Devil Bush?

[SEVERUSMAX]

sev, have you ever noticed that when a right winger is asked an embarrasing question or faced with such a fact, the talk turns to Hitler?

Not really. I just cited an example. Several, in fact. I happen to think that assassination is justified in cases of tyrants. It's an act of political self-defense, defense of one's basic inalienable rights.

 

[Pure]

for sev,

P: how about one assassinating tyrants in countries other than one's own?

BTW, you appeared to endorse the assassination of Chavez provided a Venezuelan did it, is that correct? An earlier posting seemed more 'hands off.'

inalienable rights, eh? that's cool. what's your source? (I know, the D of I, but that's hardly an original source on the topic.)


----

s: Not really. I just cited an example. Several, in fact. I happen to think that assassination is justified in cases of tyrants. It's an act of political self-defense, defense of one's basic inalienable rights.

 

[elsol]

Not really. I just cited an example. Several, in fact. I happen to think that assassination is justified in cases of tyrants. It's an act of political self-defense, defense of one's basic inalienable rights.

Please tell me, you've just defined premeditated murder as a justifiable form of self-defense!

Pretty please...

 

[elsol]

Chavez is evil, too, though I don't favor armed intervention. In time, with enough discontent, he'll be a thing of the past. Either he will be voted out of office, or he'll reveal himself as an undeniable tyrant by refusing to step down when voted out of office, at which point even his staunchest friends will be forced to admit that he is a dictator. Then, of course, his support will evaporate.

You didn't finish the sentence Sev.

Then, of course, his support will evaporate and be replaced by those willing to support tyrants that will let them do what they want to.

 

[cantdog]

Cant, it would be foolish to deny that abuses have occurred, sometimes on a large scale, and I am not a fool. What I do not accept is that such things are the norm, at least in the U.S. services. This is not due to Americans having any monopoly on virtue, but for the following reason: Given the explosive political nature of such events if revealed to the American public by the press or in other ways, and the fact that in general people can't keep their mouths shut (the reason I don't believe in conspiracy theories, aliens in Roswell, etc.), if such things were the norm there would be a constant stream of news stories. The fact that when such an even occurs it's big news (Abu Graib) is to me a strong indication that it is not the norm. This does not apply to societies that aren't open like ours, and in which the population takes for granted that their military and security forces do such things.

I didn't say that every soldier uses them. I said we used them upon spies during the cold war. Spies are different under the conventions. During the cold war, also, such techniques would have been entirely uncontroversial, used against spies.

The country was pretty solidly unthinking about the whole subject of communists, especially communist spies. Few would have risen to defend any such people. Again, I was there. 'Fifties parents and teachers raised a generation of anti-communists who would have been acting most uncharacteristically to have produced any 'political explosions' about that. So that idea holds no water whatever. Not in the era I was talking about.

Through the early part of the cold war, as for decades and decades before that, police in the US routinely roughed men up whom they held in custody, so much that it was even in the movies. Those guys were criminals, and nobody wasted a lot of sympathy on them, certainly not to the extent of 'political explosions.' Those were hardly scientific, brainwashing techniques, just beatings, but the society was very tolerant of beatings. I grew up in the fifties. Slapping women around in the home and elsewhere was largely no big deal, either. No political explosions there.

That sort of police beatings in custody formed the basis of myriad lawsuits about police brutality, partway through the cold war era, and they aren't supposed to be doing it so much these days. Prisons, though, and the arrest of particularly detested brown people-- these are still exceptions, sometimes, even now, although, except in the prisons, they have to be circumspect.

On the other side, there is a tremendous incentive for those with certain particular political agendas to inflate or even make up "evidence" that such things are commonplace in the U.S. services. Such sources lack credibility. I add these things up and conclude that, yes, bad things happen in the world more often than any humane person can tolerate, and on occasion Americans are responsible, but the examples of the latter are not commonplace. Call me naive and pollyannish if you insist - I don't believe I am.

I never claimed such things were commonplace in the US services! Fuck me running! Read the post!

I said they were taught in the School of the Americas, while it was in the Canal Zone. I inferred, and I don't think this is too big a stretch, that we would certainly not forget such a set of techniques, once they were developed. I stand by it. It makes perfect sense to me that the techniques are known techniques today, since they were known techniques half a century ago.

I'm in Amnesty International, and I know that such things, and less scientific variants on them, are indeed commonplace in many many places around the world. All the more reason for us not to become the only fuckin country who completely forgot about them! And I can't point to any source, controversial or biased, true blue or otherwise, but I bet dollars to doughnuts that the field is far from static. Police iterrogation techniques of a NON-violent sort utilize psychological techniques which fifties cops didn't have a clue about. You are not being naive here, you are debating a straw man. And you have mistaken him for me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Please tell me, you've just defined premeditated murder as a justifiable form of self-defense!

Pretty please...

Not of most people, just of tyrants. You know, the sort who gag the press, void elections, detain people without trials, order summary executions of political dissidents....that sort.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You didn't finish the sentence Sev.

Then, of course, his support will evaporate and be replaced by those willing to support tyrants that will let them do what they want to.

If they respect people's rights, how are they tyrants?

 

[cloudy]

I didn't say that every soldier uses them. I said we used them upon spies during the cold war. Spies are different under the conventions. During the cold war, also, such techniques would have been entirely uncontroversial, used against spies.

The country was pretty solidly unthinking about the whole subject of communists, especially communist spies. Few would have risen to defend any such people. Again, I was there. 'Fifties parents and teachers raised a generation of anti-communists who would have been acting most uncharacteristically to have produced any 'political explosions' about that. So that idea holds no water whatever. Not in the era I was talking about.

Through the early part of the cold war, as for decades and decades before that, police in the US routinely roughed men up whom they held in custody, so much that it was even in the movies. Those guys were criminals, and nobody wasted a lot of sympathy on them, certainly not to the extent of 'political explosions.' Those were hardly scientific, brainwashing techniques, just beatings, but the society was very tolerant of beatings. I grew up in the fifties. Slapping women around in the home and elsewhere was largely no big deal, either. No political explosions there.

That sort of police beatings in custody formed the basis of myriad lawsuits about police brutality, partway through the cold war era, and they aren't supposed to be doing it so much these days. Prisons, though, and the arrest of particularly detested brown people-- these are still exceptions, sometimes, even now, although, except in the prisons, they have to be circumspect.

Who could forget the Black soldiers in Tuskegee that our "fair" and "righteous" government let suffer from syphillis untreated just so they could watch and see what happened. They let those soldiers die - never even told them what they had - while they watched and took notes.

Oops! Those were brown people, so I suppose they don't count. My bad.

 

[cloudy]

Not of most people, just of tyrants. You know, the sort who gag the press, void elections, detain people without trials, order summary executions of political dissidents....that sort.

You mean like George Bush?

(I don't know that he's executed anyone yet, but at Gitmo, who knows? The rest of it fits him spot on, whether you realize it or not)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

P: how about one assassinating tyrants in countries other than one's own?

BTW, you appeared to endorse the assassination of Chavez provided a Venezuelan did it, is that correct? An earlier posting seemed more 'hands off.'

inalienable rights, eh? that's cool. what's your source? (I know, the D of I, but that's hardly an original source on the topic.)


----

s: Not really. I just cited an example. Several, in fact. I happen to think that assassination is justified in cases of tyrants. It's an act of political self-defense, defense of one's basic inalienable rights.

Foreign (in this case American) assassins (unless they happen to be tourists not working for the CIA or something) would be meddling. I prefer Roxanne's suggestion. Leave it to local patriots.

This is not unlike defending your own house when someone breaks in and tries to rape and kill your wife. Is it really murder in such cases?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

BTW, you appeared to endorse the assassination of Chavez provided a Venezuelan did it, is that correct? An earlier posting seemed more 'hands off.'

I made a simple assertion of fact: I won't shed a tear if Chavez is murdered, or if he dies from natural causes, for that matter.

Is that "insensitive?" Should I weep? Should I "ask not for whom the bell tolls?"

Too bad, so sad, not gonna happen.


I'm reminded of a story involving one of notable Irish poets of the 20th century (sorry, can't remember which.) It was in the early 1960s I think. He was visiting Spain, and upon his arrival in the Madrid airport a reporter asked what he would like to see most during his visit.

In a charming Irish brogue the poet responded, "Franco's funeral."

The gentleman was politely escorted onto the next plane leaving the country.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You mean like George Bush?

"gag the press, void elections, detain people without trials, order summary executions of political dissidents....that sort of thing"


(I don't know that he's executed anyone yet, but at Gitmo, who knows? The rest of it fits him spot on, whether you realize it or not)

How about FDR? Or Lincoln? They imposed press restrictions and detained captured enemy combatants also (no executions either.)

Are you opening a debate about whether those at Gitmo fit that description? All I'll say is that it's worth discussing, and there are legitimate views on both sides. It should probably be a separate thread, and if one is opened and carried on in a civil and serious manner I will look forward to reading the posts.

On the "voided elections," I believe Colly said all that needs to be said on that issue in an extensive debate about a year ago, so there's no point in starting another one.

 

[cloudy]

How about FDR? Or Lincoln? They imposed press restrictions and detained captured enemy combatants also (no executions either.)

Are you opening a debate about whether those at Gitmo fit that description? All I'll say is that it's worth discussing, and there are legitimate views on both sides. It should probably be a separate thread, and if one is opened and carried on in a civil and serious manner I will look forward to reading the posts.

On the "voided elections," I believe Colly said all that needs to be said on that issue in an extensive debate about a year ago, so there's no point in starting another one.

Choosing Lincoln as an example doesn't do anything for me. I know people love to talk about how he was the "greatest president ever," but he was a product of his times, and he did some absolutely horrible things. You'd be hard-pressed to find ONE president that I feel the positives outweigh the negatives.

FDR is slightly better, but only slightly. Again, most of the reason he's remembered fondly is the era that he served as president. Any other time and he'd have been a blip on the radar, and that's all.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Choosing Lincoln as an example doesn't do anything for me. I know people love to talk about how he was the "greatest president ever," but he was a product of his times, and he did some absolutely horrible things. You'd be hard-pressed to find ONE president that I feel the positives outweigh the negatives.

FDR is slightly better, but only slightly. Again, most of the reason he's remembered fondly is the era that he served as president. Any other time and he'd have been a blip on the radar, and that's all.

Hmmm - you and I agree on something.

 

[cloudy]

Hmmm - you and I agree on something.

I think the job of the presidency is sort of like jobs as policemen: those that would do the best job, and are the best suited for it, wouldn't have the job no matter what you paid them.

So.....you're left with people who are power/glory/fame motivated, and what the hell makes us think that they know their asses from a hole in the ground? (rhetorical question only...I certainly don't expect anyone to be able to answer it)

And, I have about as much respect for our president as I do for our good ol' boy cops here in Marshall County (once labeled by Time Magazine as the most corrupt in the country).

 

[cantdog]

They recruited me for the cop job. I went for firefighter instead. Authority galls me.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

They recruited me for the cop job. I went for firefighter instead. Authority galls me.

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.

 

[Pure]

is this a coincidence:

the 'values' folks are the most ready to 'suspend' them both at home and abroad.

for instance, the Randists are fond is saying the US is the first or only 'moral nation.' AND a bit of 'torture lite' overseas is for the good cause. Domestically, detention without charge; removal from the court system and 'habeus corpus'-- all are to 'protect us.'

the 'argument', as Roxy gave it, is that if everything goes up in a mushroom cloud, there's no one to have values. (reminds me of the Bush speech--we take down Saddam to prevent the 'mushroom cloud').

But the long and the short, my friends is that a pretty common 'values' position--found in many Democrats too-- is:

Ya gotta be pretty damn nasty, lethal, ruthless, and amoral (roxanne's 'raisons d'état') to defend our nation against those who hate its heritage and values.

Oddly, I think it was the world's most famous 'objective values' person, the Pope, who, despite a little stumble, said, "Killing someone in that name of the God of Love is not rational or moral"

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

---
PS. Anyone see 'Munich'?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . Randists are fond is saying a bit of 'torture lite' overseas is for the good -
. . . detention without charge; removal from the court system and 'habeus corpus' -
. . . reminds me of the Bush speech -
. . . How about this, folks? killing, raping, torturing, maiming etc for values -
. . . PS. Anyone see 'Munich' -

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 (positions on which I have never stated an opinion), "Bush" (equated with the devil in this thread), favoring "killing, raping, torturing, maiming," and even Hitler!

A grand slam!

I suppose that one should not be surprised to see such illegitimate rhetorical devices employed by those who believe that truth is "subjective" and nothing but a "social construct."

Or as the lawyers say, when the facts aren't on your side, smear, sneer and slur. Damn, I must really have you on the run in this forum, Pure!

 

[cantdog]

You have to reply to lose. So far, you aren't losing. Unfortunately, replying is the only way to win, as well.

 

[Pure]

a reference:

P: that randists, esp. the 'official' ones, have generally approved Bush's harsh measures at home and abroad is pretty well documented. as far as i can see, Roxanne is not too far from them.

i'm not going to go rummaging for quotes, but i'd summarize Roxy's position as *generally* supporting most Bush methods at home and abroad: two exception appear to be Abu Ghraib, which she condemns the excesses of a few bad apples; and certain excesses of the presidency which, iirc, she believes can easily be fixed in a new administration. further in a couple recent postings she suggested any _undue_ focus on torture or abuses is mainly partisan--biased propaganda for a bad cause [getting Bush out, i suppose].

she can correct me if i'm wrong, but she, like Tracinski, below, has no fundamental objection to 'torture lite' or 'Gitmo procedures' or extrajudicial detention of terrorist suspects at home.


oddly, here Rand herself had a stronger moral compass--see below--though we don't know what she'd say about todays situation. i applaud her sentiments! (ouch!)

http://ariwatch.com/Torture.htm

'The Gonzalez 'Torture' ' by Robert Tracinski, in TIA Daily January 4, 2005

Tracinski 'A headline in today's Washington Times is oddly appropriate: 'Gonzalez Faces Torture Questions.' I've heard of tough confirmation hearings, but this [one] seems a bit excessive. Actually, Gonzalez is being attacked for a legal opinion that I regard as quite sound: not granting al-Qaeda prisoners the cream-puff treatment demanded by the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war.'
---

Rand said:

//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. //

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure would love to use his illegimate rhetorical devices to trick me into defending the views of others. Not gonna happen, 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.

"Anyone seen Munich?" indeed - Ha!

 

[cantdog]

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

 

[cantdog]

Because I was merely replying to Jenny's historical questions about liberal ideas and about why torture is so important that the administration feels compelled to defend it. I gave her my best answer, based on the history as I have seen it, and you had quite a bit to say. Now you've dropped it.

 

[cantdog]

And I haven't seen 'Munich." What's the big deal with that?