I'm ashamed of my country

"Benjamin Turek" wrote in
news:ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05:

I also believe it depends on who you talk to about how well things are
going. If you are only getting your info from the daily news, you are
getting a description of the whole picture, just the details of a part
of it that they find interesting.

Can I ask you, by what measure are things going well? Is it the elected
government that can't sit in a room together for more than a half hour? Is
it the level of electric power that can't even make it to prewar levels?
Is it the 60% unemployment rate? Maybe the 50 Iraqi killed in incidents of
sectarian violence everyday? The terrorists that are entrenched there now
that weren't there before the war?

How many "high tech schools and hospitals" have actually been built? How
many are needed?

Seriously, what is your measure of success there?

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:19:40 GMT, "rb608"
wrote:

wrote in message
I'd simply offer this, and I'm not asking for your comment (although it is
welcome), just your consideration - if the torture (however you choose to
define
it) of those who were intent upon harming your loved ones (or even just
unknown
innocents), without the slightest hesitation, thought, or remorse, would
(or
even likely could) save the lives of those self-same people, what would
you want
done?

The wants of an individual are frequently in conflict with the requirements
of a civilized society. Thanks for another straw man. Of course most
people would want their loved ones saved by any means necessary; but that's
not even close to the question.

It absolutely is the question. It's very easy to mouth off about how things
ought to be from a position of relative safety and comfort, and blame political
"enemies" for the situation not being what one wishes it to be (or really, what
one _thinks_ they wish it to be based on what little real-world info they
possess). It's another thing entirely to actually be in the middle of a thing
and know there are certain things that simply must be done. And, if you read
carefully, I didn't ask that wayno condone torture, or even dispute his
characterization of it as a horrible thing, simply that he consider a situation.

It also puts forth the same GOP talking points that assume facts not in evidence.

No, it doesn't "assume facts not in evidence." And GOP talking points have
nothing whatsoever to do with this, but if you must go there, every Dem
President, including Clinton, authorized (and/or ordered) "torture" used to
extract info (on a case by case basis).

Do we know with certainty that
the individual wishes to harm us? Maybe. Do we know with certainty he has
the necessary information to save those lives? No. Do we know with
certainty we can torture the correct information out of him? No? Can we
rely on the information he gives? No. In fact, in the time we spend
torturing the wrong guy and getting nothing, our loved ones may perish.

Um, what's with all this "we" ****, Kemosabe? Just who are YOU putting into
this "we" grouping (besides, obviously, yourself)? Heck, you could be talking
about you and your pet hamster. And in such a case, I'll accept your answers
above as correct. After all, you know yourself and your hamster better than I.

By defining the question as a simple "Would you do anything to save your
family?" you are dishonestly distorting the issue.

Non sequitur, as I didn't ask if he would "do anything." In fact, I didn't
suggest or ask what _he_ would do, I asked what he would want done. And as
such, any answer he gave would answer the question as posed: "What would you
want done?" The fact that your mind went directly to torture might give some
insight as to how men really feel and think about it.

Do we as a civilized society

And speaking of assuming facts not in evidence...

condone the torture of other human beings?

Of course you do, under what you perceive as the "right" circumstances. You
just don't want to think about it, much less admit it.

I want to live in a country that does not.

Heck, I want to live in a world where there is no war, no hunger, no crime,
greed, pollution, traffic jams, or cars with goddamned subwoofers suitable for
drowning out Daytona 500. But I know that what I want and what I'm going to get
are very often two different things.

I am appalled at how many think otherwise.

No, you aren't, because deep down, you _know_ otherwise.

TC,
R

No law can stop any action by man. Fortunately, in a situation like
this, policy, backed up by repeated training can be used to change a
belief system. Stopping is different than preventing. If the view is
"a little torture is okay" or "its okay under certain circumstances"
then the dam gates are open. If someone can justify their actions in
some way and lay the blame at a higher source, then they are more
willing to carry out those actions.
Frank Reid

"Frank Reid" wrote in
oups.com:

Fortunately, in a situation like
this, policy, backed up by repeated training can be used to change a
belief system. Stopping is different than preventing. If the view is
"a little torture is okay" or "its okay under certain circumstances"
then the dam gates are open.

Unfortunately, the dam gates are open. The failure to punish the chain of
command that allowed this stuff to happen is just disgusting.

BTW, just how does one simulate a drowning? You tell the victim "Imagine
yourself submerged in water"??

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:

Seriously, what is your measure of success there?

It's the oil production!

Oh, wait a minute. Never mind.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article . com,
says...
An interesting effort to use pseudomath to dehumanize a decision. It
gives math a bad name.


I think you missed my point. The hypothetical example people always
offer to justify torture is: "There is a ticking timebomb somewhere.
We have a person in custody who knows about it. If we torture this
person, we can save hundreds of lives." Implied in the question,
but not stated, is that we are 100% certain that there is a ticking
bomb, we are 100% certain that this particular person has the
information that we need, we are 100% certain that we can get that
information from this person, and that we are 100% certain that we
can save 100 lives.

The reason all of this is implied but not stated, of course, is that
when you actually say it, you pretty much have to acknowledge that it
is absurd. In any kind of a real-world scenario, all of those
probabilities will be much closer to 0 than 100%. So, what I would
like to know, is how high a level of uncertainty are the defenders
of torture willing to live with? Or perhaps I should say, how low
can their level of uncertainty go, and they can still live with
themselves?

Kevin

--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

"Scott Seidman"
How many "high tech schools and hospitals" have actually been built? How
many are needed?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63086.pdf

jh

In article ,
says...
All depending on how you define "we", whenever p2 is 100%, p3 is also 100%.

You think so? I mean seriously, do you really think so?

Yes. And that isn't meant as an endorsement or a condemnation, simply a
statement of what I believe to be a fact.


Yeah, well, don't forget that the state of the art in torture techniques
was developed by the KGB for the express purpose of extracting _false_
confessions to imaginary crimes like "counter-revolutionary thoughts."
Hell, "waterboarding" was invented by the Spanish Inquisition for pretty
much the same purpose.

Kevin
who know that noboby expects the Spanish Inquisition, but I sure as hell
didn't expect it from my own damn government
--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

On 22 Mar 2006 22:33:23 -0800, "riverman" wrote:


wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

rdean posted:
"...and regardless of what you mean by
"our"..."

Strange statement, that...should I have said "your"?

What's so strange? You said "our (military)"...define "our"...and then explain
how "our" encompasses any and all that might read your post...

HTH,
R

Of course, "our" as in the "USA's". Naturally I am speaking as an
American. I do still have that right, don't I?

Hmm...let me check your file....sorry, Mr. Farkleberry, you no longer have that
right...and let me say, on a personal note, that you really ought to cut back on
the Pearl Light and tofu sticks...

Seriously, I don't keep up with who is where or who is from where. I thought
you lived outside the US, but I didn't recall your citizenship. IAC, it's not
material because what I meant by "regardless of what you mean by 'our'..." in
response to your use of "...our military..." was that it really didn't matter
how _you_ defined "our" - no military is "above wanton killing" because every
military is from assembled from the same general resource.

HTH,
R

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:32:49 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:

Kevin
who know that noboby expects the Spanish Inquisition, but I sure as hell
didn't expect it from my own damn government

"'The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you
begin to understand me?'"

O'Brien from the Ministry of Love in George Orwell's "1984"
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com