The subject of this thread we're in here is about the Outrage over the Torture Memos, and you obviously can't see the very strong parallel between this and our argument.
How is it possible to assert that I 'obviously don't see the parallel' when I was the one who brought up the fact that there's a parallel?

Anyway, I had started to write a really long explanation/response but I just erased it as I have to go to work this morning and still wasn't done. I'm not sure if I'll get back to it or not, but basically my position on that other argument is that my interpretation of the definition is very narrow and yours is broad and that's about all there was too it- so yes, that's a difference of opinion. I gave my reasoning for taking a narrow definition- which is that I think the word “socialism” is so politically charged that we should avoid it in our domestic political discussions whenevver possible and use terms like collectivism for the features of certain social welfare programs that conservatives tend to criticize. I'm sorry if you can't see how that would help the discussion because as I pointed out, the effect of your insistence on applying the term to SS is that you entrap conservatives into saying they accept socialism in one case but demonize it in other cases. I fully agree they should drop the demonization by not using the term, but then your side in good faith should also stop trying to entrap (whether or not that's intentional, it's still the effect and it stifles discussions.)

On hypocrisy and the Dems- not at all. It's quite common that one doesnt' agree with another's opinion but still sees hypocrisy if that person's actions don't comport with his words. Just like when liberals criticize hypocritical social conservatives, it does not at all imply that they agree with the socially conservative opinions.

As to whether or not I agree with those Dems on torture- I've explained my position as fully as I can elsewhere in this thread and others.

Gotta run now.

“They should, but they won't. And trying to hold a truth commission when two sides want to claim their own sets of facts is a recipe for disaster- like squeezing a tumor and forcing metastasis of the malignant cells.

For evidence of how hard it is to rise above our biases, look at our longrunning argument in that other thread the last couple of days. I agreed to your definitions but can't agree with how you interpret them- which shows that even when two parties want to get past this stuff, sometimes the fundamental viewpoints just can't be moved closer together.

And that's with two of us who don't have our careers at stake (or aren't concerned with criminal allegations that might affect us or our colleagues) so how much worse would it be for the politicians to be involved with debating what the 'truth' really is?”

I waited to repond to this until now for several reasons.

First, as I mentioned earlier, work always takes priority, and my response to this required more than just a quick blurb.

Secondly, knowing what I had to say, I waited until this thread was “below the fold” so as not to co-mingle this with an ongoing thread.

When I read your above response, I realized you have no sense of self irony. I don't mean that in a critical way even if you insist on that interpretation. The subject of this thread we're in here is about the Outrage over the Torture Memos, and you obviously can't see the very strong parallel between this and our argument.
Where do you think the outrage about these memos comes from? You in this very thread were quick to point out that Dems were being hypocritical in not publically protesting these acts of torture when they learned of them, so you must agree that these acts were torture.

Not so say Bebe and Yoo, because we can show that at least one element of torture is missing from these acts. One reason is that one must have intent to cause intentional pain and even though the practisioners know they they are causing pain they don't have the intent to cause pain so it can't be torture. Their circular argument is all too similar to what we went through. If they could prove that torture was not torture, then Bush could employ it. Their tap dance is also part of the outrage, and the paupacy of their legal arguments has brought forth calls for their disbarment.

As I stated in my last entry about the argument the other night, I'm done with that discussion. I'm not here to rehash this, but by your referral to that argument outside that thread, you require me once again point out that your argument contained interpretations based on no logical structure, no citation to authority, and merely the repeated denial that dictionary words have proscribed meanings. If you can't defend your interpretation anything more than “because I disagree,” just don't bring it up like it just a difference of opinion.

I always enjoy our discussions, but I must say you have a real hard time with always insisting you are right. I too have been known to be stubborn.( a shock i know) The problem is though, I can't just say “let's just do it my way.” That only works on children, and even in that, it doesn't last long.

You can reject any definition you want. But the US prosecuted war crimes against the Nazis and against some US servicemen in WWII (I think) who used waterboarding…. So I think what counts here is how the US defines torture with respect to its own citizens and those citizens of other countries. I remember being taught about the atrocities of the Nazis…. how they tortured their enemies, the Jews (and others). While I'm not suggesting that Bush's actions rise to the level of genocide, I am suggesting that I was raised to believe that what the Nazis did was horrible. That no civilized country would torture one, two three, ten or 5 million people.

So you are free to define torture how you want but you are living outside reality.

Great point, thanks!

Careful what you wish for the same statute that says torture is a crime also says Murder is a crime. Firing predators into housing complexes to kill a couple of terrorists while killing a dozen women and children doesnt cut it. Thats murder.

Nothing can spin this. I'll see your torture and raise you murder. There is a never ending spiral of cynical retribution from the left over this. They are so full of hate for these few so called tortured souls that they are forgetting that obama is ordering predators fired into villages and killing dozens of women and children.

Obama is a murderer under the same statue that says torture……………but of course now we can all argue over what defines Murder. Who defines that one? Cant ignore part of the statute and fully enact another party.

It clearly says MURDER and TORTURE. Killing women and children is Torture……Lets just go ahead and hang Obama and His VP and Bush and his vp and get it over with now.

AR,
Ultimately that comes down the judge, but I don't see how many of these techniques wouldn't rise to the level of “severe”. Most of us would be pretty screwed after being awake for 2 days straight, think about being forced to stay awake for 11. Meanwhile, have someone slam you into a wall a few times.

“Physical pain and suffering” is not equal to “severe physical pain or suffering”. The legal question ultimately hinges on the definition of “severe”, not “pain or suffering”.

I greatly admire everything you've written here about the release of the torture memos. So much so that I clicked on your name and found your blog that way, and added it to my blogroll at Liberty Street.

As for SERE training… most of the details appear to be classified, but I'm guessing the whole point of waterboarding our soldiers is to harden them against being tortured by their captors and it's not something we think other countries are allowed to do to them. Either way, they submitted willfully to torture, those are special circumstances that don't apply to actual prisoners.

And maybe they also felt that they had a much better chance of shaming these individuals in the court of public opinion than they'd have in convicting them in a court of law.

But if we prosecute to the full extent of our current law, Chris, they get off. That's the point- the statute was weakly worded.

CStanley,
How so?