rather I pull your teeth one by one or put the hood over your head and make you sit on the stool with your hands chained to an eyebolt in the floor?
5. I have a dull sword and an iron digging bar. Would you rather I use the sword to slowly decapitate you or let you stand for several hours holding the digging bar across your shoulders?
I'm pretty sure I know what your answers would be, but I just wanted to put the questions to you so we could clear the air.
Sincerely,
A Taxpayer

Posted by: Jimmy J at June 17, 2005 10:06 PM (tko+5)

176 So KOS is a bad ass because he was in the military, huh? I'll bet that POS was in charge of peeling potatoes at the back line.

If KOS believes it is his freedom of speech to diss the real military, then I will gladly show him my freedom of expression by thumping his pre-frontal cortex with a bat, given the chance.

Posted by: BT at June 17, 2005 10:16 PM (0kiXY)

177 mjm,l=sm,carlos ... stop going in circles.

There are 2 continuums: procedures and need.

I think we of the non-liberal/left can agree that inducing ouch-or-above is wrong unless it has some high chance to save 1 or more lives. We happen to count capture-of-a-terror-cell-leader as 'saving lives'. The left does not agree.

(The _left_ thinks anything done for a good cause (USSR, socialism, anti-USA) is fair game and that nothing the US ever does is beyond criticism, even saving muslims in Bosnia. _Liberals_ aren't that extreme (and don't ignore the USSR's evil, etc) and just wish the world was more utopian.)

So the need continuum ranges from preventing future attacks that have not yet even been planned by near incompetents at the bottom of aQ all the way up to a post-US-city-nuking scenario of the hunt to find-the-nuke-factory or find-the-next-bomb.

The procedures continuum is partially-linear:
* holding in a jail cell (no more)
* jail with no communication, long duration
* temp / light / noise stress (induce exhaustion)
* food/water removal, short duration
* cramp-stress (non-damaging positions)
* gulag-type overwork
* low damage stress (ligament strain)
* food/water removal, long duration
* high damage stress (things torn or broken)
* fast trauma (beatings, whipping, etc)
* slow trauma (fingernails pulled out, pliers)
* electricity @ sensitive areas (gonads, tongue)
* drowning-revival-drowning-revival ... repeat
* witnessing damage/rape of spouse/child
* amputation, gunshots, stabbing, etc

And partially non-linear:
* religious reprogramming (wahibism = distortion)
* religious torment (pigs, naked jew fem guards)
* embarassment (naked pyramids, genital comments)
* mind-altering-drugs (relaxants thru hypnotics)
* fear (2 US cities nuked=1.3B muslims die)
* education (islam stunted mideast development)
* lies and distortions,interrogator oddities,etc

As far as the civilized world is concerned, anything on the linear scale above cramp-positions for exhaustion is generally wrong, maybe excepting for WMD scenarios.

I believe that going above exhaustion-inducing is counterproductive _especially_ when you _need_ an answer, like in the WMD scenario ... just skip straight to drugs, Chem-war-treaties-be-damned.

(This is most likely why the CIA never registers their prisoners with anyone.)

I uncomfortably agree with the libs who point out that WMD-planting terrorists will lie after holding out as long as possible ... they will be trained to simulate accurate information release, further delaying finding that second nuke or the factory/supplier/pathway. (Therefore go straight to Israeli/Soviet type drugs regardless if there is still an intact mind left when you are done.)

(BTW: it is safe to bet that we are doing this with the CIA capturees like Khalid Sheik Mohammad and anyone else at/near their level.)

Now for the flip side of that argument:

WHY DO WE CAPTURE ILLEGAL COMBATANTS THAT THE GENEVA CONVENTION INDICATES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR IMMEDIATE EXECUTION?
(sorry for shouting)

There are 2 reasons:
* compassion (some army guys still want to be the good guys or we just cannot find an excuse to double-tap them in the skull)
* information that capturees might provide

Liberals / Leftists: be aware that your campaign against the most kind prisons in the history of warfare has certainly induced many in the fighting forces to STOP TAKING PRISONERS.

Think about it ... if we cannot store these aQ militants for the duration because of our fifth-columnists, and noone wants to fight them a second time, the low-enders won't be captured alive.

Just like elephants: if you want more of something (live prisoners, elephants, cattle), make the target valuable to those who would maintain them. Cows are valuable to farmers, elephants are not, therefore except for recent elephant-tourism, elephants were/are hunted nearly to extinction, where as we have insane numbers of cows. If elephants could be managably farmed for tusk ivory, especially if they could be sheared like sheep and be induced to regrow, Africa would be overwhelmed by elephants. (offtopic: Oddly enough, Zimbabwe has an excess elephant problem ... and no live farmers (Mugabe=leftist/socialist/racist)).

Anyway, if you liberals/leftists make capturing and keeping prisoners valueless or of negative worth, the anti-Jihadi forces will simply stop capturing anyone not of obvious value.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Please try to keep this discourse less circular and more useful.

Anyone high enough in aQ etc with useful information probably will lie after holding out to pain, so skip straight to drugs.

Anyone susceptible to reveal truth to pain probably knows nothing particularly useful anyway and since the libs/leftists will make a fuss over their captivity, just don't bother to capture them.

Anyone indeterminate, just keep them awake for 72 hours and listen to what they babble about: kids, wives (plural), work, family, allah ... let them go home. Jihad, Semtex, AK-47s, bin-Laden, Zarqawi, aQ, infidels, Wahibbi-ite dogma, lock them up for the duration or hand them over to their home country for long-term storage. Maybe try to convert them by counter-preaching.

Posted by: Other at June 17, 2005 10:24 PM (4146Y)

178 Is it too late to blame the Jews for all this?

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 17, 2005 10:41 PM (hL7po)

179 MJM,

I was born in Canada - does that give me a different perspective? What does not being a US citizen have to do with any of this discussion? The participants in this discussion fall into two groups: naive, crazy liberals and everyone else.

Posted by: Lumpy at June 17, 2005 10:57 PM (zzzPq)

180 I apologize, because I'm sure this was mentioned in a comment above, but I have to take issue with one thing. Calling for violence against Kos is just wrong. I agree with you that his comparison is ludicrous, but what makes us better than the fascists we're fighting is that he has the right to express his ludicrous opinion.

Again, I'm sure that's a sentiment that's been expressed already. I'd just like to add my two cents.

Posted by: Robert at June 17, 2005 11:46 PM (M3g5N)

181 Phentermine: Please send 10% of all sales to:

YBP
PO Box 456
0shkosh, WA 01678

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 18, 2005 07:46 AM (6ikIv)

182 Why is it when the leftards show up, the viagra spammers are never far behind? They seem to run in packs. For some reason. Like they're associated. Or already have a relationship. For some reason...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 08:34 AM (0yYS2)

183 The mystery poster known only as "L", hit the nail squarely on the head when he(she?) wrote:
"It is ironic that today's "liberals" are not very liberal."
"Liberalism used to mean "individual freedom" - now it means socialists (just as "progressive" means regressive and reactionary)."

It is all the tactic of the Big Lie. They twist every word to mean its opposite, as Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm and 1984. Freedom is slavery, etc.. This is why they're harping on "torture". If they're calling it torture, it must not be bad at all. If they were calling it "reeducation", though, you could be assured there would be fingernails pulled out and jumper cables on the sensitive bits. Liberals are lying, treasonous cowards who support terrorism 100% regardless of anything they might say. One needs no further proof than to look at their actions and compare them to their fair words. Whereas we hope for the death of Osama, they hope for the death of Bush. Doesn't take a genius to figure out whose side they're on. Their time is coming soon though. Real soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 10:05 AM (0yYS2)

184 sigh said:
" Where do you draw the line between acceptable methods and torture (or abuse -- I can't say that I take a great deal of comfort in saying that we don't torture, we abuse), and how does that distinction reflect on "the kind of people we are"?

Posted by: sigh at June 17, 2005 12:33 AM "

You may not take a great deal of comfort in telling the difference between torture and abuse, but you sure as hell would if you were actually subjected to torture, and not the mild discomforts some terrorists experience at Gitmo.

Posted by: Les Nessman at June 18, 2005 06:54 PM (XQxrI)

185 It is a strange sort of torture when the "torturee" is not actually hurt!

Posted by: Rick B. at June 18, 2005 08:56 PM (0IqSw)

186 It's a strange sort of concentration camp where the inmates come out weighing more than they went in, with their teeth fixed and any medical problems they might have had cared for!

(BTW, if you're using Moveable Type for this blog, MT Blacklist does WONDERS to keep the spammers at bay.)

J.

Posted by: JLawson at June 18, 2005 10:59 PM (ApmN8)

187 Isn't it funny how the ACLU thinks Gitmo is torture, but pedophilia isn't?

Posted by: NYgirl at June 19, 2005 11:53 AM (JEAUq)

188 You may want to add that the purpose of the iron maiden was to pierce the flesh of the victim, but not where there was a vital organ. Doing this to the victim would keep him or her in agony for a long period of time before eventualy dying.

Posted by: Nigel at June 19, 2005 05:51 PM (Ih2LO)

189 NYgirl observed:
"Isn't it funny how the ACLU thinks Gitmo is torture, but pedophilia isn't?"

Yeah, the things that wacky leftards are willing to defend and the things they find offensive only serve to illustrate that they suffer as a group from some sort of mental disorder.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 12:49 PM (0yYS2)

190 I've read Kos. I've read this.

Kos says, essentially, that torture in any form is as bad if the US does it as if Saddam does it.

You choose to split hairs, jumping up and down with 'graphic evidence' to show that Saddam's torture is much, much worse than American torture.

Lucky for Americans that they live in a country with nice torture, instead of nasty Iraqi torture. Sure, it's not nitric acid dripped on your head, but you'll find that in most American states, anybody who locked a dog in a car and the temperature climbed over 100F would be arrested and charged with cruelty.

Yep. Good thing it's only nice torture in the good old US of A.

Posted by: Flinthart at June 20, 2005 11:20 PM (H//Y9)

191 Gotaa knock off the torturing, Knuckles! http://www.markfiore.com/animation/knuckles.html

Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 21, 2005 02:50 AM (FV4oJ)

192 "How many more lies.. treat me the way you wanna do..."

Beatings will continue until prisoner morale improves? Sounds like an advert for Al Qaeda recruiters! "Look what they're doing, join the Jihad!
Get your revenge on America while the scandal is hot!!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 21, 2005 07:12 AM (ScqM8)

193 All you rightwingnuts need to go to the nearest recruiter and sig your lazy asses up for a four year hitch in the Army as an MOS 11 Bravo, and then, only then may you talk shit about this war.

Posted by: Aging Veteran at June 27, 2005 05:07 PM (aHbua)

194 Jesus, you're stupid. Kos was saying that torture isn't any less bad because it's done by americans - he's not saying that what we've done is as bad as what Saddam did.

Wipe the drool off your chin and give it a reread, sport.

Posted by: jpe at July 25, 2005 11:54 AM (AoyVe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Conspiracy theories begin with a premise and then search for evidence of that premise. But as any C+ student of basic methodology can tell you, evidence does not equal proof. There is some evidence that the moon-landing was fake, yet such evidence is overwhelmed by masses of counter-evidence. At some point the evidence becomes such that any still believing in the conspiracy have gone beyond all rational discussion, are no longer involved in a search for the truth, and have become faith-based zealots believing in a premise that gives their lives meaning.

The Left's obsession with the Downing Street memo is a perfect example of a faith-based conspiracy theory in search of proof. This faith begins with the assumption that the war in Iraq could not have been for the stated reasons but rather that there is a hidden agenda to the Iraq conflict. From what I gather, the Left is divided over the specifics of this hidden agenda (the theories, though, usually center on some sort of Imperialistic grab for power in the Middle East, which will eventually lead to a US war against Syria and/or Iran) but they do agree that a conspiracy existed at the highest levels to lie to the American people as to the real reasons for going to war.

Via Duncan 'Atrios' Black this post by Digby is indicative of such conspiracy theories:

I honestly don't know why there is any question that the Downing St Memo is the most important historical document to emerge showing that Bush and company took us into Iraq on false pretenses. It's true that there have been many hints --- the biggest of which is that, uh, there weren't any f*cking WMD --- but this is clear proof that they lied prior to that....

It is a full-on game plan for obfuscation and "rolling out the product" that proves they knew that Iraq wasn't a threat. ....

They may never be able to admit all that. But in that it officially documents the fact that the administration knew there was no threat and knew there was no connection to terrorism, the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.

Another part of this particular conspiracy theory is the notion that it's not enough that members of the Bush and Blair administration are involved but that leading news organizations, such as The New York Times, are also part of the plot to mislead the American people. For instance this post by Kevin Drum and this one by Nico over at Think Progress. Both begin with the premise that the conspiracy has objectively (I mean objectively in the epistemelogical sense, that is that the authors believe as an objective fact rather than as a matter of opinion this view) been proved in the Downing Street memo. Thus with the conspiracy proved, anything short of front-page coverage at The New York Times is evidence that the publication is part of the conspiracy.

The problem with Digby, Atrios , Nico, and Kevin Drum's assesment of the Downing Street memo is the same as with all conspiracy theories: they begin with the conspiracy premise, selectively use evidence, and disregard any evidence to the contrary. So, the Downing Street Memo is seen by these conpiracy theorists as 'the smoking gun' which 'proves' that Bush has ulterior motives for going to war.

Such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the reasons (there were multiple reasons, if you don't have amnesia) for going to war were exactly as stated. Further, such thinking disregards hundreds if not thousands of statements, both public and private, that the decision to go to war was not finally made until shortly before the invasion.

This does not mean that most people, President Bush and Tony Blair included, did not think that the invasion was not inevetable. To assume that Blair and Bush did not believe war was coming is to think that they were idiots. Of course they thought war was coming and were making the necessary arrangements. Duh, this is what governments do! A conspiracy theory about the real reasons for going to war is not needed to explain the Downing Street memo, as Michael Kinsley, to his credit, points out here:

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Did the Bush and Blair administrations believe that a day of reckoning was coming with Saddam Hussein? All indications say yes. But so what? Plenty of times in history the same sort of writing has been on the wall. In June of 1941 did the Roosevelt administration believe a conflict would soon be coming between the U.S. and Japan? Of course it did! Sanctions were not working to get the Japanese out of China and there was a lot of saber rattling on both sides. But that is not proof that some sort of grand conspiracy existed to start a war with Japan. Did Lincoln believe that a war was coming between the North and the South? Yes! Fifty years of history all pointed to such a conflict. But that is not proof of some sort of grand conspiracy by Lincoln to start a war.

The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia. The truth of the matter is that the paranoid obsession with the grand Bush conspiracy theory runs so deep among the Left today, that no amount of evidence to the contrary could make them disbelieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:24 PM | Comments (84) | Add Comment
Post contains 1091 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Shorter Jawa: If I close my eyes and plug my ears really really hard it will all go away. If I close my eyes and plug my ears really really hard it will all go away. Lalalalaa. . . star wars. . . lalalala.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at June 13, 2005 12:45 PM (lNFQ2)

2 Rusty, I thought it was more about the "facts being fixed" that has been getting everyone's panties in a bind, no?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 12:51 PM (buka0)

3 Yes, but it's seen as 'evidence' of some sort of grand conspiracy.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 13, 2005 12:53 PM (JQjhA)

4 Speaking of conspiracy theories, there's more than a whiff in the air that many on the Left don't really believe the Downing Street memo conspiracy. They simply see partisan profit in promoting it, laughing up their sleeves at the Dem sheep stupid enough to believe it.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 13, 2005 12:55 PM (RHG+K)

5 I agree it is the "facts being fixed" that is doing the panty bunching. I personally don't care that they had vaguely decided it was going to happen. I do care that the memo implies they "selected" intelligence to back up their policy. (Much how conspiracy theorists select information to back up their crazy theories)

But since we're on the subject, Why DID we go to war Jawa Man? It seems like you object to the conspiracy theories but, I'm curious as to what you think the actual reason was? Was it WMD? Terrorist camps? The French?

Posted by: Shinobi at June 13, 2005 12:56 PM (0jJ6Y)

6 Well, all I can say is that I'm not about to jump into any bandwagon over the authenticity or meaning of this document. It's so easy to manufacture anything these days from the left to the right. Way too easy. Want me to produce a video of Bush and Blaire having hot sex on the oval office room floor? Give me a couple hours...hold the pretzels. In the meantime, you've all been lied to about Bush's intentions. Here is the real State of the Union Address...hehehe: http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater188.html

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 01:08 PM (buka0)

7 We did we go to war? I thought the Left knew the answer to that one. Herr Chimp Bush and Nazi followers need the Middle East's oil? And also, to wipe out those ties to old family friend Osama BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:11 PM (x+5JB)

8 Come on guys, give these lefties a break. This "memo" is their Red Swingline stapler.

Posted by: Editor at June 13, 2005 01:17 PM (adpJH)

9 It is pretty rich getting a lecture on "evidence" and "proof" from you. So where are those WMDs? 9/11 ties? Nukes?
Save it.

Posted by: Max at June 13, 2005 01:20 PM (HFKAk)

10 "give these lefties a break"

As the Right-wing warmonger once said, "Which arm?"

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:22 PM (x+5JB)

11 Poor Max, wishing that freedom-loving pacifist Saddam were still around. I miss him, too.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:26 PM (x+5JB)

12 Why are we still arguing about why, when the fact is we are at war. In my opinion Sadam had it coming anyway. He thumbed his nose at the international community, supported terrorism, Gave safe haven to Musab Al Zarqawi, and Murdered his own people. The reasons for the war were many. Indeed I questioned the wisdom of going to war myself. But Mr. Bush is bold and has already made that decision. We just found bunker last week so the idea that some such weapons may still or did exist is plausible. To keep on dragging out the same old arguments serves no one. Your country is at war. You have to ask yourself do you want to win that war or come dragging your ass back home with your tail between your legs. This serves no one. You ought to be thinking about what comes next. W. will be gone in 2 1/2 years, then what?? Where are you going to find anyone else with the balls to execute this war properly? Win we must regardless of how we got here. If one little memo is all you got compared to all the other reasons for war good luck you won't change my mind.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 01:32 PM (D3+20)

13 Well said, Howie. And then there's the clown from North Carolina--the "freedom fries" chump--who thinks we've gone over the casualty figure he thought was appropriate and now the whole thing's not worth it. What does that say about the initial casualties? That it was okay they were killed? And the guys who may get killed starting tomorrow are in the wrong war? Talk about not supporting the Commander-in Chief and the armed forces.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 13, 2005 01:41 PM (x+5JB)

14 I am upset that no one has yet to blame the Jews for this. What has this blog come to, I ask?

Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 13, 2005 01:42 PM (Wsn+K)

15 Wine-aholic : Miss ol greg do ya??


YBP: Yep I suppose if a Democrat ends up having to prosecute this war later on I'll have to support him too. That is within reason.

20 reasons to go 20 reasons not, the tough descision has already been made. If one of either 20 turns out to be a little shaky well.... so what.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 01:47 PM (D3+20)

16 Howie, I agree it's best we kick ass and resolve this whole war properly (though some differ on what properly is) but I'll tell you the sooner W is gone, the better. He may be bold, but I don't think he's the right leader for us. I wouldn't exactly call the Iraq war a success so far, and I don't see any easy solutions. I don't think you can really "win" a war like this. There won't be a day when we've conquered all the evil in the world, not to mention the real 9/11 mastermind is still chillin' in a cave laughing at us as I write. I guess what I'm saying about your post is: I think we have the right attitude, but the wrong leader.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 01:48 PM (buka0)

17 Why is George W. Bush the wrong leader?

Posted by: Chris Short at June 13, 2005 01:56 PM (A12F8)

18 Osama:

Damn had an answer for ya and lost it all. Fiber cut. Mr. bush seems willing to take the heat for what he believes is right. I've got to respect that.

Must do real work now.

Have a good one.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 02:08 PM (D3+20)

19 All just hearsay anyways.

Posted by: Jonathan at June 13, 2005 02:29 PM (M7kiy)

20 We went to war because of a perceived security threat, period. It was the only rationale that would get a majority in the Senate, and rightly so.

The problem is that there wasn't any security threat. That's right, we got it wrong, and nobody in the administration has ever admitted that the rationale that counted was.. wrong. Instead, we've been treated to a farrago of half-reasons that simply don't pass the smell test for a war.

We may love the idea of Iraqi democracy, but W wouldn't have gotten 20 votes for his war resolution if that were the proffered reason.

Nope, we screwed up gigantically, and we should admit it in private even if we are unwilling to admit it in public. Forget defending the president, defend the country. The two aren't synonymous.

Posted by: SLE at June 13, 2005 02:31 PM (hsrIx)

21 >>>"Rusty, I thought it was more about the "facts being fixed" that has been getting everyone's panties in a bind, no?"

Culturally illiterate Liberals are fixing another faking scandal.

The Brits don't use the word "fixed" the way we Americans do. To a Brit, to "fix" something is to bolt it down, to tie it down, to make it secure--- NOT to fake it, as we define it here in America.

Another scandal due to willful Liberal ignorance. Imagine that!

Posted by: Carlos at June 13, 2005 02:32 PM (8e/V4)

22 Oi! Carlos, interestin' point you made there, chap. Top drawer, indeed! I didn't even think for a second that any tosser with yellow crooked teeth and fetal alcohol syndrome would have a different manner of speech. All-right then...cheerio!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 02:45 PM (buka0)

23 The focus on the Downing Street memo reveals that the opponents of the war are still vainly attempting to find even one fact to support their ravings. Again, they've failed. Nothing in the memo supports the claims for it. They are left with misrepresentation and quoting out of context.

As for osamawhatever's comments about President Bush and the Iraq War not going well ... its frankly astonishing. The Iraq war is going better than anyone could reasonably expect, and those who claim otherwise do so by comparing our progress to some sort of fantasy-land outline. Just bizarre.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 13, 2005 02:52 PM (xauGB)

24 And here I thought the Downing Street Memo stuff was how Churchill tricked FDR into adopting the "Europe First" strategy. After all, Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and was no security threat to the US. And Mussolini? He was a joke. So why did we invade Italy, or North Africa for that matter?

And what of the Nazi nuclear program Einstein and others sold FDR on. Where were their WMDs? I think the absence of their WMD completely deligitimizes our invasion of Europe. Eisenhower and Patton should have been on trial for war crimes before Spanish judges steeped in the traditions of international law going back to Vittoria. And of course, hundreds of billions of dollars and sixty years later, we're still stuck in that quagmire.....

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at June 13, 2005 02:52 PM (eVpBU)

25 One word ...

"Rathergate"

Could this be the sequel ?

Posted by: Jonathan at June 13, 2005 02:53 PM (M7kiy)

26 Howie...it happens to us all. Let me know when you aren't distracted by work.

Chris Short: I don't just pick on W, but other POTUSes as well. I think W lacks foresight. I also think he's too closely tied to Saudi Arabian oil business to be properly unbiased enough to really deal with the fact that the majority of people involved in 9/11 are Saudi Arabians. I think there's a lot more that we don't know about how those people were involved. I also think that while some think Bush is steadfast, he is also extremely stubborn and not willing to admit to major mistakes. I don't offer a solution, as I've said in many posts we need a really good leader. I just don't think he's it.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 13, 2005 02:53 PM (buka0)

27 Robin Roberts: It's not so astonishing, actually. I'm not in fantasy-land. Who's expectations are you referring to? The general public as a majority is not too confident of what's going on with the war or Bush's job performance. I am hopeful about the outcome and support the troops, but I simply think a better leader would have yielded better results by now.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 02:59 PM (buka0)

28 osama,

oh you ignorant Blue Staters. Yet another fixed fake scandal.

fix -

1. To place securely; make stable or firm: fixed the tent poles in the ground. See Synonyms at fasten.

2. To secure to another; attach: fixing the notice to the board with tacks.

1. To put into a stable or unalterable form: tried to fix the conversation in her memory.

1. To set or place definitely; establish: fixed her residence in a coastal village.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fix

Posted by: Carlos at June 13, 2005 03:17 PM (8e/V4)

29 I suggest that anyone wanting to see what a Democrat says about the progress of the war needs to look at Senator Mitch McConnell's comments after recently returning from iraq. I read it did you??

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:19 PM (D3+20)

30 OOoops.

Posted by: hOWIE at June 13, 2005 03:23 PM (D3+20)

31 Carlos, you know I was just making fun of you...now stop that dictionary shit or I'll have to fix you! Howie...if you got a good link, drop it on me.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 03:26 PM (buka0)

32 Oh yeah...Carlos, like I've said before: I don't trust the memo as any sort of fact either. Way to easy to manufacture. So who you callin' ignorant!?

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 13, 2005 03:28 PM (buka0)

33 Osamawhatever, absent a raygun that when applied to Iraqi's turns them into good little Missouri Democrats, any expectation that we could have better results than we've had in Iraq to date is pure fantasy.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 13, 2005 03:32 PM (xauGB)

34 Well I just brain farted and assigned Mr Mconnell to the wrong party. Maybe I should wait until I have time. It was in my local money stretcher. Basically he said it was going fairly well. It should be think first then click, not spout off then think. My apologies.

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:35 PM (D3+20)

35 My horoscope for today: I should have known.

Just the facts, man. Investigate and nail down specifics today to get things done

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 03:48 PM (D3+20)

36 Robin, thanks for the new handle! Anyway, I see your point. My point is: If we had a better leader, I really do think we'd have more progress to date. Better leadership = better results is no fantasy. We can disagree and it's no big deal. Plus I have no ray gun, so we're out of luck there. I'd rather have a global thought bomb that goes off and resets everyone's memory about religion and racism.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 13, 2005 04:23 PM (buka0)

37 Well work is over. I'm going home to do more work. But first for your entertainment pleasure I'm going to attempt the most dangerous walking and chewing gum at the same time. Let's see if this goes better than writing cobol and blogging at the same time.

Drum roll please........

(papers crinkling)
(footsteps)


Crash bang bam, Oh my freaking leg I think I broke it!!!!!....

Uh duh,

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 05:01 PM (D3+20)

38 C'mon, admit it, you're trying to get some of those fat dollars that the fruitloopians shovel out to serial liars like Coulter and Limbaugh, right? You're doing well referring to anyone who opposes Grand Supreme Imperial Commander Bush as "leftist." After all it is exceedingly important that the meanings of words be reversed.

Posted by: just pete at June 13, 2005 05:05 PM (5RQyu)

39 just pete,
So you don't want to bother to deal in facts either? Pathetic.

Posted by: SPQR at June 13, 2005 05:22 PM (xauGB)

40 Actually, Pete...I've been called Left or Lib by people in here and many people in here agree with me partially or completely on many subjects. Labels can be misleading. State your case because you haven't convinced me. By the way, Rush needs a blowjob so he'll stop being jealous of all those imaginary teenage oral sex parties he's jerking off to.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 13, 2005 05:48 PM (buka0)

41 The problem with your argument is that the ADMINISTRATION's CASE about Iraq and Saddam was built the exact same way. Bush and Co. built their whole case against Saddam upon conspiracy.

Oh yeah, but they didn't believe their own lies- I guess that is different.

Posted by: Paida at June 13, 2005 05:57 PM (sNQmQ)

42 Doctor Shickleford,

It hurts when I read your blog. What should I do? I know, I know, I shouldn't read your blog if it hurts when I do it, but it's not the reading it that hurts. It's that I laugh so hard when I do it.

Uncle Milty

P.S. If you see Henny why don't you ask him to take your wife.

Posted by: Milton Berle at June 13, 2005 06:18 PM (qMxTg)

43 Ah, the good, ol' faithful I-don't-have-anything-to-add-so-I'll-throw-out-an-insult line. Good job, Uncle Milty. I'm sure our military is proud to serve your lousy ass.

The intelligence didn't have to be "fixed". We found graves, lots and lots of graves. We found Salman Pak. We found mucho weapons NOT declared. We found oil-for-food scandals. We found torture dens. We found reams of paperwork outlining names and dates of all sorts of terrorism ties; paper work that is still under the translation process. We have pictures of Saddam's checks to terrorist's families for their "martyrdom". We have Saddam's scientists who are talking like parrots. We have irrefutible evidence of Iraqi officials meeting with members of al Qaeda in Sudan in '98. Believe me, it was not without Saddam's knowledge.

Saddam was actively seeking an alliance with bin Laden. He was dangerously close, if not already being accepted.

I have only to remember Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and his years long quest to seek recognition and acceptance from Adolf Hitler in the thirties. He finally got what he wanted in 1938 and began actively recruiting Muslims for Hitler's military. I imagine Saddam looking dreamy-eyed at pictures of bin Laden waiting for the day he would be accepted. Those who say, unequivocally, that Saddam would "never" had worked with bin Laden because they were so different need only to remember the six degrees of separation rule. Their are many more degrees between Amin al-Husseini and Hitler than there were between Saddam and bin Laden. You ignore that at your own peril.

I'm not even going to give links. If any leftie has any doubt, he or she will seek out the truth. The urge for lefties to sit back and have conspiracy theories spoon feed to them is simply too great to overcome. Conspiracies are just too much fun to resist, aren't they? This "memo" is a "memo". It's one man's idea of what he "thought" was being discussed. I think Rusty explained it pretty well.

Posted by: Oyster at June 13, 2005 07:57 PM (YudAC)

44 Time to redeem myself. I did go out to Senator MConnell's website and get this. MY apoligies to the good senator for my earier thoughtless attempt to remove all doubt that I'm and idiot. Here is a link to his statement on the entire trip.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=238830&start=1

“Given aircraft mechanical problems, our visit to Iraq was somewhat abbreviated. Nonetheless, we departed Baghdad with an unmistakable conclusion: 2005 is a critical year for the future of democracy in that country – and for our own country’s efforts to help the Iraqi people secure the blessings of liberty".

“In Fallujah, we met with a task force of Marines determined that the heroic combat operations required to take the city should be followed by successful reconstruction efforts. They told us that Iraqi forces are combat ready, and determined in the face of enemy opposition. Recent press reports regarding Operation Matador, and the discovery of an insurgent underground bunker system, reveal only a small part of the great work that our forces are doing in Anbar province".

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 08:35 PM (D3+20)

45 Paida, that's completely false. The belief that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs was based on his past behavior as well as numerous intel sources. It wasn't a "conspiracy" theory and it wasn't a lie.

Time for you to grow up.

Posted by: SPQR at June 13, 2005 09:58 PM (xauGB)

46 Just for kicks I polled my own senator DICK (oops cap lock stuck there..) Durbin to see what he thinks. Who knows?? I voted for Simon a couple times. Budget Committee and that lovely tie(MGRHS). I'll have to study up on Mr. Durbin. Any links??

Posted by: Howie at June 13, 2005 09:58 PM (D3+20)

47 Ok, I'm going to end all these conspiracy theories right now. I have proof. PROOF DAMMIT! Bush is actually a cyborg chimp/human hybrid clone from one of Nixon's pubic hairs. He is remote controlled by aliens... I intercepted a transmission of his recent rehearsed press statements from the moon Charon, orbiting Pluto. They beam it right to his head, but the latency causes him to speak in half sentences. NASA is working around the clock to cover this shit up, but I've got the proof, dammit. PROOF! The aliens have also implanted an electrode cattle prod device in Cheney's hemorrhoid (pacemaker? yeah, RIGHT) which is why he makes those awful gnashing faces all the time. The aliens are impatient with the current administration over the progress of the master plan and they keep zapping Cheney to remind him who's boss. They have constant control over Bush, and the only time Bush's brain got bad reception was when he choked on a pretzel. Anyway, if I'm not killed by a death ray tonight it'll be all over the NY Times tomorrow. PROOF DAMMIT! You'll see...

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 12:03 AM (buka0)

48 I agree with everything you said Rusty. Especially with "The Left's obsession with The Downing Street memo is not borderline paranoia, it is has become full on paranoia"

I would say though that this is just the latest conspiracy theory that they think will "bring down the EVIL BushCo. Admin.". And when this one doesn't work they will say that the reason it didn't is that the media is all Corporate Rightwing controlled, and that if they could get a fair hearing they could prove that Bush is guilty. Oh, and it's proof that he's a dictator, too.

And then they will be on to the next conspiracy theory.

The interesting thing though is that a number of the Dem senators and house members are buying into all this. Conyers specifically. They lose more credibility with me every day.

Posted by: sue at June 14, 2005 02:04 AM (WMcIU)

49 This is rather humorous but if this is what passes for content on the right, there is a good reason I don't spend much time with it. We have one side resorting to the very same "methodology" they accuse the other side of resorting to, in an effort to propagate and perpetuate two separate and competing "full blown, paranoid conspiracy theories". But Oyster has created the pearl of all paranoia to cast before the swine of the non-believers.

"I have only to remember Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and his years long quest to seek recognition and acceptance from Adolf Hitler in the thirties. He finally got what he wanted in 1938 and began actively recruiting Muslims for Hitler's military. I imagine Saddam looking dreamy-eyed at pictures of bin Laden waiting for the day he would be accepted. Those who say, unequivocally, that Saddam would "never" had worked with bin Laden because they were so different need only to remember the six degrees of separation rule. Their are many more degrees between Amin al-Husseini and Hitler than there were between Saddam and bin Laden. You ignore that at your own peril.

I'm not even going to give links. If any leftie has any doubt, he or she will seek out the truth. The urge for lefties to sit back and have conspiracy theories spoon feed to them is simply too great to overcome. Conspiracies are just too much fun to resist, aren't they? This "memo" is a "memo". It's one man's idea of what he "thought" was being discussed. I think Rusty explained it pretty well."

I am glad Oyster thinks Rusty explains it all pretty well, and will await the leaks of this information, in a similar fashion to the documents under discussion. This entire juvenile exercise in sophistry should be worth a chuckle when reviewed in say, six months to a year. Rusty would know this if he wasn't so young. This is just the tip of the iceberg. As the iceberg starts to melt, the leaks turn to a deluge as time passes.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 14, 2005 05:37 AM (qMxTg)

50 I have a question for some of our Democrat Senators and Congressmen. If you're so easily "fooled", maybe you're not suited for the job you've been elected to do. How many times do people have to say that "everyone" had the same intelligence to read from. And it wasn't all created by the CIA. Other countries contributed theirs as well.

Interesting that the countries who "interpreted" the intelligence differently and were against the war were the most most corrupt. France Germany and Russia had their hands, up to the elbow, in the oil-for-food cookie jar.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 05:41 AM (YudAC)

51 Oyster seems to think that because Democrats voted for the war, that absolves our president from responsibility for his false statements about the capabilities of the Saddam regime. Why wouldn't it simply suggest that a bunch of people were political cowards or dupes?

The countries that interpreted the intelligence differently may have been venal, I don't know, but they sure got it more right than the White House. Why can't supporters of the president simply admit that he got it colossally wrong? Why does it always have to be qualified? Simple answer: George Bush likes to sit in judgement, but doesn't like to be judged. That is the very definition of a hypocrite.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 07:01 AM (hsrIx)

52 SLE, you put words in my mouth. What I "seem" to think is your idea. What I "do" think may be something entirely different. What you "seem" to think is that every other point (besides WMD) in the reasons for going to war are irrelevent. I'm glad you have an opinion. But that only means you're thinking. It doesn't mean you're right.

And Dr. Strangelove, if facts are paranoia then call me paranoid. It still remains that if left unchecked, Saddam would continue to seek an alliance detrimental to all. If you think it was a better idea to just leave him be, then fine. I don't think it was good to keep ignoring it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 07:53 AM (YudAC)

53 >>>"I'm glad you have an opinion. But that only means you're thinking. It doesn't mean you're right."

LMAO!!! I dig that one. Can I borrow it sometime?

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 08:29 AM (8e/V4)

54 No question that the other reasons are irrelevant, Oyster.

The drama of NBC weapons was the only reason there was a vote authorizing military action. It was the only important issue in Powell's address to the UN. The whole inspection episode was for WMD, the implication being that if we were satisfied on that score, war would be unnecessary. WMD were the only element that justified the characterization of Iraq as a "grave and gathering threat". On and on. Revisionist history won't do here, too important.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I'd be interested in why you think Democratic votes for war are important or significant. Two wrongs don't make a right, or at least that is conventional wisdom.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 09:11 AM (hsrIx)

55 "No question that the other reasons are irrelevant, Oyster."

Why, because you have no 'evidence' to refute the other reasons? You state that Powell used that as the basis for his presentation to the UN, but if you recall, the UN did not give it's blessing for this endeavor so that is really a non-starter anyway.

Please keep in mind that Saddam was routinely firing SAM's at our fighters, and we were routinely blowing them up. The attacks on our pilots most certainly factor into the "grave and gathering threat", as he proved over and over his willingness to attack our people.

There are other reasons, which I will not go into here, but I would caution you regarding the WMD, that the fact that we have not found them does not mean that they don't exist. We never found Jimmy Hoffa.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 09:36 AM (jPCiN)

56 Oh how soon we forget. Forgive me if I'm wrong for it is not that uncommon but. I seem to recall Mr. Bush eating crow on the WMD issue in a press conference. He also promised to look into the intel matter. I think he probably is because looking like an idiot hurts and I'm sure he would like to prevent any future "issues". But does anyone remember that. Noooo. Maybe his statement wasn't contrite enough got some of you but it was made.

Osama: Bush may not be the best possible leader in "let's fanasize about better leaders land". But he is our leader at the current time. No amount of wishing for Reagan or FDR or Lincoln will change this. We have to do the best we can with what we've got. Hey howie gets a fact right Bush is President, McConnell is majorty whip. Wow it's amazing what making an ass of yourself (in public no less) will motivate you to learn eh.

Anyway I was online working till 1:30 am, took the day off (at least didn't drive in) to maybe cut that grass and what the hell I deserve it. Seems to be sprinkling out grrrrrr. NO RAIN NO RAIN NO RAIN..

Posted by: Howie at June 14, 2005 10:02 AM (D3+20)

57 I am not saying the other reasons weren't there, I am simply saying the administration would have never gotten authorization to go to war for those reasons. Again, I think the problem with the apologists for this war is that they wish to revise history that is too recent to be forgotten.

I cannot prove that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, and I certainly cannot disprove a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. The evidence that we have, after an extensive, indeed frantic, search, says there wasn't any useful capability. Is that so hard to admit?

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 10:02 AM (hsrIx)

58 In response to "Osama: Bush may not be the best possible leader in "let's fantasize about better leaders land". But he is our leader at the current time. No amount of wishing for Reagan or FDR or Lincoln will change this. We have to do the best we can with what we've got."

Howie, I agree we have to do the best with what we have...but Bush is far from the best that we have. The very thought that you're imagining me as 'fantasizing' about better leaders makes me think you're settling for way less than you should. It's not a fantasy for me to wish we had a leader who could admit to mistakes, be open-minded or trustworthy, rather than stubborn and dodgy. Or to wish for one who has the strong military experience we've seen in other 2004 candidates or in 2000. (Clark, McCaine) Fantasy implies the unreachable or unrealistic. I am doing neither.

BTW, what the hell were you doin' up at 1:30AM anyway? Not that I haven't worked that late before.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 10:38 AM (buka0)

59 SLE, you are making crap up. The administration gave many reasons for the authorization of war on Iraq and those reasons are included in the text of the authorizing resolution if you bothered to actually read anything. The emphasis on WMD was because of the process of getting UN authorization, not congressional.

Osamawhatever, Clark demonstrated his incompetence repeatedly as SACEUR under the Clinton administration. Clark was a laughing stock among our european allies for his many missteps in the Balkans - to such a degree that Clinton cut his term short. Militarily, McCain was a mediocre airplane driver - nothing more.

Posted by: SPQR at June 14, 2005 11:37 AM (xauGB)

60 SLE: The point most of us try to make is simply that all of Saddam's transgressions regarding UN resolutions, the repeated times he kicked the inspectors out and the repeating shooting at our pilots patrolling to keep him contained gave more than enough reason to take further aggression. And now, in retrospect, the oil-for-food debacle. How long were we to foot the bill for Saddam? Forever? Does anyone really think the money he skimmed from oil-for-food was only for his palaces? Upwards of 22 billion dollars? I don't. He was funding and outsourcing terrorism. He was providing training for terrorists. Terrorists that would gleefully leave Iraq, no matter what "brigade" they claimed to be from, and use their new found training to kill more innocent people, including Americans - and probably "especially" Americans. And all anyone can focus on is WMD.

Because he couldn't take his tanks over his borders everyone thinks he was harmless. WMD is technically nuclear, biological or chemical. When really WMD is also huge stockpiles of weapons that can produce mass destruction as well. Such masses of "conventional" weaponry is extremely dangerous in the hands of a madman and the only thing that separated him from his weapons was a few IAEA stickers and patience in waiting for sanctions to be lifted.

The press focused on WMD more than the administration did. All questions were directed toward information about WMD. Most reporting was focused on WMD. That's why it appears that it was the main focus of the administration. Very few questions were asked about any of the remaining points because they couldn't be refuted.

I see that many people feel that everything was fine just the way it was. That Saddam was, in fact, being contained. He was, only in the loosest of terms, being "contained". The fact that he kept his society so closed and kept so much in secret, even with having a CNN bureau there willing to help keep secrets, made it difficult to attain more "solid" intelligence.

There are literally hundreds of news reports and intel papers referred to, even those found in Iraq, and hard physical evidence about Iraqi connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. No one cares.

You say that they never would have gotten authorization without the WMD angle. To this I can only say that most thought it was more possible than not that Saddam was pursuing this line. He gave every indication that he was. And given 20/20 hindsight I think he was closer to reconstituting his programs than some will admit. It's almost as if because we coudn't prove he was actively creating nuclear weapons, then the rest could be conveniently downplayed.

And I don't know about you, but I am absolutely livid that the whole world pointed fingers at us for starving Iraqi children when Saddam and others were lining their pockets with the money meant to feed them and give them medicine.

This is not an attempt to revise history. It's an attempt to not be so narrow minded as to refute or play down information because it gets in the way of one's initial beliefs.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 11:46 AM (fl6E1)

61 Oyster,

You are re-stating, at length, your conclusions that there were ample reasons to go to war with or without the WMD (NBC) factor. I simply disagree. The only threat that Iraq posed to our national security as it is normally understood is potential WMD. I am not saying Saddam and his henchmen didn't hate us or wish us ill; this condition is not unique to Saddam's regime, and again, is not an acceptable cause for war. Wars, just wars anyway, are defensive wars fought because there is no alternative that will assure the security of the country. Absent WMD, Saddam's Iraq wasn't that different than, say, Libya, and nobody is suggesting that Libya ever posed a sufficient threat to the country to go to war.

I actually supported the war on the basis of the WMD threat. However, my opinion changed (reality-based) completely when no WMD were discovered. You have to be right about these things, there is no gray area. We blew it, and now we will pay the price both externally and internally, and I blame it squarely on our commander in chief. The President or his delegates made a whole series of decisions on Iraq that have proven to be very bad for the country, and we are weakened for it.

I won't even attempt to understand why he made the decisions he did; his motives really don't matter, I just think his decisions were really bad. He blew the most important decision of his entire presidency, and that is how he will be remembered.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:08 PM (hsrIx)

62 SPQR, I have read the authorization. When you indict someone, you throw the book at them. This has little to do with the charges that stick or that matter. I guess you think that the UN effort was simply a fig leaf; that may be correct, but I have never heard the administration admit that, and I don't expect to hear it.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:15 PM (hsrIx)

63 SPQR---->

Clark: February 1970, then 25, Clark was wounded by a sniper in the jungle. Ambushed by the Viet Cong, Clark was shot four times (in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg) before he could find cover. He managed to shout commands to troops, who launched a counterattack and defeated the enemy force. Clark's wounds were treated, and he was flown back to the United States to recuperate at Valley Forge Hospital. There he saw his new four-month-old son, Wesley Jr., who had been born in his absence. He also was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star.

The most controversial part of Clark's command in Kosovo came after the end of the military campaign and involved the use of a Kosovo airfield by the Russian military. After a small Russian force left their peacekeeping station in Bosnia unannounced and took control of the Slatina airfield, near Pristina, on June 10, 1999, there was (according to a BBC report) a "battle of wills" between Clark and the British NATO commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson. Clark ordered British forces to block the runways to the airfield, to prevent the Russian troops from being resupplied from their homeland. This maneuver would have been one step short of hostile, and Jackson did not comply, reportedly later saying: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."


John McCain:

U.S. Senator, Arizona 1987-
U.S. Congressman, Arizona 1983-87
Council on Foreign Relations
International Republican Institute Board of Directors
Special Operations Warrior Foundation Board of Advisors
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Bronze Star
Distinguished Flying Cross
Legion of Merit
Purple Heart
Silver Star
Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service
Tortured Hoa Lo Prison, Hanoi, Vietnam

--------------------------------------

SPQR, both of these men are not what you say. They are decorated veterans with balls and integrity which put someone like Bush to fucking shame. Bush can't hold a candle to either of these men who have done more for their country than he ever will. I rest my case, unless you want to disrespect any more amazing people.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 12:17 PM (buka0)

64 SPQR:
5 of 6 opening paragraphs of HJ RES 114 authorizing military action in Iraq are ENTIRELY about WMD:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 199 , Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:24 PM (hsrIx)

65 I would give McCain his due and my thanks for his military service to the US. I think him quite an asshole otherwise. The McCain-Feingold law is one of the worst abridgments on our free speech rights that I have ever seen. The man should rot for that one.

SLE

At the end of the day, the removal of Saddam Hussein will be seen as a good thing, and Bush will get credit for it. I am sorry if this chaps your ass, but it is how history will write it. We just cannot afford to coddle tyranny anymore, and the lesson that Saddam learned is reverberating through the region.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 12:31 PM (jPCiN)

66 DefenseGuy: I see your point of view, and I sincerely hope that is what happens, but I don't substitute wishful thinking for rational analysis.

I don't know that we've ever coddled tyranny, but I do think that we used to think more concretely and informatively about our interests. The sound bites feel good, but they are no substitute for an effective policy.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 12:45 PM (hsrIx)

67 I am not sure what you mean by an effective policy. No campaign or war has ever gone smoothly. It just doesn't happen. This war is not over by a long shot, and may not be in either of our lifetimes.

I pray that many of the remaining tyrannies in the world can be replaced peacefully, but have no real hope that this will be so. I would also submit that the removal of said tyrannical regimes is ALWAYS in the interest of the US and the rest of the free world.

So we must continue where we can, despite the apparent hypocrisy of our position regarding countries such as China, SA and Pakistan.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 12:58 PM (jPCiN)

68 SLE: If your only criteria was/is the presence or absence of WMD then I don't see any further point in my share of this discussion.

Posted by: Oyster at June 14, 2005 01:17 PM (fl6E1)

69 By policy, I mean having to make difficult, concrete decisions rather than setting a strategic tone. Do we go public on the Uzbeks or do we accept the hit and work (I hope) quietly to improve their lot? Do we spend some extra money shoring up Karzai or do we spend it in Africa? Do we work for regime change in Sudan? If so, how? There is a country where sending in the Marines is unlikely to have any useful effect at all.

Platitudes simply don't answer these questions. At this level, this administration has made a lot of bad decisions, and they seem to stem from an over-reliance on broad concepts as opposed to factual analysis. Again, I can't help myself, I try to be reality-based.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 01:19 PM (hsrIx)

70 Oyster what I have tried to point out is that the WMD issue was the issue that gave us the war. That is: the authorization was heavily dependent on it, our actions at the UN were entirely dependent on it, and broad public support for the war was based on it. My own motives for supporting the war were never actually germane to the conversation, they kind of slipped out.

Posted by: SLE at June 14, 2005 01:26 PM (hsrIx)

71 You have all obviously been mislead, and are blind to the true Neo-Con agenda:

http://www.mediaright.ca/neocon/Agenda/agenda1.htm

Posted by: Junker at June 14, 2005 04:32 PM (Y1ykG)

72 "Most mainstream media organizations are located off-shore, enabling vast sums of money to be covertly redirected over-seas using Right-wing blogs."

Oh my God, is this link for real? Hahaha... Rusty! I know what you're REALLY doing!!!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 05:05 PM (buka0)

73 http://jonathanandwanda.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-memo_13.html


'nuff said

Posted by: Jonathan at June 14, 2005 08:27 PM (wdVtc)

74 Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?

Posted by: Dagny at June 14, 2005 08:56 PM (SfvIR)

75 Dagny...unfortunately, there are many facts pointing to Bush not being so bright. Being a mastermind criminal seems quite far fetched... To claim both is definitely contradictory! People always need someone to blame (most often not themselves) and anyone who's smart and doesn't like Bush's leadership would be a chimp idiot themselves to think that he is the only one to blame for anything. I personally think that Saddam could have been taken care of in different ways. I also think we went to war too fast and our current POTUS + administration isn't doing a very good job...but this is just my opinion, which anyone is more than entitled to disagree with me about. I think above all we need to support the troops and do our best to have a good outcome over there, and I doubt anyone in here would disagree with me about that. Iraq is only one problem currently among many in the present and future. While we are trying to 'spread democracy' there, NK is flouting nukes for example. The USA preventing a terrorist nuke from going off in a major city in the next 10 years would seem like a miracle to me. Technology will creep into the wrong hands sooner or later...so the question is, how do we stop it?

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 10:06 PM (buka0)

76 Well let's just end the discussion right here. This is one entire blogwhorefest( MJ circlejerk is more like it) of people who crave the attention they feel they deserve but don't get, especially Rusty, and Jonathon and Wanda have just jumped on the pile. And yes, Oyster. I called you a paranoid wingnut because you are. If you figure it out, Dagny, please keep it to yourself.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 14, 2005 10:06 PM (qMxTg)

77 Oh, come on Dr. Strangelove...we know you just want all the attention as the last person to put his 2 cents in. Don't make me send your first born to Neverland... Oh yeah, and Oyster ain't that bad. I don't agree with him on everything, but I wouldn't call him a paranoid wingnut...I reserve that hard earned title for Maximus! Don't steal his thunder!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 10:27 PM (buka0)

78 Osama:

Also bi partisan interview about iraq from Sunday's Meet the press.
Descent read.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8130648/

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 01:30 PM (D3+20)

79 Dagny posed the query:
"Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?"

It's the Joooooooooossssss!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 11:05 PM (0yYS2)

80 Ya, another thing I don't get is the 'we used to HELP Saddam' line. Wouldn't it stand to reason then that taking him down is a fix of the old 'enemy of our enemy is our friend' strategy we used to have? Isn't Bush's breaking the status quo a good thing then?

Posted by: Junker at June 15, 2005 11:15 PM (Y1ykG)

81 I have to agree with Improbulus Maximus. But he misspelled it.

It's the Juice!!!

O.J. Did it, and so did MJ.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at June 16, 2005 04:39 AM (qMxTg)

82 "Something that has always confused me is that liberals simultaneously contend that Bush is an idiot chimp who rushed into war without a plan and a criminal mastermind who planned the war from his first day in office. Which is it?"

I believe the correct answer is that Bush is a criminal idiot who planned on going to war from his first day in office -- then rushed into it without a plan, particularly for the day after the fall of Baghdad. Flowers? Candy? Falafel tape parades?

I've never, EVER heard anyone accuse him of being a "mastermind," a description that is laughable on its face.

Posted by: war larry at June 16, 2005 05:37 PM (FwVqK)

83 .

Posted by: blubbo at June 17, 2005 11:14 PM (65x9S)

84 The thing that *I* actually find humorous is the number of liberals who think that Bush is actually a smart guy who just plays dumb. Now admit it. You know that a guy that doesn't know the difference between "dissemble" and "disassemble" is not a particularly bright guy, whether you want to admit it or not.

The success of this adminstration does not depend in any way on George Bush. He's happy to let Dick run the show and with a complicit corporate media happy to benefit from the free money raining down upon them, and with supporters who think that lying for the cause is fine and are therefore pefectly happy to aid and abet malfeasance, he can get away with just about anything.

Bush's dim-wittedness is in fact a virtue. Its precisely because he is so incurious and unaffected by factual evidence that he can remain so shameless and blind to the many horrors his arrogance inflicts on the rest of the world. This of course suits the puppet masters just fine. They don't even bother to pretend to contact Bush when the white house may be under attack. To them Bush is a dream come true. A free ticket for polluters and corporate hacks everywhere who will still be disgustingly wealthy long after too-dumb-to-know-better finds out what the future holds in store for his sad legacy.

- Mike

Posted by: Mike Harris at June 23, 2005 03:57 PM (x8WWN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's 12:21 in the morning. There are three of us still at the office on this floor. What idiot decides to schedule finals less than 24 hours before grades are due?

Un-freaking-believable!!

Anyway, I just turned in the last of my grades. I am officially on vacation. Yes, the difficult life of a college professor. I have 75 days of vacation....

...wait a sec...did I forget something...oh....no.....SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

Don't panic. You're teaching a one week course...actually, taking the students to D.C. Gonna meet Stev-o, Maximum Leader, Cranky, Prof. Stotch and others (and maybe Rob-o if he'd grow some nads around the house)....

GOOD TIMES ALL AROUND

Oh, and if Steve the Llama Butcher is reading this post: I'm the bitch?

Posted by: Rusty at 12:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

So Andrew Sullivan tries to act all hetero for a few posts. Dude just doesn't get it. Stick with the gay thing man. HETERO MOMENT II:

Are you straight guys as irritated as I am by the metrosexual craze? Please please please don't remove a single hair from your body. Ignore Queer Eye. We homos aren't all crazed, plucked product queens.

Then AS links to The Superficial, which is cool since they've linked to me in the past and given me a ton of hits. But to call such a site hetero?? HETERO MOMENT I:

Here's a great blog obsessed with - and very funny about - the lives of very hot, twenty-something famous babes. My friend Jay Jaroch and others on the Bill Maher writing team alerted me to it. It's hilarious and obsessive and very bloggy.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:53 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He's so gay.

When you can go from pro-Bush foreign policy hawk to Kerry supporter just because of gay, then you're too gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 04:58 PM (8e/V4)

2

OK, I’ll start it off:
In the immortal words of Butch in a post last week…” No one was ever born with a feeding tube” Butch 5/2005

First thing I thought of when I read this thread….” No one was ever born with a tube of K-Y Jelly”. ….Brad 5/2005

Boys’, playing the back nine is against the rules. Wanting to do it is forgivable; doing it without asking forgiveness is a ticket to eternity in a very nasty place.

Just want to warn ya. Aint none of us perfect, but all of us sinners can turn it around.


Filthy Allah, I made fun of your goats a couple of weeks ago, and I’m damn sorry about it.

Posted by: Brad at May 10, 2005 05:14 PM (aUEhc)

3 Yeah, Andrew is the C3PO of the 'sphere: So gay, acts like he's on the good guy's side, but when it comes down to the Jawas telling him what to do he puts on his knee pads like a good droid.

Posted by: Editor at May 10, 2005 08:15 PM (WUwLB)

4 So, Brad: if your wife puts on a strap-on and gives you a good time--that's a sin, huh? All right. And if you use her "back entrance" that's a sin as well . . .? I'd be interested in seeing where that's written in the rule book, 'cause I've never seen it there. It's intriguing that you're tempted, of course. I wonder whether that temptation pertains to back-door action, or homosexuality. Perhaps a little introspection is in order?

Rusty: I like the fact that Sullivan tried to explain that stereotypes were just stereotypes, that he isn't the way gays are portrayed in the media, and your reaction was essentially "yes you are! you just don't want to admit it!"

Plenty of men like guys who have hairy, masculine bodies (that is, after all, a classical part of the gay male experience: liking men).

And in my town lots of men do follow the lives of celebrities.

Rusty, Rusty: I love the work you do in terms of documenting some of the brutal murders going on in the Middle East, but on some issues you seem awfully naive.

To all: I understand that a lot of the readers here are philosophically opposed to homosexuality, but I cannot think that our Lord would approve of the way some of you formulate this disapproval, or the stance you take toward homosexuals.

We're told that Jesus hung out with prostitutes. I think that matters.

And I wish some of you guys would lighten up.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2005 01:48 AM (FAdyB)

5 Which brings me to the question: What is Rusty Shackleford? Homo/lesbian/straight/male/female/shemale or perhaps an energy being programmed to act human and gather useful propaganda to a website?

Posted by: A Finn at May 11, 2005 03:12 AM (cWMi4)

6 The biblical "rule book," has many references to activities that are condemned, including homosexual activity:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:24-27

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (Note: aresenokoitais: A sodomite, or homosexual), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1st Timothy 1:8-10
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (Note: aresenokoitais: A sodomite, or homosexual), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11

About half the states still have laws, based upon the above, against sodomy on the books.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 07:15 AM (x+5JB)

7 Just to clarify: Rusty is gay, just not all the way gay.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 11, 2005 08:15 AM (JQjhA)

8 I'm getting the impression that a large percentage of Zionazis have got the gay.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 09:12 AM (/+dAV)

9 Attila hon,

I have been married 17 years. If I came up to bed and found my wife had strapped on what I think you are talking about, I would go running and screaming out the front door.
Good God, Is this what’s going on out there?

Hey YBP, great post. Are you a Deacon at your Parish?

Posted by: Brad at May 11, 2005 09:27 AM (pO1tP)

10 greg,

but that kind of gay just HAS gay.

But the other kind of gay IS gay-- it's entirely who they are and everything under the sun is about them being gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 09:28 AM (8e/V4)

11 Good God, Is this what’s going on out there?

hehehe! Yup. People are bored out of their minds. They'll be fucking their dog Spot before long.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 09:30 AM (8e/V4)

12 “but that kind of gay just HAS gay.

But the other kind of gay IS gay-- it's entirely who they are and everything under the sun is about them being gay.”-Carlos

Probably just my naiveté but I fail to appreciate the difference. Too nuanced for me to understand. Has gay?

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 09:42 AM (/+dAV)

13 Hi Brad: I'm not a deacon--yet. Merely continuing in my unofficial secular capacity as Lord High Curmudgeon Heresy-Finder General.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 09:56 AM (x+5JB)

14 greg,

HAS gay means it's not your entire life.

It means Bush's stance on gay marriage is irrelevant to your foreign policy views. Andrew Sullivan, who comments extensively on foreign policy, was unable to separate the two. He IS gay, so his view on foreign policy changed depending on where Bush stood on gay marriage.

That doesn't happen to someone who merely HAS gay.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 10:07 AM (8e/V4)

15 Errr, Ahhh, Okey Dokey.

Are you sure this isn't just a way for My Pet Jawa Fags to rationalize their homosexuality? Where I come from a fag is a fag is a fag.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 10:13 AM (/+dAV)

16 The big catch that wasn't?
Pakistan's arrest of Libyan Al Qaeda suspect not as big a breakthrough as first thought.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0510/dailyUpdate.html

The first American newspaper to admit what the rest of the world already knows, namely that the Libyan who was captured and said to be the #3 Al Qaeda man is just small fry.

Why would the rest of the American MSM remain silent on this? Because they are complicit in this war of lies and they’re trying desperately to make lemonade out of lemons.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 10:31 AM (/+dAV)

17 greg,

aren't you posting that on the wrong thread?

LMAO!

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 10:53 AM (8e/V4)

18 Sorry, but I just can't take this Has Gay v. Is Gay thing seriously.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:03 AM (/+dAV)

19 greg,

it's not meant to be taken all that seriously. Just a little bit seriously. Like a kernel of truth seriously.

And FYI, the CSMonitor agreeing with a couple of Lefty eurorags is hardly news.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 11:15 AM (8e/V4)

20 Foreign Press Reporting that Zarqawi is Dead

http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_der_heure.php3?id_article=40639#htdepage

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:18 AM (/+dAV)

21 greg,

is there a particular website where you pick up those foreign sources? I'd like to check it out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 11:19 AM (8e/V4)

22 Whatreallyhappened.com
&
Bushwatch.net

Enjoy!

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:23 AM (/+dAV)

23 greg,

my loony buddy turned me onto propagandamatrix dot com

check it out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 11:28 AM (8e/V4)

24 I'm familiar with it. It's not a bad site. Thanks though.

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)

25 Gee thanks Brad,
I was not sure if any besides Greg, chicken little brain
ever read my posts. But if the first thing you thought of after
reading my post is about K-Y jelly, well I have to wonder bout
you now, and I hate to spoil your fantasies, but I am not that type.
Now the next point I have is most of you are yelling
that homosexual activities are a sin in the Bible. Repent, or
thou are doomed to hell. Right? But what if you are not a Christian?
Also why are Christians basing their whole salvation on just one
book. One book that was not written down until 3 centuries after Jesus
died. True the oral traditions have been around for ever, but have
they really never been changed from the begining? Fact, I heard of a
story about a 30 year old man, goes off into the desert and is tempted
by an evil being. This man of course turns down the temptation and
follows the good god. Sound familiar? It did to me, but then I found
out the man was not Jesus, but Zoroaster, who lived like 400 years before Jesus. The magies that came to visit the child Jesus, they to
, along with guardian beings (angels), all came from Zoroasterism. Now this is not so suprising considering that the Romans, the most infamous plagiarizers ever, complied the bible. When it comes down to
it, religion is a private affair, between oneself and ones diety(or dieties). As such, we should respects everyone's own beliefs as long
as those beliefs do not threaten society.
Unfortunately the Moral Majority does not like this idea. They
want everyone to believe as they do and want laws to enslave everyone
to follow them. Abortion is evil, lets outlaw it. Gay marriages are
evil, lets outlaw it. Mercy killing (when truly needed.) is evil,
lets outlaw it. Reading Huck Fin is evil, lets burn it. Mypetjawa is
evil (according to Google, ) lets close it down.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 11:52 AM (Gqhi9)

26 Just as the Holy Spirit guides the election of the pope, so it guideed the Bible, regarded by Christians as infallible.

Non-Christians will be judged by not by Christian precepts, but whether or not they have faithfully followed the law written upon their heart.

Zoroaster. No one denies the existence of pagan religions/cults before Christianity. And many New Testament incidents had "types," or forshadowings in the Old Testament.

Morality as a private matter leads to chaos, with loony fathers justifying the stabbing their children because they broke curfews.

We've all heard this before: "Your right is not my right." And 2+2=5, by the way.

The thing to remember is that Christianity deems it sinful to FORCE anyone to comply with its teachings.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 12:53 PM (x+5JB)

27
Hey Butch, I was just having a little fun.

Honestly, I don’t give my team much hope to stop abortion, promote religion in public arena or just put some reasonable restraints on the gay juggernaut. The left is winning all these battles not us. You should be basking in your victories.

I throw up a comment about the Gay thing every now and then. Man the response can be just overwhelming. It’s probably a cheep shot, but its fun seeing the explosion that follows.

Hey, did you call Greg “chicken little brain”? I thought you two were bros.

Posted by: Brad at May 11, 2005 01:08 PM (aUEhc)

28 Bourbon/Brad:

Difficult to discuss without violating the PG rule, but plenty of straight men like to have their prostate glands tickled. That's sensation, not orientation. And I saw *nothing* in your scriptures that said anything about the prostate gland (or how to get there).

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2005 03:09 PM (FAdyB)

29 Brad, no, Chicken little brain is aka greyrooster. Who has not been
around lately. Honestly I take very little out here seriously. This
is a way for me to pass the time at work when I have slow time.
To You YBP, I did say as long as it did not society. (aka killing
kids because of late curfews.) Once again I say, no matter how saintly you or Pope John Paul II is/was, neither of you can ensure
me a place in heaven. Only my relationship with my God,(or gods) can
do that. It is cool for people of like beliefs to get together and worship as long as it hurts no one, (sorry human sacrifices are out).
And if it is a sin to force Christianity on to people, help bout telling that to MR. Bushie, and friends up in D.C. .

As far as your right is not my right. Well some time this is true.
If we are in the same room, and you say it is too cold, and I say it
is to hot, which of us is wrong. Neither, due to the fact we each perceive the temperature differently. I guess that is my main point,
is that one's perception of something is not necessarily wrong, but
it can be different.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 03:13 PM (Gqhi9)

30 Butch: If a person says that the room is the "right" temperature, that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about "right" and "wrong" within the contect of morality.

I agree--the pope or any other Christian can't save anyone, be can show the way to holy living and eternal life through his office as Vicar of Christ.

Attilla Girl: Plenty of straight men cheat on their wives, but that doesn't make it morally permissable.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 11, 2005 04:45 PM (nU3B/)

31 >>>"...but plenty of straight men like to have their prostate glands tickled."

What a load of politically correct crap.

Posted by: Carlos at May 11, 2005 04:55 PM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ok, I don't really have time to post, but I read this over at Eschaton's place.....talk about freaking nutty!!! Look, Atrios is just your run of the mill left-wing activist in the Democratic party. I've never considered him part of the tin-foil brigades, just part of the gay-hating pretending to be gay-loving gay-outing partisan left. But whoever this guy Avedon is.....man, this guy takes the cake!

Here is the post in question where he (she?) accused the Republican party of rigging elections. Evidence? Well, why else would they be so confident that judicial fillibusters won't be needed in the future if they aren't completely sure they will be in the majority for the foreseeable future. Idiot. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:46 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Dean responds in a post titled Where are your balls? to my earlier rant on Islam.

The reason I'm pestering you Dean and not Dr. Hessabalah, is because you are a friend. I'm not interested in engaging Muslims who wish to rewrite history. That is a dialogue they need to be having with themselves. I don't know what true Islam is and frankly I don't care. What I care about are actions. And not just the actions performed by the jihadis, but the actions of mainstream Islam in regards to basic human rights such as the ability to choose one's own religion. Something forbidden in all but the most extreme liberal circles of that faith.

If Dr. Hessabalah was really concerned with convincing fellow Muslims of the error of their ways then why is he not writing in Arabic, Persian, Malay, etc.? Instead, he tries to convince us that Islam does not require infidels to be murdered. As a member of CAIR's Media Relations arm I'm not surprised that he would focus on convincing us that Islam is mmmkay, peaceful, but that is the nature of expansionist religions. You put your best face forward when trying to get new recruits or when trying to defend the faith.

I hope and pray liberal Islam eventually succeeds in replacing mainstream and conservative Islam. But when sincere liberal Muslims, historical revisionists, and liars wishing to put a shiny happy face on Islam in an attempt to convince we infidels and people of the book of Islam's peaceful nature.....well, it sort of chaps my hide. To liberal Muslims I say stop trying to convince we skeptics of the merits of your religion. Instead, convince the jihadis and Islamofascists who intentionally murder civillians for the good of the umma and mainstream theologians who embrace the fascist idea that while it is ok for an infidel to become a Muslim, it is forbidden for a Muslim to become an infidel.

So what bothers me is a) I admire Dean b) I hate to see a friend play the dhimmi.

On a personal note the immortal words of AC/DC come to mind: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:18 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

Overheard all over the tin-foil side of the blogosphere.

More. And even more.

UPDATE: He doesn't like Kerry? He must be Hitler.

UPDATE II: Pope worse than Hitler, opposes condoms!

UPDATE III: Run and hide, Pope is anti-Christ!!

UPDATE IV: THE END IS NEAR!!!

UPDATE V: Let's bring this back to reality. The Pope is not the Anti-Christ. He's just a Nazi. So calm down the rhetoric.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:07 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.