Which one of you cared about the Constitution again?

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/21591/26/

Thought maybe Quantico would be of concern to you lovers of liberty.

Well, if it appears on MWC it must be true. Weren't you taking Armin Ayers to task for Human Events? You require journalistic integrity from him but forego it for yourself, eh? Any website that lists Juan Cole as a columnist advertises a propensity for lying.

[url]http://mwcnews.net/columnists[/url]

ohio county wrote:Well, if it appears on MWC it must be true. Weren't you taking Armin Ayers to task for Human Events? You require journalistic integrity from him but forego it for yourself, eh? Any website that lists Juan Cole as a columnist advertises a propensity for lying.

[url]http://mwcnews.net/columnists[/url]

Do a Google search for "Quantico", and you'll see many of various political stripes offended by this. Or are you merely dodging the issue?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=quantico+circuit&btnG=Search

You can even find it on that Moonie outlet, UPI:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/08/fbi_wiretaps_scary_proposition/8265/

wELL CAN WE JUST SEPARATE HUMAN DECENCY FROM POLITICS? Even if you are a republican or democrat is it ok to torture people?

Sure, we can separate human decency from politics. We should be ruthless with our enemies.

I don't think that is the central issue of this thread, however. The issue is eavesdropping. Specifically, domestic spying.

I think there is great opportunity for abuse. I have not seen any documentation of abuse but I think there is great opportunity for it and I would be a liar if I said that it did not concern me.

On the one hand, I do not want Moqtada al-Sadr to be able to pick up his cell phone, route a call through the U.S. and be able to call al-Qaeda. I have no problem with intercepting foreigners calls. Especially those that might be construed as enemy combatants.

The ability to conduct domestic eavesdropping operations is of great concern. Sooner or later it will be abused.

Using it as a sop to your consituent trial lawyers is also wrong.

I have a huge problem with this one Jimmy simply because the adminstration didn't have to wait on a court order to proceed with a wire tap. They had, what 3 days AFTER getting the wire tap to get a court order that was pretty much guaranteed. The only reason I can see for not getting court orders is if abuse is the desired outcome. To me, this goes way too far.

I think, on balance, that I agree with you, Aaron. My kneejerk reaction is to oppose anything SF posts. After having nit-picked him on his unreliable source, I suppose you've forced me to agree with him.

Jimmy,

Are you saying you think torture is acceptable?

ohio county wrote:I think, on balance, that I agree with you, Aaron. My kneejerk reaction is to oppose anything SF posts. After having nit-picked him on his unreliable source, I suppose you've forced me to agree with him.

I don't think it's so much that we agree with him Jimmy as it's the right thing to do. And I'm not saying this administration or anyone in particular is doing anything wrong. But as you stated, the opportunity for abuse is too great without some sort of oversight.

Maybe that is SF's position. If it is, look at it this way. Even a blind squirrel will find an acorn sometime.

For those asking if someone agrees with torture, can you define 'torture'.

Apparently George Bush has a definition for torture. He says that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. So if we can find out what his "definition" of torture is, then we will have at least one such definition.

ziggy wrote:Apparently George Bush has a definition for torture. He says that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. So if we can find out what his "definition" of torture is, then we will have at least one such definition.

Give him a call and find out and let's see where we can take this conversation dude!!!

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Apparently George Bush has a definition for torture. He says that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. So if we can find out what his "definition" of torture is, then we will have at least one such definition.

Give him a call and find out and let's see where we can take this conversation dude!!!

He won't tell us what it means- for the same reason that he won't tell us what "terrorism" is, or what "democracy" is, or what he means by to support or not "support the troops", or what "patriotism" is, etc. That's because in effect these terms mean nothing to GWB- other than as hollow sound bites that, upon examination for meanings as applied to current events, mean virtually nothing. It's like, "............ God wants me to be President". It might sound good to some non-thinking soul or other, but it's actuality meaningless- nothing but hollow, self-agrandizing proclamations- not unlike your current mantra that you "understand" the Vietnam War, but that the rest of us don't.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Apparently George Bush has a definition for torture. He says that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. So if we can find out what his "definition" of torture is, then we will have at least one such definition.

Give him a call and find out and let's see where we can take this conversation dude!!!

He won't tell us what it means- for the same reason that he won't tell us what "terrorism" is, or what "democracy" is, or what he means by to support or not "support the troops", or what "patriotism" is, etc. That's because in effect these terms mean nothing to GWB- other than as hollow sound bites that, upon examination for meanings as applied to current events, mean virtually nothing. It's like, "............ God wants me to be President". It might sound good to some non-thinking soul or other, but it's actuality meaningless- nothing but hollow, self-agrandizing proclamations- not unlike your current mantra that you "understand" the Vietnam War, but that the rest of us don't.

I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude. And Dubwa told you he wouldn't tell you any of that?

Audio Help /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. –noun

1.	the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.	a method of inflicting such pain.

3.	Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.	extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.	a cause of severe pain or anguish.

–verb (used with object)

6.	to subject to torture.

7.	to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.

8.	to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!

9.	to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.

10.	to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).

---

[Origin: 1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure]

—Related forms tor·tur·a·ble, adjective
tor·tured·ly, adverb
tor·tur·er, noun
tor·ture·some, adjective
tor·tur·ing·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 6. See torment.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Apparently George Bush has a definition for torture. He says that the U.S. does not torture prisoners. So if we can find out what his "definition" of torture is, then we will have at least one such definition.

Give him a call and find out and let's see where we can take this conversation dude!!!

He won't tell us what it means- for the same reason that he won't tell us what "terrorism" is, or what "democracy" is, or what he means by to support or not "support the troops", or what "patriotism" is, etc. That's because in effect these terms mean nothing to GWB- other than as hollow sound bites that, upon examination for meanings as applied to current events, mean virtually nothing. It's like, "............ God wants me to be President". It might sound good to some non-thinking soul or other, but it's actuality meaningless- nothing but hollow, self-agrandizing proclamations- not unlike your current mantra that you "understand" the Vietnam War, but that the rest of us don't.

I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude. And Dubwa told you he wouldn't tell you any of that?

He didn't tell me any of that. Does he tell you such stuff confidentially? Since you have this special understanding about Vietnam that only Ziggy does not have, maybe you have this special phone line with GWB that Ziggy doesn't have.

Aaron wrote:I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude.

So all the rest of the world understands the Vietnam War like Aaron does, eh?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude.

So all the rest of the world understands the Vietnam War like Aaron does, eh?

I never said they did understand either. Just you dude. There's 6 billion people in this world. I'm sure there are at least 21 others that see it the way you do.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude.

So all the rest of the world understands the Vietnam War like Aaron does, eh?

I never said they did understand either. Just you dude. There's 6 billion people in this world. I'm sure there are at least 21 others that see it the way you do.

Apparently it was a few more than 21.

1968

• February: Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion. [NYT, 2/14/68] In another poll that month, 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks".
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Vietnam_War .

Even self-described "hawks" disapproved of Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War. Half the nation disagreed with Johnson about the war. Is that because, like Ziggy and "at least 21 others", they didn't understand it either?

You don't know why we were in Vietnam to begin with, do you dude? You really don't have a clue, do you!!!

Aaron wrote:You don't know why we were in Vietnam to begin with, do you dude? You really don't have a clue, do you!!!

Yes, I think I do "have a clue". In 1945 we apparently wanted to help France have a French colony in Vietnam. But the French gave up on that about 1954 or so.

And so I am more interested in why we were still there in 1964- and why, starting in late 1964, we escalated U.S. involvement in it to a level about thirty times what it was just a year or so earlier. And the authority for that, the "Gulf of Tonking Resolution"- did not say anything about why we were there decades earlier- nor even acknowledge that we had already been there for decades. It read like a whole new war- and which it was, as a practical matter.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've never said the rest didn't understand it. Just you dude.

So all the rest of the world understands the Vietnam War like Aaron does, eh?

I never said they did understand either. Just you dude. There's 6 billion people in this world. I'm sure there are at least 21 others that see it the way you do.

Apparently it was a few more than 21.

1968

February: Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion. [NYT, 2/14/68] In another poll that month, 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks".

Even self-described "hawks" disapproved of Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War. Half the nation disagreed with Johnson about the war. Is that because, like Ziggy and "at least 21 others", they didn't understand it either?

Interesting, the one that claims he understands the cause of the Nam War ........ doesn't understand the difference between ...... understanding the cause of an event and the approval/disapproval of said event.

It is downright silly to imply or profess that "peoples's approval/disapproval of an act" proves that said people "understand the reason said act occured".

One doesn't have to understand why a person robbed a bank ....... in order to approve or disapprove of bank robbery.


,

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:You don't know why we were in Vietnam to begin with, do you dude? You really don't have a clue, do you!!!

Yes, I think I do "have a clue". In 1945 we apparently wanted to help France have a French colony in Vietnam. But the French gave up on that about 1954 or so.

And so I am more interested in why we were still there in 1964- and why, starting in late 1964, we escalated U.S. involvement in it to a level about thirty times what it was just a year or so earlier. And the authority for that, the "Gulf of Tonking Resolution"- did not say anything about why we were there decades earlier- nor even acknowledge that we had already been there for decades. It read like a whole new war- and which it was, as a practical matter.

Communism. And Truman didn't do anything until 1948. But it's good to see you're finally trying to read something and learn. Keep it up.

Ziggy,

If the definition of torture is limited to those acts causing excruciating or extreme pain, then I would fully agree that the United States has no business doing those things. I also do not think these days that waterboarding causes excruciating or extreme pain. The problem with calling waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture" is that you end up depriving torture of it's meaning. If anything unpleasant becomes "torture," then there is no way to distinguish between the excruciating and the rather unpleasant, and there is every reason in the world to do so. If you were to tell me that you would rather have bamboo shoots up the fingernails than be waterboarded five times I would think you were crazy. I agree that words need definitions, and I particularly think we need to have a clear idea of what is permissible and what is not. If there are better ways than waterboarding to save American lives, I'd like to hear them, and I am very open to their existence.

My point is this, if waterboarding and sleep deprivation is treated the same way as being filleted alive or having your eyes gouged out, than the word "torture" has lost it's meaning. I'm certain that a great many victims of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein would have been very happy to have been waterboarded instead.

The problem with calling waterboarding or sleep deprivation "torture" is that you end up depriving torture of it's meaning.

Sleep deprivation can cause permanent insanity and death if taken to extremes. It is one of the WORST forms of torture.

Hunger doesn't cause extreme pain. Perhaps starving people shouldn't be considered torture, either.