Sunday, May 17, 2009

The following is a response to my post, No Habla "War Crime", followed by my response...

Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.

One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.

I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.

Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.

I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.

People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.

And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.

I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.

How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.

So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.

I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.

What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.

Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?

I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.

I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?

I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.

We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.

To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.

Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.

I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....

Anyway, I hope that all made sense.

-alexa


Alexa,

First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.

Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)

The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?

Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).


But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?

I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")


My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.

Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.

Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.


It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.

And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf

When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.

The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."


You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."

Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.

22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.

Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.

That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.

You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.


Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."

If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?

The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.


You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."

The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.

9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.


I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."

I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.

I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."

I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."

I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."

I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.

I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.

I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.

I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."

And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.

(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)

(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)

(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pt 1 of overlong HTML (per blogger):
Very good, sir. You continue to earn my respect and engender hope that two reasonable and reasoning adults can engage in a meaningful discussion resisting deterioration. Even though you seem to wrap up by claiming I've possibly brought out a side of you that you're not appreciating so much. ;)

First, that I address you as "sir" should not cause you to think that I have a WOW account, "own" a Second Life condo or attend Renaissance Fairs.

Next, I must admit up front that I am, well, floored that you think that the Bush Administration waterboarded prisoners to dig up justifications for taking an action largely un-directly-related to finding and destroying al Qaeda. While I don't think we know anywhere near enough facts, much of which are likely still classified and will stay that way for a long time, to determine beyond, say, a reasonable doubt that an entire administration would collude to do that, time will tell.

Are you saying the then-President, could and did force hundreds of fellow elected officials and appointees and staff to help him find a way to get revenge for his daddy? Or to commandeer Iraq's oil fields, or to pretend Iraq had WMDs when it didn't? With all due respect, I don't think I can participate in arguing that on the grounds that I find it incredible.

Saddam Hussein thought he had WMDs. Many other countries, with quite competent intelligence agencies, also thought he did. That we didn't find a giant, single dump site brimming with WMDs doesn't mean they either never existed or didn't at the time or don't still. It just means we didn't find them. After how Hussein gassed the Kurds and abundantly demonstrated how vicious and cruel he and his despicable sons could be and were, we hardly could be blamed for not, continuing, to treat him like he was just misunderstood.

The waterboarding I have no issue with IS used to make a self-professed virulently death-to-Americans terrorist operative who advertised he was a ranking directing member of the bin Laden
Administration divulge the details of any and all attacks planned for immediate execution. And while he's at it, he can tell us all about the past attacks.
Every cooperation he extends in order to spare himself being waterboarded serves him too. If terrorism can work for the terrorist, it can work for me.

The weapons of the duel were chosen by the thrower of the gauntlet. I'm fine with that. I'm really fine with the additional weapons we bring to bear.

continued...
-alexa

Anonymous said...

Pt 2:
The road to increased security, justice dispensed and victory achieved is never going to be a neat, tidy, morally erect journey, not with humans in charge. Easily, Americans try harder than most to take the high road, but we're still flesh and bone. Ask our enemies, they take comfort in it.

Moral influence is, in my admittedly limited estimation, only a secondary or tertiary war front. When blood is gushing out, a wellness program is not the treatment. When the enemy is not influenced by our morals, at least, not as we intend, then cycling that approach out of the skillset for later re-attempt is perfectly acceptable.

I hear your question. Do we base how we behave on the behaviour of others or do we comport ourselves
according first and only to our code, regardless of the behaviour of others? I would answer that it
depends. Yes, the circumstances will have sway. I will treat others as I would like them to treat me first. I will extend to everyone the benefit of the doubt. But the moment the other reveals they hate that, then I am free to make adjustments.

No, I've never been waterboarded and, unless you intend to keep it a secret, I don't think you have
been, either. But neither of us have to be before we are allowed to have an opinion of it. I know it is very unpleasant, very rough, very frightening. It is not torture. So unless I were to agree that it is, there isn't much I can say responsively.

Clearly, it will make you highly cooperative. Now, if you were to start blabbing to me after being so treated, things would go horribly awry quickly. I'm not trained to know a tactical ruse, to suspect the truth, to know what to keep or not, what might be useful in a seemingly unrelated, separate investigation. Fortunately, I would not be in charge because I have hired people who are highly trained in such matters and they would be working as part of a vast team of fellow experts. Those fellow Americans are a very special group of citizens. Can you imagine what it must be like to not only face the question, but to agree to be trained to face it, use it and come to terms with it for all time to come, for the sake of the Ungrateful Public? That's a very large personal sacrifice. While the vast majority of those fellow citizens, toiling in the shadows, quite sincerely misunderstood, and definitely taken for granted, do not wait for a personal letter of immunity from the 24 President, we the easily mislead and manipulated Ungrateful Public often make them sorry they didn't.

There appears that there might be a small misunderstanding. I fear that you think I did not consider that you knew someone personally, or you yourself were, directly affected by the tragedy of 9/11. Let me clear that now. I did not so assume.

I purposely chose my words carefully to show that I was speaking about how it affected me. I promise... I did not assume you did not have a personal story of your own. In fact, because I think you were at least over 18 when it happened, I knew you would have your own powerful recollections, too. I was prepared to hear how it hurt you and to receive the honor of you sharing it, and to let it hurt me too. The sharing another's burden is an essential part of being, among other things, civilized... or at least, so it is for me.

continued...
-alexa

Anonymous said...

Last pt (dang...):
Former FBI or CIA interrogators who disagree with their orders are who I definitely wish would stay out of the flicking attention span of my MSM. How glib Ali Soufan is. Well, I can't say as I disagree with him. It is "easier" to hit somebody than outsmart them.

Outsmarting takes time. When time is short, then easier is all that's left. I doubt that my CIA and FBI are standing around doing just one at a time. Thinking down the road is a part of the mandate of those agencies. If only to prepare for blow back. Because ya' never know when a "friendly nation" will turn on us like a rabid dog.

Did I say we should give those who did anything a free pass because we were, deservedly and rightly, terrified? It is not ridiculous to understand the emotions of those days. You were a racist? Well, you don't sound like one now.

I, too, was deeply concerned about our sudden switch to going after WMDs in the midst of hunting down UBL. I, too, thought, WTF?! But should we be assessing criminal intent *right now*? While we're still at war? While we have Our Troops still fighting the miserable fanatics who, just like wife beaters, use any mistake perceived or real to manipulate our feelings?

When the conditions of Bldg 18 on Walter Reed came to light, I corresponded with a wounded veteran about it during the hearings in '07. [Wow, I found a link to the correspondence.] He and other veterans eventually asked me to back off. They started to fear that the commanders they liked and trusted would get thrown out. That took me aback at first... but then I came to understand it.

I have no issue with criticizing any administration. But it does not count as defense of our warriors. (I'm not sure what to make of the quotation marks around the word warriors in your response...) Defending means doing something that protects and honors them, as they see it. As they see it, not as we would like to say it does.

Excoriating the Commander in Chief and his VP, men with a far greater set of cojones than the previous administration, blowjobs notwithstanding, wins no points with our warriors. Of the two commanders who did not serve in the military, Clinton may never be called a chicken hawk, but he will never be called a man for the warriors, either.

I don't think waterboarding is not torture because of the general biometrics of the subject. It is not torture because it isn't. That I do not care about KSM's or abu Zaydah's civil rights is based specifically on them. They made it easy to discount their civil rights when they ignored the civil rights of 3000 people on a beautiful day.

That our government, airports and airlines and everyone in between did not take our security seriously enough long before 9/11 is a symptom of this nation's reluctance to believe we were threatened. That or our agents knew we'd call them racists if they picked up a bunch of "just" Muslims. So better to wait until we demanded they pick up whoever was responsible.

As for the evil nature of conservatives. Let me argue that the nasty, repellent, childish, vicious, baiting and heart-shredding invective regularly used by the intolerant permissives is a form of degeneration that, if I am to extend them a benefit of the doubt, suggests the kindest explanation is satanic possession.

Conservatives exercise different cruelty: stubborn neglect. Every time I ask them to provide a fix for the people who cannot get decent medical care, I am met with indifference. Both extremes are guilty of being inhumane. But at least the conservatives don't go out of their way to throw shit in my face.

What you and I are doing is the highest expression of freedom of speech. Shitting is nothing special and doing it on my flag, our flag, is meant to do only one thing: offend, deeply. It does not make me interested in the shitters whole wacky anarchy idea.

Obama might not be deserved by America? BO is no saint.

I thought crickets were good luck. Of course, they usually induce bad luck onto themselves when they won't shut up. Just hurl some facile racist taunt to shock it into silence, because waterboarding is meant to do the opposite. I keed, I keed.

All this debating is making me hungry and thirsty. I'm taking a break for some Tsing-Tao and anything spicy. G'night.

-alexa

RockyRob said...

The running theme of my posts are not that I "think that the Bush Administration waterboarded prisoners to dig up justifications for taking an action largely un-directly-related to finding and destroying al Qaeda," (though evidence is pointing that way), I am simply frustrated that "certain, very important, questions are not being asked;" not that "accusations are not being made" but that "questions are not being asked."

I could care less about the moral justifications for waterboarding! I am not a bleeding heart liberal wuss, and I understand that what is necessary is not always pretty.

But if we only waterboarded in order to find a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, was it okay to do so?

It's a very simple question that no one seems to be asking.

If we were not waterboarding in order to protect us from an imminent threat, but rather to justify the invasion of Iraq, was it okay to do so?

That's it, that's all. Okay to do so, or not?

(But I do believe that if we were not trying to avert an imminent threat, giving more people a better reason to want to kill us does not make us "more safe.")


Do you not realize how ridiculous the "other people thought Iraq had WMD and they DID NOT invade, therefore it was okay for us TO invade" argument is?

I am very aware that war is not neat and tidy. And that is exactly why I think that it is not okay for an administration to tell the American people that it is, ("Mission Accomplished," "last throws," etc.).


And I understand why you think that it's okay to not afford basic human rights to "a self-professed virulently death-to-Americans terrorist," but I don't think that you realize that yours' and the terrorists' mentality are exactly the same – they didn't kill themselves by flying into the side of a building because they weren't able to rationalize that America deserved it. As far as they are concerned - we committed atrocities far worse, and way before.

("An eye for an eye leaves us all blind," "Before embarking on a mission of revenge, dig two graves," yaddah yaddah yaddah...)


"Moral Influence" is one of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war. This is not intended for theoretical debate – it is a statement of fact. The other factors are weather, terrain, leadership, and military doctrine.

When I asked if you have been waterboarded I was not comparing your opinion to mine, I was comparing your opinion to those who have been waterboarded, like Sean Hannity, oh wait...

"Biometrics" of waterboarding? The memos required that a doctor be in the immediate vicinity just in case an emergency tracheotomy was necessary.

And yes, "cooperative" is exactly right. When information is the objective – I'd prefer "truthful."

The reason the Bush Administration didn't "outsmart" the enemy is not because it took time – it's because it took "smart."

RockyRob said...

I know that you didn't assume that I did not have an emotional connection to 9/11, and that was my point. Whenever it comes to 9/11 "conservatives" seem to think that they have a monopoly on the correct emotions. Whenever practicality or intellect is questioned the argument reverts to a "battle of who could care more," and "conservatives" use their emotion as justification for why they are right, while everyone else is left using their sob stories in order to defend why they're not wrong.

It's absurd to, almost in the same breath, disregard the feelings of others just because you care more. (Not "you" as in you, but "you" as in someone.)

I know there are some issues that I missed but...
The CIA told us there were WMD and that there was a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. I understand that they are trying really hard, and they're successes aren't publicized, but they are not infallible. (And concerning Pelosi – I've found that when an agency or business says that it is not their "policy" to do something – that usually means that they did it, but it's not their "policy" to do it.)

"Warriors" was taken from your response. Soldiers follow, and do not question, orders, and need to do so. But when those orders are obviously belligerent it is the public's responsibility to question their authority.


I DO have an issue with criticizing our administration, (government/team sport thing), which is why I didn't do it until after Bush messed up and proved that he needed to be criticized, and which is why I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt until something that he does ACTUALLY doesn't work. (I am so sick of this "might not work" and "might lead to this" and "might lead to that" crap.)

Sometimes shitting on our flag is meant to express dissatisfaction with America. If that offends you, it's probably because you don't agree with the shitter, which is your right:)

And a quick tip for your future debates - Be careful with the "2 wrongs make a right" argumentative fallacy. "They did it therefore it is okay for me to do it." Participating in wrong behavior just because somebody else participated in wrong behavior means you are participating in wrong behavior. It's either wrong to do something or it's not.

And if Obama was a saint they probably would have quoted him on those intelligence briefings:)

Anonymous said...

Hi, I didn't realize you responded in the comments so I thought you were, not exactly moving on, but felt you had made your point and that was that, so to speak. This is your blog and I didn't want to be a pest. But, if I may, I'd like to just put to rest between us what I think is fundamentally a discourse killer.

When someone resorts to starting their argument with "Do you not know how ridiculous..." it is an expression of frustration and brimming contempt. That goes exactly back to square one.

Based on the balance of what you said, it is probably the case that we are speaking past each other now.

To make the claim that my mentality and that of the war criminal is exactly the same is to attempt to put the world in either the black category or the white category. Nope, sorry, can't follow you there, nice try. Your arguments are not persuasive. Try harder.

You do treat me like I did not suffer personally from the events of 9/11. Apparently, considering the whole of the components of a human creature is beyond your abilities. I understand. I will resist calling them to your attention from here forward.

I repeat: I care not one whit for the civil rights of the three war criminals we waterboarded because of their biometrics and by that I do not mean their biology. In other words, because of who they specifically are, and what they specifically did.

I don't care why the shitter is shitting on my flag. I hate him. Because he chose to offend me. I'm supposed to care why he did so? I so don't care.

No Rob, either something is wrong or it is not depends on the circumstances. It always has depended on them and it always will. E.g., justifiable homicide. Get it? Real life grinds that lesson into you and the harder you cling to a childish interpretation of "wrong" the harder it will be for you to forgive, for you to adapt, for you to accept, for you to admit, for you to stand in another person's place.

Goodnight.

-alexa

RockyRob said...

You're absolutely right – I should NOT have written, "Do you not know how ridiculous..." I was referring to the argument as being "ridiculous," (and the argument, mapped the way that I presented it, is logically ridiculous), but I should have realized that that language was far too harsh and could easily be construed as a personal attack. You are right that "it is an expression of frustration and brimming contempt," but the frustration was not directed towards you, it was directed at the argument. I apologize.

"2 wrongs make a right" is an argumentative fallacy. I brought it up, not to make a moral accusation, but in reference to the structure of an argument. To justify a conclusion as being right because (in the premise) that conclusion is wrong, is logically invalid because it does not provide the needed support for the conclusion.

Justifiable homicide is not an example of "2 wrongs make a right." Justifiable homicide occurs in cases of self defense, (like when my friend, Joey, stabbed that guy in the park). When the choice is "kill" or "be killed" it is justifiable to kill. The "justifiable homicide" in the sense that you are referring is known as "revenge killing."

I understand that you believe that the 3 men who were waterboarded are like criminals/prisoners who have committed heinous crimes and deserve death; therefore waterboarding is not too harsh in comparison to the death that they deserve. The 9/11 terrorists believed that America and Americans have been committing heinous crimes against "their people" for decades therefore the 3000 in the WTC deserved it. Comparing your mentality to that of the terrorists was not categorizing behavior as either "black or white" it was making an argument using a moral/ethical hierarchy.

Regarding our flag, I realize that you are attempting a "fighting words" argument in which not all speech is protected, but "because he chose to offend me" is not why speech should be restricted. To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt - It takes your permission to be offended, ("No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"). Holding others responsible for your feelings is a psychological/personality argument not a constitutional one.

If we only waterboarded in order to find a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, was it okay to do so?

And by referring to the 3 that were waterboarded as "war criminals," do you mean that they committed war crimes or that they are prisoners of war who are criminals?

Because they haven't been convicted yet and if they're prisoners of war...

Again, thank you for your comments, and thank you for your interest in what makes me tick.

(Please don't leave me thinking that the kitchen got too hot for you – I'm having fun:)

Goodnight.

Anonymous said...

(Here we go with the long HTML issue...)

Hi, well when you stop using a flame thrower to cook, the kitchen stops looking like a crematory. Can you tell I'm watching a cooking show? ;)

Logical fallacies and fallacious arguments. I've been known to spot a few myself, though not all. I rarely get a chance to get past the most popularly used because, well, most folks don't want to actually discuss the subject. Notice, I didn't say debate. Let's see how far we can get....

Actually, I cited justifiable homicide as an example of a situation where committing homicide, a bad thing, in a different circumstance, is no longer a bad thing. Suddenly the perfection of all doubts superseded? No, of course not. But, that is an inhumane standard.

Revenge killing. Hmmm... well, is this where the word revenge is supposed to prick me into righteous, I dunno', umbrage at the mere suggestion? See, I just don't mind revenge nearly as much as a lot of people think they're supposed to mind it. Not for 9-11. Yeah, there are about two other circumstances in which revenge is perfectly ok with me, but, sure, often, it can to lead to more revenge and pretty soon it's a 1000-year grudge. As I see it, let the people who picked on me and suffers my revenge be the party that turns the other cheek. Muslim fanatics tend to keep looking back further and further in history for justifications for their misdeeds today. I'm focused on what they did 9-11-01.

continued...

Anonymous said...

"I understand that you believe that the 3 men who were waterboarded are like criminals/prisoners who have committed heinous crimes and deserve death; therefore waterboarding is not too harsh in comparison to the death that they deserve. The 9/11 terrorists believed that America and Americans have been committing heinous crimes against "their people" for decades therefore the 3000 in the WTC deserved it."

Death is not the worst that can happen to a person, neither is waterboarding. But Muslims have been committing hundreds, thousands of acts of cowardly terrorism for more than a few decades their own damn selves, which for them is an inconvenient memory.

People commit hideous crimes and later justify them. If Muslim fanatics had more going for them, say, they were fanatical defenders of women's rights, or were known for their fanatical tolerance of homosexuals, or perhaps leaders in fanaticism for peace using peaceful means, I might cut them some slack. Now Christians/Jews/etc. are not uniformly famous for all of the above, but a fair number of the other religions/belief systems are further along.

The flag. Shitters thereon. I didn't say his "speech" should be restricted. If he had spoken I might have taken him seriously. No, instead he shat. I said I hated him for doing so on our flag. I get to. No one's Constitutional rights are abridged. The price the shitter pays for making his Constitutional "speech" through his ass is that the stink repels me. Our genes are coded to associate ill with stink. And the genes are right. If he wants to be ill all over himself, I might feel sorry for him. When he decides to empty his bowels on our flag and call it speech he's just wrong. And should be considered in violation of a law. But America is still too cowed by the priests of the ACLU.

As for Eleanor Roosevelt, well the dear woman had to come up with coping mechanisms somehow. While the sentiment sounds pretty on the surface, but it's a little simplistic. Namely, that unless we all agree on some standards for what is offensive, either as a nation, a society, a region, a community, a household or an individual, then humans just keep on trying, well, shit, until someone finally punches their lights out. Violence that could have easily been avoided a long, long time ago had someone taught them some respect for the standards involved. So I respectfully declare Eleanor's "just say no" to be good for the school yard but not national policy.

continued...

Anonymous said...

"If we only waterboarded in order to find a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, was it okay to do so?"

That's a mighty big "if." Because I really don't think that makes sense. If we needed an "excuse" to invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein had supplied us plenty of reasons, without us even asking. Why go to all the hassle of waterboarding someone for a pretext? Mind you, I still don't agree that waterboarding is torture. Mean, sure. Like what was done to John McCain? No. I know Sen. McCain says waterboarding is torture. I am inclined to wonder what kind of waterboarding he is talking about, specifically. Apparently, there are a number of different acts floating around in history that have been called the same name.

"And by referring to the 3 that were waterboarded as "war criminals," do you mean that they committed war crimes or that they are prisoners of war who are criminals?"

I call them war criminals because I am trying to come up with a term for them that conveys the magnitude of their transgression. Of course they haven't been convicted yet and if they are never submitted to the American Civil Liberties Unionized Courts so that hate club can advance their agenda, it will be too soon. I call them war criminals because "war" and "crimes" connotes jungle death marches, giant ovens, Hanoi Hiltons, Dr Mengele, stuff of that magnitude. Harming mass numbers of persons in purposely horrific ways. The criminal part of the term does not convey to them status as signers of the American civil contract. They don't want our stinking American liberties. Why should I force them to accept it? Sorta' like having them "grant" me the "favor" of Muslim "protections."

I'm still looking around for a better term that doesn't give lawyers the idea that they're entitled to play with the miserable fu-- heyyyyy... nahhh... too vulgar. Murder monsters? Muslim monsters? (Hey, Christians have been stereotyped, labeled, mis-labeled and vilified over less, ok.) My quest continues.

This is fun.

Goodnight.

-alexa