Tillerson out.

All the attackers were dead. Who was the government supposed to waterboard? 

Perhaps those residents of Jersey City who celebrated the attacks?

LOST said:

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

As I suspected, it seems like it depends on what the meaning of is is.

No, it depends on what the DOJ and the CIA lawyer say what is is.

As with every other lawyer on the planet, those lawyers say whatever they are paid to say. 

I pause in reading this thread to say that there are many many lawyers who could not be paid to justify torture.

And there were lawyers at the time who didn't call it torture and authorized it. No one was ever convicted or jailed for what happened back then, because the people who did it were authorized to do it.

Nor were the people who authorized it convicted or jailed.

it used to be that we libs were the ones who were castigated for being "moral relativists."  It used to be considered a virtue that there were things that were always considered wrong.  For instance, the stuff that other countries used to do to our POWs, like waterboarding, was considered heinous.  

There's a reason why some of us our convinced we're right on this issue of torture.  Because we are. There's no middle ground on this.  A little torture is just as heinous and inhuman as a lot of torture.  And it doesn't matter what some CIA or DOJ hacks have to say about it.

There are some things that are morally abhorrent.  Anyone who suggests torture is ok really and truly does need to do some introspection about what kind of person they are.

BCC said:

Not much point in carrying a conversation with some one who is always right.

Possible, but folks are still willing to engage with you.

BCC said:

Not much point in carrying a conversation with some one who is always right.

Still my favorite MOL quote of the past month:

“It takes a lot of time to explain to people why they are wrong. I now have the time.”

BCC said:

LOST said:

Red_Barchetta said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

As I suspected, it seems like it depends on what the meaning of is is.

No, it depends on what the DOJ and the CIA lawyer say what is is.

As with every other lawyer on the planet, those lawyers say whatever they are paid to say. 

I pause in reading this thread to say that there are many many lawyers who could not be paid to justify torture.

And there were lawyers at the time who didn't call it torture and authorized it. No one was ever convicted or jailed for what happened back then, because the people who did it were authorized to do it.

Nor were the people who authorized it convicted or jailed.

And if Germany had won WW11 those who authorized the Holocaust and those who carried it out would not have been tried , convicted or punished.

So in the end might makes right, the ends justify the means and winning is everything. But I disagree and think there is a higher morality. so let me ask you,

If all the attackers were dead who do you waterboard or even interrogate?

Secondly, once that is answered and an appropriate suspect is in custody is there any "technique" that would not be justified? 

ml1 said:

tjohn said:

No, the point is that for individuals, if you do certain things (e.g. torture, etc.) it haunts you forever.  That is what Stigler's CO meant about the rules of war.  Our government, of course, has been monstrous for some time and many of us are complicit.

You, too, are evidently a monster for not understanding that waterboarding is torture whether authorized or not.

this attitude means that we can do anything we want as long as the government "authorizes" it.  It's an attitude that takes us through the looking glass.  It's frankly an absurd notion that giving something a new label changes the essence of the underlying concept.  Saying that waterboarding isn't torture doesn't change the essential fact that waterboarding is indeed torture. Anyone who suggests otherwise might want to reconsider their own humanity.  

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Your first sentence is correct. If the government authorizes it you can do it. Is that news to you?

The government can also decide later on you can't do it and then you can't do it or you can be punished for doing it.

I think it is about time to stop trying to convince people who will never be convinced and waste my time with silly analogies.

DaveSchmidt said:

BCC said:

Not much point in carrying a conversation with some one who is always right.

Still my favorite MOL quote of the past month:

“It takes a lot of time to explain to people why they are wrong. I now have the time.”

With some people you run out of time.

BCC said:

Your first sentence is correct. If the government authorizes it you can do it. Is that news to you?

The government can also decide later on you can't do it and then you can't do it or you can be punished for doing it.

I think it is about time to stop trying to convince people who will never be convinced and waste my time with silly analogies.

Wow.  I think we owe more than a few Japanese and Germans posthumous pardons and, maybe, apologies.

Actually, here is proof that torture does work.

http://all-funny.info/cia-fbi-kgb-tasked-with-finding-rabbit

tjohn said:

BCC said:

Your first sentence is correct. If the government authorizes it you can do it. Is that news to you?

The government can also decide later on you can't do it and then you can't do it or you can be punished for doing it.

I think it is about time to stop trying to convince people who will never be convinced and waste my time with silly analogies.

Wow.  I think we owe more than a few Japanese and Germans posthumous pardons and, maybe, apologies.

And a reminder that It Can Happen Here.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

Your first sentence is correct. If the government authorizes it you can do it. Is that news to you?

The government can also decide later on you can't do it and then you can't do it or you can be punished for doing it.

I think it is about time to stop trying to convince people who will never be convinced and waste my time with silly analogies.

Wow.  I think we owe more than a few Japanese and Germans posthumous pardons and, maybe, apologies.

I made an error.  I used the word "can" when I really meant "should."  I believe that humans have a much higher ethical obligation than to follow the letter of the law.  There are higher levels of right and wrong, and we SHOULD not torture people, regardless of what a CIA lawyer says.  Changing the words that label a practice don't make the practice any less morally abhorrent.

It's actually very, very sad that I need to explain this to a supposedly sentient adult.  On an anonymous online message board it's not right to come to a hard and fast conclusion about a person you're arguing with.  The other person may simply be spouting a morally repugnant position just to troll me, or just to argue for argument's sake. But without coming to a conclusion about the person, I can surely say that the argument itself in favor of torture is sociopathic.

DaveSchmidt said:

BCC said:

Not much point in carrying a conversation with some one who is always right.

Still my favorite MOL quote of the past month:

“It takes a lot of time to explain to people why they are wrong. I now have the time.”

fun quote.

I'm not a fan of telling people how one has proven them wrong, or telling them how one has backed them into a corner and destroyed their argument.  If a person has made a compelling, well-reasoned argument, there's no need to overtly tell anyone their argument was obliterated. 

BCC said:

The government can also decide later on you can't do it and then you can't do it or you can be punished for doing it.

I think it is about time to stop trying to convince people who will never be convinced and waste my time with silly analogies.

You finally got something right...Now please go ahead and follow your own advice...STOP trying to convince people of a position that is 100% wrong in any form of debate. Idiocy is no excuse for your pretentious prattle.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

pretentious prattle.

I'm a big fan of alliteration

ml1 said:

If a person has made a compelling, well-reasoned argument, there's no need to overtly tell anyone their argument was obliterated. 

Reminds me of Reason No. 4 for being an MOL regular: If you post often enough, there’s no need to tell anyone who you’re snubbing.

I'm not good at snubbing.  Sometimes I can't stop myself from engaging.  Even when I know I shouldn't.  But I suppose if I could I wouldn't be here.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

For BCC:

Read the story below and bear in mind that B-17 crews weren't exactly popular in Germany in 1943. Note what Stigler's CO said:

“If I ever see or hear of you shooting at a man in a parachute,” Roedel said, “I will shoot you down myself. You follow the rules of war for you — not for your enemy. You fight by rules to keep your humanity.”

I would argue that the same logic applies to us accepting the use of torture.

https://nypost.com/2012/12/09/amazing-tale-of-a-desperate-wwii-pilots-encounter-with-a-german-flying-ace/

All well and good but  our rules of engagement at that time permitted water boarding.

This is an absolutely horrific sentiment as noted by others.  If the government "authorized" extra-judicial killings of opposition leaders, would that make it acceptable?  Of course the government is going to "authorize" its own programs.  To think otherwise is just absurd.  Just because it is authorized, doesn't make it right.  How many examples would you need to prove this to you?

this thread is the exception to Godwin's Law.  

For jeebus sake, the Nazis "authorized" genocide.  But by BCC's reckoning, that made it ok for Germans to participate in it.

by the same token, not much point in carrying on a conversation with someone who's always wrong.

BCC said:

Not much point in carrying a conversation with some one who is always right.

Bcc - agree or disagree?

"I was just following orders" is a valid defense, regardless of the offense.

This is not a trick question.

@BCC, taking what @ml1 has said, the law is not an exhaustive list of things that are ethical or moral. It cannot be, and it should not be. There are standards for things that are wrong while they are legal. In the case of waterboarding, it's not even clear that it was legal, but it was in the sense that it was ordered. There are many things that are legal and immoral. The fact that it was made illegal explicitly further means that it was immoral in the first place, though it was legal in one small sense.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gina-haspel-john-mccain-cia-investigation/

There is one elected America Official with first-hand knowledge of torture:

MOL thread side wars, with quotes within quotes within quotes piling up, is a form of torture (but legal)  

My father said "Son, we're lucky in this town,
It's a beautiful place to be born.
It just wraps its arms around you, 
Nobody crowds you and nobody goes it alone" 

"Your flag flyin' over the courthouse 
Means certain things are set in stone. 
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't"

ml1 said:

holy jeebus.  Larry Kudlow is an idiot.  But he's a celebrity, so of course Trump will choose him.  

Doesn't our country at least deserve basic competence from the people who fill these roles?

I did not know that at one time Kudlow had a bad cocaine habit which he kicked.  As long as he isn't doing any wife beating, he'll fit in.

http://www.newsweek.com/larry-kudlow-donald-trump-economic-adviser-459226