The Pacer

Originally posted by

Alumnus

I can't believe the witch hunt still goes on. President Bush did whatever it took to keep this country secure after 9/11. Not only have we not had attacks, but recent attempts at attacks were thwarted because of the intelligence obtained from the techniques that people protest about. You can't have security and question the manner in which it is provided.

Perhaps you are not aware of the steps President Bush took. If starting a war in a country on false pretenses, taking away more of our rights to privacy, enlarging government more than any president before him has and torturing people is a good thing, let me know.

Originally posted by

Alumnus

I can't believe the witch hunt still goes on. President Bush did whatever it took to keep this country secure after 9/11. Not only have we not had attacks, but recent attempts at attacks were thwarted because of the intelligence obtained from the techniques that people protest about. You can't have security and question the manner in which it is provided.

Dear Alumnus:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the "techniques" to which you euphemistically refer prevented any terrorist attacks whatsoever. None.

Moreover, following WWII we put Japanese soldiers to DEATH for waterboarding (one of the "techniques" - otherwise called by its proper name: torture) American soldiers they had held prisoner. In other words, in American jurisprudence, waterboarding is not just treated as a crime, it is treated as a capital crime.

The US constitution is not a list of suggestions written in pencil that you can cite when it suits you and ignore when it does not. The US was *not* founded on the principle of trusting any one leader: instead, it is based on a system of checks and balances. "Trust me" is not a policy. Our leaders - and our president(s) in particular - must be held to the standards set forth in our laws. Bush and Cheney operated on the assumption that they are above the law - the supreme law of the land - something Cheney calls the "unitary executive" which legal scholars have uniformly dismissed as nonesense. Please don't buy into it. I would be against "trust me" as a policy no matter *who* held office - and as someone who believes in this country you should be as well.

Originally posted by

clarification

Dr. Hammond, I feel the need to address some inaccuracies in your information.

For starters, the Japanese version of waterboarding was much different from the technique practiced in Guantanamo. The practice itself has been around for centuries, and as such it has varying forms. The American technique is much less brutal than their form. Whether or not you still want to consider it torture, I don't care. I am just posting this to make sure you get your facts straight in your attempt to show yourself as intellectually superior to students. At any rate, the Japanese soldiers put to death had much longer lists of offenses other than waterboarding that lead to their executions. These included severe beatings and starvation of prisoners, actions that actually physically harmed pows.

Historically there has been some American support for certain less extreme variations of waterboarding. President Roosevelt, the first one that is, was a strong supporter of the practice.

It is convenient that you can say there is no evidence for waterboarding preventing attacks as all such evidence is currently classified. Obama declassified information on the subject selectively to help strengthen his viewpoint, but refused to declassify the information received from the detainees as part of the practice.

You know there is one thing I actually agree with you about. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, meant to be respected. It has absolutely nothing to do with this argument other than attempting to make yourself sound intelligent, however.

Oh, and lastly, do you not consider the University of Florida to be a larger reputable research institution? The example schools you listed are bastions of extreme liberalism. That is why that have not invited the former attorney general there.

Dear Clarification, I feel need to address some inaccuracies in your information.

Many Japanese soldiers were put to death for water-boarding (if you like you can find this information http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/22/Columns/We_sentenced_Japanese.shtml its a news report from 2006 that covers things quite thoroughly, unless you wish to call the sptimes a blatent liberal extremist?) You also are kind enough to point out that yes, indeed, these water-boarding Japanese didn't only water-board their prisoners, they beat them, shackled them in place for up to 40 hours, deprived them of sleep. Our people have done the same thing, not only have we done the same thing but we have been doing so for well over 100 years, back in 1898 is when the first 'known' water-boarding occured at american hands.

Obama de-classified as much as he could and much more than even the two major parties wanted. If Obama could declassify that information gleaned from water-torture I bet he would. That however, is an opinion and not a fact.

Thats all I have to respond with for now. Oh, I am not a large fan of Dr. Hammond but I do respect him and have enjoyed taking his classes (people, take german courses!!!)

Aaron did you not read the article you linked thoroughly? It specifically says "among" the acts. Red Cross members are at Guantanamo to monitor the physical condition of the prisoners. As of yet, I am unaware of any government sanctioned starvation or beatings. In fact I seem to recall in the news a couple of years about that many of the prisoners were hooked up to feeding tubes to keep them alive through a hunger strike. Furthermore you failed to address the FACT that the Japanese version of waterboarding was much different from the one employed in Guantanamo.

As for the second paragraph, your opinions are irrelevant. Only facts matter. The facts are against your argument.

Originally posted by

clarification

Dr. Hammond, I feel the need to address some inaccuracies in your information.

For starters, the Japanese version of waterboarding was much different from the technique practiced in Guantanamo. The practice itself has been around for centuries, and as such it has varying forms. The American technique is much less brutal than their form. Whether or not you still want to consider it torture, I don't care. I am just posting this to make sure you get your facts straight in your attempt to show yourself as intellectually superior to students. At any rate, the Japanese soldiers put to death had much longer lists of offenses other than waterboarding that lead to their executions. These included severe beatings and starvation of prisoners, actions that actually physically harmed pows.

Historically there has been some American support for certain less extreme variations of waterboarding. President Roosevelt, the first one that is, was a strong supporter of the practice.

It is convenient that you can say there is no evidence for waterboarding preventing attacks as all such evidence is currently classified. Obama declassified information on the subject selectively to help strengthen his viewpoint, but refused to declassify the information received from the detainees as part of the practice.

You know there is one thing I actually agree with you about. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, meant to be respected. It has absolutely nothing to do with this argument other than attempting to make yourself sound intelligent, however.

Oh, and lastly, do you not consider the University of Florida to be a larger reputable research institution? The example schools you listed are bastions of extreme liberalism. That is why that have not invited the former attorney general there.

Oh, and lastly, do you not consider the University of Florida to be a larger reputable research institution? The example schools you listed are bastions of extreme liberalism. That is why that have not invited the former attorney general there.[/QUOTE]

HMM...Very thought provoking...but here's a couple points that just POOFED into my head, and I like to believe that I have a modicum of intelligence...

1. Torture is torture. Whether or not the Japanese and American versions of waterboarding are identical is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Would you rather have your toenails ripped out or be covered in honey and fire ants? They are different, but one cannot be claimed to be less gruesome than the other.

2.The fact that the Red Cross showed up at times to monitor the detainees is also, quite frankly, irrelevant.
Anyone who works in food service will tell you that the rules are absolutely followed when the health inspector shows up. Other times, well, maybe a few rules get fudged...

3. I always thought that Harvard and the U of Chicago...these "extreme liberal bastions" of which you speak..were actually great competitive schools where people of intelligence teach and are taught. No link necessarily with intelligence and "liberalism", or is there? Oops..perhaps there is, if you recognize that "extreme liberalism" is a rhetorical tool used by demagogues for the "silent majority"...give me a break.

You missed the point. When you successfully find the point then comment again and I will happily discuss this with you.

Well pennysworth, I have to say I like your response format. I can then address your response on a point by point basis.

1. You missed my point. My point in differentiating the practices is that one is debatably defined as torture, while the other clearly is torture. While the American version gives the person the feeling of being drowned, the Japanese version often actually drowned people. The two examples you gave were both pretty undesirable and were physically harmful.

2. Pleas tell me what restaurant you work at so that I may avoid it. I have worked in the industry before and we followed health rules. At any rate restaurants can clean up messes and fix changes. Do you believe the military has some magical ability to make starving people fat instantly, or maybe they have a clone of Jesus there locked away to heal wounds miraculously before the Red Cross gets there.

3. I like how you failed to mention Berkley, one of the origins of the Vietnam-era hippie movement. As for the other schools, it does of course vary with teachers and departments as any school does. Chicago is a horribly liberal school, and not surprisingly as it is placed in a horribly liberal city. Did you not know that or have you just never left your small town in the south? Personally I have lived in 4 different states in varying parts of the country and been to almost all of them. Now for Harvard, the school itself isn't liberal, but rather the student body leans that way. As such the school would be stupid to hire a speaker that the majority of its students do not want.

Lastly I like that little quip about linking intelligence and liberalism, but I wouldn't have to keep re-explaining things for you all if that were true. You actually think "extreme liberalism" is a rhetorical tool. "Extreme" is merely an adjective, and "liberalism" is an ideology on the political spectrum. Being on the far end of the left on that spectrum makes one an "extreme liberal." Just the same, being on the far right of the ideology makes on an "extreme conservative." These are accepted basics in political science. Do communications majors not cover that? I also like how you refer to conservative politicians as demagogues when by definition Barack Obama got elected by arousing the emotions of those who hated GWB. If Tuesdays elections are any indicator, those people have opened their eyes. Oh and every major polling organization in this country has shown with their data that conservatives are the majority in this country, so if you were attempting to state otherwise with your quotes, guess again.

It's really quite remarkable that ad hominems get lobbed so quickly. Since you wish to make assumptions about me, let me provide a little more info on myself:
I am not from a "small town", a "communications major", nor do I work in a "restaurant". My examples were for illustrative purposes so there's really no reason to levy personal attacks.
Anywho..Semantics aside, believe what you will, but "liberals" are EVERYWHERE. Heh Heh Heh..
Last piece of advice: Don't be a Rush wannabe.

Originally posted by

Mike

There is no need to get all upset. This is just the cause of the month for all the people that think that they were personally called to save the world. Next month it will be something else as their life blows with the wind.

Frankly, I find this comment confusing. Would you not expect an important cause/issue to be addressed when it becomes practically relevant? No progress could be made if individuals were not willing to speak out about topics that shape our lives. We would truly be blowing in the wind at that point (the point at which we allow our lives and conditions to be dictated because we as individuals refuse to speak up).