Devil Bush?

[Pure]

Wow, Pure, in this single post you have associated me with some vague "Randists" somewhere who purportedly support torture and the suspension of civil liberties

P: I cited some specific ones, and quote one. It's no big secret that the Ayn Rand Institute folks generally support what Bush is doing and how he does it.

R: (positions on which I have never stated an opinion),

hmm. i wonder why, in a thread like this you've not taken positions on the topics.

nonetheless, it's certainly true you 1) attributed Abu Ghraib to a few bad apples., and 2) stated that too much focus on CIA training torturers reflected a partisan agenda. 3) generally don't want the Republica administration 'tarred' or Bush called the 'devil' over a few transitory, non-fundamental shortcomings

if not explicit, your positions are more transparent than you imagine.

"Bush" (equated with the devil in this thread), favoring "killing, raping, torturing, maiming,"

Well that's what's done by the CIA boys in the "Black" prisons of E. Europe. And the CIA trained cops of Latin America three or four decades back. There are documented prisoner killings in Afghanistan under US supervision.

Am I wrong to apply your admittedly general principle that you can't be so particular about 'values' if there's a danger of a mushroom cloud?

and even Hitler!

I haven't linked you to Hitler, please state where.

However, as the Rand quote says, when you justify lethal means, the 'good' or 'goal' you profess becomes of secondary importance. I liked the line that it's just an argument over who should run the Gestapo.

I recommend the film "Munich", which has nothing to do with Hitler, but lots to do with lethal methods in pursuit of 'right.'

Anyone seen "Munich"? (Spielberg). I liked it, though I don't generally like Spielberg.
---

Roxanne speaks of Pure's illegimate rhetorical devices to trick me into defending the views of others.

P: I think it's pretty clear to others that your view overlap those of the Whitehouse in a major way. This is evidenced in dozens of postings.
Most recently your postings in this thread showing the 'bad apples' approach to Abu Ghraib, is, of course a page from Rummy and Gonzales and the 'higher ups', (the generals who actually authorized the methods --Sanchez?).

So, what about those Geneva accords? Do you agree with Tracincki that the 'power puff' approach in them, is unwise? Do you agree with Gonzales, that the Geneva accords are outdated?

 

[cantdog]

Good choice.

It just occurred to me that the role cops have found themselves in fighting the "war on drugs" is analogous to the "Firemen" in Fahrenheit 451.

And in the same helpless way. Cops don't make the dumb laws they end up enforcing.

They also end up enforcing stuff which no law recommends they bother with. And throwing their weight around because they can, and so forth. You don't need my litany about the police.

Cops are better now than they have been. In the fifties and sixties, they were chosen like one chooses a bouncer. Beef. In those days, a cop who had been to the Academy was pretty rare. He was looking for a Detective badge. Nowadays, even in the smallest departments which feature fulltimers, every cop must finish the whole course out there. It acculturates them, though, to cop culture. It's a tradeoff, but on the whole, they're better.

In any case, for me, all authority is illegitimate, even mine. Being a cop wasn't for me.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, then, what about what you did say? Where are you and I with regard to brainwashing techniques, interrogation, all that?

Cant, I'm a libertarian, so I'm opposed in principle to such things, and think they should be against the law. Having said that, let's say the a cop has caught the guy who just planted a suitcase nuke in NYC, set to go off in seven days. Let's say that the sleep deprivation thing is determined to be an effective way to get someone to talk - I don't know if it is, but let's pretend. In that case, which I admit is contrived and artificial, with the 'givens' I've presented, don't you kind of hope that this cop violates the law and subjects this guy to sleep deprivation to find out where the nuke is? If he does, saves the city, is prosecuted by Elliot Spitzer for 'torture,' and you are on the jury, are you going to vote for life in prison, or a $100 fine? I have to tell you, my "conscience is not shocked" by this deed.

I described my foreign policy views above, and these essentially boil down to the the fact that in a messy and dangerous world where nation-states exist in a Hobbesian 'state of nature,' in Hobbes' 'war of all against all,' what the right choice is in a particular situation is not always clear, regardless of your principles. That's just a fact, and if you take us out of this clean little ivory tower website and plunk us into the shoes of the person who has to make the calls, a lot of our certainty would go out the window. That is why I have not expressed certainty on such matters. Cloudy raised the issue of Gitmo, and I responded that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and I would be interested to see them. That's the honest truth - I don't know what the right thing to do is. Pure said we should at least stop selling F-16s to Pakistan. When I agreed, his response was a sneer. (Surprise, surprise.)

I do not hesitate to state unambiguous moral principles on issues that face individuals who are living in civil society, where all have renounced the use of violence except in self defense. In the Hobbesian world of foreign policy none of the players have renounced the use of force, and although I don't know this for certain, I think that makes the situation different - it's more like a 'lifeboat ethics' kind of situation. Because I'm unsure, and for the other reasons above, I am not willing to speak in absolutes in this area. Maybe I should be, but I've seen nothing to convince me of that.

There's another factor. The politics of the present era are as poisonous as I have ever seen. Frankly, I think the left has become unhinged. In the past I tended more toward the left's human rights policy preferences. Today, many of those preferences look like blind, unthinking partisanship, which is a shame. In my view, the sincerity of left can't be trusted in this current environment, and so everything they say is suspect. Including a lot of what is said here, although I don't include you in that. You are clearly sincere and not unhinged, and therefore you have a lot of credibility with me on these issues.

And that's my position, or non-position if you insist.

 

[SlickTony]

I think that in order to be really evil you have to believe with great certainty that you're doing good.

I mostly agree, except that I would say "in order to really do evil, you have to believe with great certainty that you're doing good. Only about 10% of the evil done in the world stems from actual malice. The rest is out of stupidity and fear.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Wow, Pure, in this single post you have associated me with some vague "Randists" somewhere who purportedly support torture and the suspension of civil liberties

P: I cited some specific ones, and quote one. It's no big secret that the Ayn Rand Institute folks generally support what Bush is doing and how he does it.

R: (positions on which I have never stated an opinion),

hmm. i wonder why, in a thread like this you've not taken positions on the topics.

nonetheless, it's certainly true you 1) attributed Abu Ghraib to a few bad apples., and 2) stated that too much focus on CIA training torturers reflected a partisan agenda. 3) generally don't want the Republica administration 'tarred' or Bush called the 'devil' over a few transitory, non-fundamental shortcomings

if not explicit, your positions are more transparent than you imagine.

"Bush" (equated with the devil in this thread), favoring "killing, raping, torturing, maiming,"

Well that's what's done by the CIA boys in the "Black" prisons of E. Europe. And the CIA trained cops of Latin America three or four decades back. There are documented prisoner killings in Afghanistan under US supervision.

Am I wrong to apply your admittedly general principle that you can't be so particular about 'values' if there's a danger of a mushroom cloud?

and even Hitler!

I haven't linked you to Hitler, please state where.

However, as the Rand quote says, when you justify lethal means, the 'good' or 'goal' you profess becomes of secondary importance. I liked the line that it's just an argument over who should run the Gestapo.

I recommend the film "Munich", which has nothing to do with Hitler, but lots to do with lethal methods in pursuit of 'right.'

Anyone seen "Munich"? (Spielberg). I liked it, though I don't generally like Spielberg.
---

Roxanne speaks of Pure's illegimate rhetorical devices to trick me into defending the views of others.

P: I think it's pretty clear to others that your view overlap those of the Whitehouse in a major way. This is evidenced in dozens of postings.
Most recently your postings in this thread showing the 'bad apples' approach to Abu Ghraib, is, of course a page from Rummy and Gonzales and the 'higher ups', (the generals who actually authorized the methods --Sanchez?).

So, what about those Geneva accords? Do you agree with Tracincki that the 'power puff' approach in them, is unwise? Do you agree with Gonzales, that the Geneva accords are outdated?

You know, I guess you just can't help yourself, because apparently you don't even realize when you're using those illegitimate rhetorical devices.

I've stated my views in my last post, and I stated there my opinion of what I think is motivating much of the left in foreign policies discussions these days. I'll leave it up to readers to decide how much of the latter applies to the post quoted in this one, and whether the views I've described as my own make sense.

 

[shereads]

So the left is 'unhinged?' Rox, that's so typical of the way the right protects itself from having to rationally defend positions that have been proven indefensible. Faced with facts, however well documented, that don't mesh with their world view, right-wing exrtremists don't refute them; they blurt out 'You're unhinged,' or make some other blanket statement that they can't be asked to document.

I'm reminded of how your friend Amicus reacted when I posted a link to White House documents released under the Freedom of Information act that prove the Reagan administration's dealings with Saddam Hussein violated sanctions we helped initiate - and that Reagan helped protect Saddam from the 'embarrassment' of UN sanctions for his use of chemical weapons. First, Amicus accused me of having invented the documents as part of my real function at Literotica. (Apparently, I was planted here to bring porn writers over to the dark side.)

When that tactic just lay there looking silly, he informed us that 'truth' is self evident even when the facts contradict it.

The flag-burning amendment is the right wing's all-purpose equivalent to Amicus' way of 'winning' an argument. Whenever there are crises that put Republicans in a bad light, thery drag out the flag burning amendment. Great diversionary tactic, if you don't mind dividing the country even further than it already is.

Yeah, we're unhinged, all right. Like Alice down the rabbit hole, faced with absurdity layered upon absurdity - facts refuted with platitudes; a president impeached for one lie, and his successor re-elected despite a string of lies that cost thousands of lives; the attacks on Max Cleland and other Vietnam vets as 'anti-military' for failing to support a war directed by a president and vice president who avoided serving in their generation's war.

People who value the first amendment above a false sense of safety; people who predicted that invading Iraq would strengthen terrorism instead of weakening it - and saw it confirmed this week in a report by US intelligence agencies - people who see the absurdity inherent in criticizing taxes, while building up a record deficit that will be payed for with more taxes - have been pushed beyond the point where polite discourse has any relevence.

 

[Pure]

well, if you're going to be all huffy and wounded roxanne, at least tell me where i said that you favored Hitler.?

 

[cantdog]

However, as the Rand quote says, when you justify lethal means, the 'good' or 'goal' you profess becomes of secondary importance. I liked the line that it's just an argument over who should run the Gestapo.

I recommend the film "Munich", which has nothing to do with Hitler, but lots to do with lethal methods in pursuit of 'right.'

Anyone seen "Munich"? (Spielberg). I liked it, though I don't generally like Spielberg.
---

Roxanne speaks of Pure's illegimate rhetorical devices to trick me into defending the views of others.

P: I think it's pretty clear to others that your view overlap those of the Whitehouse in a major way. This is evidenced in dozens of postings.
Most recently your postings in this thread showing the 'bad apples' approach to Abu Ghraib, is, of course a page from Rummy and Gonzales and the 'higher ups', (the generals who actually authorized the methods --Sanchez?).

So, what about those Geneva accords? Do you agree with Tracincki that the 'power puff' approach in them, is unwise? Do you agree with Gonzales, that the Geneva accords are outdated?

The Geneva things are multiple, and have changed through time. Conventions in general about legitimate weapons and illegitimate ones, about chemical warfare, about biological warfare, and so on, seem to increase with time, encompassing more and more. Partly this is the march of technology, partly of history. But it's happening. Roxanne says that the Left is rabid, and to some extent, as the noose closes, the prisoner becomes more desperate.

That said, let us be dispassionate, here. It is absolutely true that all such international agreements between states-- indeed all treaties of any kind-- limit sovereignty. Bush gave this answer when he repudiated the test ban and the ABM treaty, before the 9-11 thing. Rightists I speak with cite this obvious fact as though it answered the argument. Whereas, in fact, 'sovereignty' does not preclude signing a treaty and meaning what you have said. We are going about the world, ourselves, seeking trade agreements with other nations, and we wouldn't bother to do that if we imagined their sovereignty could enable them to throw those things away at a whim. Agreements between states may even ultimately be valuable in reducing the Hobbesian condition of the scene, in the world of states.

Please overcome your distaste for Europe, about which no goo goo eyes must be made, Roxanne, but there has supervened a sizable structure of agreement over there, and the situation now between, for example, Germany and France is much less Hobbesian than it was in 1940. The consensus they have achieved is quite remarkable regarding slavery & human trafficking, torture, and so on-- human rights issues which we, too, have seemingly embraced. Indeed the most important opposition (besides that of our own FBI) to the renditions-for-torture program has been the efforts of various European states through which the black planes passed to investigate and publicize those abuses, and all of the nations of Europe who had an opportunity were willing to point them out and oppose them, on moral grounds having to do with human rights of the most basic kind.

Survivors of the renditions have also gone public. There was a Canadian, for example. Bush himself has acknowledged the 'black prisons' and Cheney has acknowledged the renditions, as for example, to Syria. So the time for denial of those things is past. Much of the rightist press and punditry still denies it, but the issue is dealt with more straightforwardly in most news outlets, now.

I don't play weird games with torture. In answer to your question, no. I have been too long writing letters in a respectful tone to torturing pricks all over the world, for Amnesty. You can have your contrived game about would-you-torture-under-this-condition-or-that. The answer is still no.

What enables torture is impunity. I repeat it. Impunity is what makes it happen. Not desperation, not patriotism, not threat. Writing a letter urging Aung San Suu Kyi's release, a letter from a firefighter in Maine, can have no hope of doing so, else. But after a few hundred or a few thousand such letters arrive, she is set free. Why? Because, quite simply, it has become clear that everybody knows what they are doing. Impunity is lost, and the injustice can't proceed, any more, without it.

This is true in Burma, in Indonesia, in Liberia, in Uganda, in Turkey, in Argentina. I have written such letters to torturing villains in all those places and dozens and dozens of others. On the whole, they responded to the clear evidence that their dirty secret was out by releasing the person. It's a bizarrely indirect method, isn't it? But it works.

Now our little dirty secret is out. The people responsible are twisting around, seeking to deny or seeking to impute the blame on others. The letters, consequently, to speak metaphorically, need to keep coming. Otherwise, more and more people will scream in some secret place far from hope.

Not all the people doing that have actually done anything to warrant ill treatment; these processes are not that accurate. A real trial, flawed as a lot of those are, stands a much better chance of at least picking the right man to wreak vengeance on, if vengeance is what you like. Many people die in a welter of pain for no good reason at all. And all you need to do to enable that is to shrug and do nothing when it comes to your attention.

Let us suppose that in the Hobbesian world of states, we wish to affect something. If we want to rape Peru of its oil wealth, then the proper tool is coercion. We have plenty of coercion ready to hand, and it will do that. But if we want to have an effect more subtle than acquisition of things which don't belong to us, then we will need other means. Our powers of persuasion outside the scope of coercion, our ability to ask a favor of some other state, will be less, the more we rely on coercion, and much less, the more we shield slavers or torturers from prosecution.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So the left is 'unhinged?' Rox, that's so typical of the way the right protects itself from having to rationally defend positions that have been proven indefensible. Faced with facts, however well documented, that don't mesh with their world view, right-wing exrtremists don't refute them; they blurt out 'You're unhinged,' or make some other blanket statement that they can't be asked to document.

I'm reminded of how your friend Amicus reacted when I posted a link to White House documents released under the Freedom of Information act that prove the Reagan administration's dealings with Saddam Hussein violated sanctions we helped initiate - and that Reagan helped protect Saddam from the 'embarrassment' of UN sanctions for his use of chemical weapons. First, Amicus accused me of having invented the documents as part of my real function at Literotica. (Apparently, I was planted here to bring porn writers over to the dark side.)

When that tactic just lay there looking silly, he informed us that 'truth' is self evident even when the facts contradict it.

The flag-burning amendment is the right wing's all-purpose equivalent to Amicus' way of 'winning' an argument. Whenever there are crises that put Republicans in a bad light, thery drag out the flag burning amendment. Great diversionary tactic, if you don't mind dividing the country even further than it already is.

Yeah, we're unhinged, all right. Like Alice down the rabbit hole, faced with absurdity layered upon absurdity - facts refuted with platitudes; a president impeached for one lie, and his successor re-elected despite a string of lies that cost thousands of lives; the attacks on Max Cleland and other Vietnam vets as 'anti-military' for failing to support a war directed by a president and vice president who avoided serving in their generation's war.

People who value the first amendment above a false sense of safety; people who predicted that invading Iraq would strengthen terrorism instead of weakening it - and saw it confirmed this week in a report by US intelligence agencies - people who see the absurdity inherent in criticizing taxes, while building up a record deficit that will be payed for with more taxes - have been pushed beyond the point where polite discourse has any relevence.

Yes, She, I think the left is unhinged. The evidence is all around that many of its adherents are motivated by blind partisanship, and don't care what they say or do as long as it hurts the other side. They're even eating their own when one gets in the way of unbalanced hatred of Bush - look at the inprecedented ugliness of the Lieberman campaign. The result is that it's impossible to tell when they're sincere and when they're just trying to score points against the other side.

I may not even disagree with some of the historical incidents you cite, but I can't have any confidence that your sources haven't made them up, or twisted the context so far that they might as well be made up. I'm not one to play the "the other side is just as bad" game, but I have no doubt that if your sources spent the same amount of energy flyspecking and twisting in the same manner every little event that happened under Clinton's watch, the picture would be just as ugly, and just as misleading. I have no reason to think you personally are insincere in repeating them, though.

One outcome of all this is a "your either with us or against us" attitude. I will assume that you have not read this thread, or read many of my other posts elsewhere. No one who has could confuse me with "right wing extremists," Republicans, flag amendment supporters, and other unsavory things you insinuate I am identified with.

I'll say the same thing to you I said to Pure: The only engagement you can have with me is with things I have said, not what others have said. You can try to drag them in as much as you want, but you're talking to yourself when you do, not me.


PS. Incidentally, I thought the same about the right at the height of the Clinton hating era. Anytime one side in politics starts believing that the other side is the font of all evil and in Satan's pocket, then I think that side has become unhinged.

 

[Pure]

tired old stuff

R I stated there my opinion of what I think is motivating much of the left in foreign policies discussions these days.

P: don't you ever get tired of this mindless avoidance? someone presents facts, say about torture.

your reply is "It's made up." No. "If it's not made up, it's part of a partisan agenda." And as a coup de grace, "you guys hate Bush, and indeed the US heritage, and want to destroy them."

didn't anyone, in all your philosophy or academic courses ever teach you that the *motive* for a statement is irrelevant to its truth or falsity?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And in the same helpless way. Cops don't make the dumb laws they end up enforcing.

They also end up enforcing stuff which no law recommends they bother with. And throwing their weight around because they can, and so forth. You don't need my litany about the police.

Cops are better now than they have been. In the fifties and sixties, they were chosen like one chooses a bouncer. Beef. In those days, a cop who had been to the Academy was pretty rare. He was looking for a Detective badge. Nowadays, even in the smallest departments which feature fulltimers, every cop must finish the whole course out there. It acculturates them, though, to cop culture. It's a tradeoff, but on the whole, they're better.

In any case, for me, all authority is illegitimate, even mine. Being a cop wasn't for me.

Are you turning anarchist, Can't? One can be excused for reading that into your post.

 

[cantdog]

Are you turning anarchist, Can't? One can be excused for reading that into your post.

I was raised anarchist, yes.

 

[Pure]

Dissidents among the Rand folks.--have a look, Cant

Some dissidents against the political opportunism of the main body of Randians have a website, and have an excellent analysis of the statements on torture emanating from Brooks, Tracinski, and others.

The major description of behavior rang true with what you've said, cant.

[Critique of some of the writings of those at the Ayn Rand Institute, on torture]
http://ariwatch.com/Torture.htm

Torture
[start essay, verbatim]

The ancient Greeks were different from the other peoples of their time, and what is more they knew that they were different. They had a word to describe the difference: the others were barbarians. Now the English word 'barbarians' that we use for the original Greek, as Prof. H.D.F. Kitto explains in his book The Greeks, does not exactly correspond to the Greek notion, which would be better translated as the unthinking. But one of the attributes the Greeks recognized in themselves as setting themselves apart, and above, barbarians does exactly correspond to our English use of the word.

Unlike the barbarians, the Greeks did not rule by torture.
For that and like qualities Ancient Greece is known as the cradle of Western Civilization. Fellows of ARI write essays praising that civilization. And then give it up with a breathtaking easiness. Say the magic word 'war' and government torture is no longer evil, it is a tool among other tools.


The story of official U.S. torture ' of America imitating the barbarians of the East ' in our time and in our name is so bizarre and disgusting most people cannot take it in. It can't be happening, it's out of this universe, out of mind. But this story is not going away. It is the signature of the neocons, it is the signature of the Ayn Rand Institute, and it will be their epitaph.


Torture means taking extra effort to inflict pain on someone already under control. A very simple idea, there is nothing hazy about it. The torturer's purpose might be: to obtain a confession ? an absurdly meaningless confession; to obtain information ? usually false, and always totally unreliable unless independently verified by other, objective, means; to punish a person and/or instill fear in a group to which he belongs ? though that fear will come with righteous hate; or simply to do it for itself, like eating candy.

Torture has one further use. Since torture brutalizes the torturer, men can be further dehumanized, made still more mindless and obedient, by requiring them to engage in it. Torture has the same effect on those who look on ' or know of it 'without protest.
We are referring to state managed torture: government men point to a man and label him to be tortured; other government men proceed to torture him, until ' no objective stopping point being possible ? he tells them what they want to hear ? sensible or not ? or until they get tired, or the lunch bell rings. A few years later the torturers return to civilian life and get work as policemen.

ARI [Ayn Rand Institute] is of two minds about the U.S. torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the torture of prisoners 'rendered' by the U.S. for the purpose to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Singapore, Thailand, and Pakistan. People at ARI deny that this torture exists, and make self-righteous noises against anyone who says it does. And they say the U.S. ought to torture, in order to help wage the War on Terrorism. I do not explain the contradiction, merely point it out.

ARI insinuates that torturing Arabs is all right because Arabs do it, as if the Middle East had become our standard of decency.
U.S. torture of Arabs is widespread, and was planned by the Bush administration before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Fortunately not everyone in the field of war approves of this torture.

We now have the spectacle of one branch of the government investigating the actions of another, or dissenters within one branch fighting their superiors. (So far all the government investigations have been a whitewash.) There are now over a hundred known cases of men tortured to death ' by beating their brains in, suffocating them, and general trauma. [end excerpt]

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I was raised anarchist, yes.

Hmmm....explains a lot of the posts. The thing is that I deem some authority legit, and other authority illicit, based on not only elections, but the rule of law. Bush has certainly violated the rule of law plenty of times, as has Chavez. The rule of law, after all, includes a nation's supreme or basic law. The final arbiter is natural law, of course. That is to say that natural law supersedes any human laws or constitutions. The thing is that Bush's violations of the rule of law are considerably less brazen and more limited in their impact than those of Chavez. As I said to someone else, Bush is watering down our Constitution, while Chavez is lighting a bonfire with his.

You sound as if you accept government as necessary, but a necessary evil. As such, you want to limit its impact on people's private lives, while deriving maximum benefits to your concept of social justice. Not exactly a Marxian principle, though probably adhering to a form of social democracy. Kind of Fabian. Or am I off the mark here? A sort of view of society that abides more by Rousseau's concept of the role of government.

 

[cantdog]

I was being flip. I was raised by a martinet, whose own authority, father or no father, was illegitimate. I knew that because he applied it unjustly. I was more informed of the circumstances he chose to involve himself in, most of the time, but he had his mind made up, and he proceeded, violently, to enforce his opinion. This brought me, personally, first, to hatred of the man, of course. As an eight-year-old, I would cheerfully have strangled him in his sleep. Since that time, I like to think I have matured, but in no case have I seen any system of justice do very well at dispensing it. In nearly every case, arguments from authority have proven false, as far as my experience goes.

I forgave the old man many decades before he died, and I did it for my own sake, since I realized that carrying a grudge hurts only the one who carries it. I never even felt tempted to love him again, but I forgave him completely. A career as a lawyer of a cop or a judge would have been unsustainable, for me. Amicus's ravings about individualism are absurdly mild compared to my own conviction that I owe no obedience to any authority, however constituted, at whatever level. No god, no man, no woman, no law, nothing and no one has any authority over me, personally, whatsoever.

 

[cantdog]

I have to find some way, of course, to integrate that bedrock into a political position, because you cannot avoid politics, unless you become a hermit. I will leave it to you or to anyone else who likes to do that, to analyze it.

I am atheist also, therefore it is only here, in this world, that we can find justice. We cannot allow a Stalin or a Pol Pot to proceed unchecked, because we believe he shall be Judged in some afterlife. If he gets through this life and gets away with it, he has gotten through scot free.

When you see torture and watch Shock and Awe, there is someone who is getting away with it. He will die soon, so we have to make sure he is found out. Time is running out; men are mortal.

 

[shereads]

Unlike the barbarians, the Greeks did not rule by torture.

The Greeks were no strangers to the art of torture, Pure.

Ancient Athens was a model democracy for the 20% or so of the adult populace who were entitled to participate. Maybe that elite 20% were immune from torture; I don't know.

According to Thomas Cahill's "Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea," torture was dispensed without much provocation, depending on someone's status. For example, if a female slave was called as a witness in a legal hearing, Athenian law required that she be tortured first - to make her more honest, presumably.

Some well-meaning Athenian citizen may have argued in favor of torture 'under certain conditions,' by posing a question. "For the sake of argument, Hector, suppose the outcome of a legal hearing depends on an eye-witness who happens to be a female slave. Without torture, how can such a person be counted on to tell the truth?"


Edited to add:

"In the Greek legal system, the torture of slaves figured as a guarantor of truth, as a process of truth-making."

~ Dubois, P. Torture and Truth. New York: Routledge, 1991.(excerpted by Clifford Stetner)

http://phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/dubois.htm



"To the Greeks and Romans . . . truth was held to reside not in the witness's words, but in his living flesh. Profoundly sceptical of the value of verbal testimony, a legal manual of the time counselled close attention to what we would now call body language. . . . The truth was thought to be locked up in the living body of the witness; the torturer's task was to prise it out through the medium of pain."
Michael Kerrigan, The Instruments of Torture, 2001

~ "Not in My Name," a collection of quotes on the practice of torture

http://ellamazel.org/notinmyname/chapter2.htm

 

[cantdog]

Some dissidents against the political opportunism of the main body of Randians have a website, and have an excellent analysis of the statements on torture emanating from Brooks, Tracinski, and others.

The major description of behavior rang true with what you've said, cant.

[Critique of some of the writings of those at the Ayn Rand Institute, on torture]
http://ariwatch.com/Torture.htm

Torture
[start essay, verbatim]<<<snip>>> [end excerpt]

People have to go through all this when they begin with a theory. Inevitably, there's a snag, a place where the theory has to stretch abominably to work, or has to be followed into its absurdity. A platypus, if you will. There's no telling where the platypus is for any given 'certainty' or 'system,' not until you work it out in all its permutations. Life is just too slippery, humans consequently too variable, for any single principle to be able to describe or predict. Platypi are inevitable. Learn from the platypus! All systems are flawed.

 

[shereads]

"Torture has a way of undermining the forces using it, as it did with the French Army in Algeria. . . . By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us. . . .

"[It] is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness.

"...the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all."


Mark Danner, "We Are All Torturers Now," NY Times Op Ed, 1/6/2005

 

[rgraham666]

Time to bring out one of my favourites.

Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.

 

[Pure]

trying again, roxanne,

Pure said, to Roxanne, well, if you're going to be all huffy and wounded roxanne, at least tell me where i said that you favored Hitler.? ADDED: or killing?

if you can't, apologize.

---
as to all the 'values folks' and the 'gray area' persons and the 'haven't taken a stand on the issue' individuals, i ask again:

How about this, folks? killing, raping, torturing, maiming etc for values? when, if ever, does it make sense?

 

[cloudy]

I forgave the old man many decades before he died, and I did it for my own sake, since I realized that carrying a grudge hurts only the one who carries it.

[sort-of-threadjack]
Absolutely. This is something that I've said over and over and over again. So nice to see someone like-minded on this issue.
[/sort-of-threadjack]

Amicus's ravings about individualism are absurdly mild compared to my own conviction that I owe no obedience to any authority, however constituted, at whatever level. No god, no man, no woman, no law, nothing and no one has any authority over me, personally, whatsoever.

Yes. I once had an employee tell me that I was actually born in the wrong era, and that he had me pegged as "one of the original free spirits." I think he was correct.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I did a google of the Bush/Satan question. There are hundreds of websites connecting Bush to Satan. Admittedly most of the sites are strictly Anti-Bush hate sites, but a few actually have some good Bible Based information.

Personally, I don't know. You make up your own mind.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l27/Jenny_Jackson/ScreenShot127.jpg

Post some links. This sort of thing fascinates me.

 

[Pure]

well, GWB does have the smell of sulphur, but i think the Republicans are right that release of such atmospheric contaminants can be the product of eating hard boiled eggs.

 

[Pure]

I kind of like this little piece about Rand. Truly libertarian.--note to sher

Ayn Rand on Torture

The author is a follower of Rand. His comments are in regular font, Rand's words are in italics.

http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnTorture.htm

Ayn Rand never thoroughly addressed the question of government managed torture. This failure should come as no surprise. Ayn Rand did not waste her time writing commonplaces, and in the U.S. ? in her saner era ? denouncing torture would have been a bromide. It would have been like your mother lecturing you never to rob a bank ? your not robbing banks could be taken for granted.
Still, there are hints here and there in her writing, and more than hints. […]


Now for a hint. In 1946 Ayn Rand began writing 'Textbook of Americanism,' a series of articles for The Vigil published by the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (of Beverly Hills, California, founded in 1944 with Walt Disney as vice president). She completed about a third of the planned series. The following is from the section 'Does the Motive Change the Nature of a Dictatorship'' Because of her extensive quotation I leave off outside quote-marks:

A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's 'for a bad motive,' but quite all right and even desirable if it's 'for a good motive.' Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves 'humanitarians') claim that concentration camps and torture chambers are evil when used 'selfishly,' 'for the sake of one race,' as Hitler did, but quite noble when used 'unselfishly,' 'for the sake of the masses,' as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves hard-boiled 'realists') claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used 'inefficiently,' as in Russia, but quite practical when used 'efficiently,' as in Germany.


Let's pause right here. She is not saying torture chambers are good when used 'selfishly.' And though she doesn't explicitly say it, the reader can easily infer that torture chambers are just as bad when used 'selfishly' as 'unselfishly.'

This notion is further supported by the fact that in her discussion on force ' meaning force against someone not in one's control ' earlier in the essay, she does explicitly say that force can be used for good or evil. In the above, regarding torture, she does not.
After a parenthetical remark she continues:

When you argue about what is a 'good' or a 'bad' dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. ... From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a 'good' cause for brutality and what is a 'bad' one. Your particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.
...
The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men' The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not'

There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a dictatorship can be justified by 'a good motive' or 'an unselfish motive.' All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind ' through centuries of slow climbing out of savagery ' has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a 'social' cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for the gain of others.

Again, she is not saying torture is right if done for one's own sake. Indeed her choice of words ' 'brutality' ' suggests state torture is wrong in itself. Like dictatorship, it cannot be justified by 'a good motive.' The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to torture men' The issue is: is it proper to torture men or not'

Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: 'Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of the masses.' Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.

And we can easily infer that savagery by anyone is as bad as savagery by Stalin. Though she does not explicitly say that state torture itself is wrong, she ' I would say ' took that for granted.
===

Sher:
I think you are right that the Greeks of ancient times are not a good example. The issue of torture became a problem MUCH later. You don't find moralists or theologians condemning it, till maybe 1700.

If you read the accounts of the Salem witch trials, and their being shut down, it does appear to been known by the 'liberals' (those who wanted to stop the burning), and likely some conservatives, that tortured confessions are generally worthless.

Interestingly, a former head of Mossad, during its most 'hard ass' days, recently wrote a piece in favor of abandoning the harsher measures (iirc, 'shaking' being an example.) Quite simply, they're ineffective, besides ruining the rep. of the torturers.