The Torture Apologists Have Doomed Their Argument

[tekisui]

What I have been hearing repeatedly this week from the Rabid Right is, 'These techniques are not torture'. Setting aside the absurdity that we have entered the realm of arguing torture based on nuance, their argument is doomed.

They are defending the practice and have drawn a line. They claim waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, even hanging from the ceiling by your wrists does not constitute torture. We have drawn the line with the Geneva Convention and the Army Field Manual. Our position won't change. For the apologists, as more information is released and declassified, they will be in the uncomfortable position of dropping their argument or defending beatings, forced sodomy, rape, limb breaking, murder and more. It is indefensible.

The way this has unfolded, they have built a wall. Still declaring, 'America does not torture, we interrogate enhanceable.' Their position will have to change.

As more information is released to the public, do you think Sean Hannity will offer himself to be sodomized with objects and raped on camera to prove how benign it is?

[K Gardner]

1. Excellent post on a serious subject. Still, guffawed at the last line !

[KittyWampus]

2. their other argument is, "Democrats signed off and authorized it too". And it's this argument

that the higher ups who are more concerned with the viability of the Republican party use.

DU'ers who bleet about Pelosi having authorized this are really shallow thinkers and not helping any cause whatsoever. Not even Justice.

It's one thing to insist investigations and hearings to lead where they may. It's another to ignorantly talk crap about a Democrat and accuse them just because you are unhappy with them.

[tekisui]

5. I say let the investigations and hearings lead where they may.

We don't know everything that happened and what knew what when. Congress may have been shown a sanitized version. They may have been coerce or lied to, we just don't know yet.

[KittyWampus]

IMO, that's the most appropriate response. Oh, the Repubs also are saying "it worked".

So that's the third argument.

[glitch]

26. They will have to prove that.

They will also have to prove "the ends justify the means" is a moral ideology.

edit to be very clear: they won't be able to prove either, but that is the position they have put themselves in.

[lunatica]

9. Being a Democrat is no shield if you're complicit

At the very least those who went along with the torture should be tossed out by their constituents during the elections. They may not ever be tried or found guilty but they condoned and complied. And they shouldn't even be part of the Democratic Party.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

3. Kicked...

Very insightful...

[Stuart G]

4. This says they are doomed...Ammendment 8..U.S.Constitution..

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[tekisui]

7. Well, that too.

:)

[glitch]

27. :) K & R nt

[dalaigh lllama]

30. Don't you remember how Scalia got around this in his twisted mind?

He claimed it was was not cruel and unusual punishment because we weren't punishing them; we were questioning them. It made me vomit.

[merh]

6. "but it worked"

Has been what I've been hearing - they don't defend it, they just say it worked as if that makes it all better.

Anyone who wants to debate the right on this just let me know, I'll give you a link to a mixed board where they continue to hold firm to the justifications for the crime of torture. (Oh and Pelosi authorized the memos, they would never have tortured if she hadn't so she is a principal. - I'm not kidding, that is what they have been posting.)

[tekisui]

12. They have no evidence it worked, and it doesn't matter.

They have no way of knowing if viable information was obtained through legal or illegal means. And, that is no justification. That is akin to that repuke saying they could reduce crime if every black baby were aborted.

[merh]

18. I agree

They rely on the Admiral Blair’s "assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information". I mean, come on, Blair works for Obama so they think that gives credence to their position.

It's pretty disgusting how they fumble around for justification of the crime.

[Supersedeas]

31. the Brazen Bull may have served a purpose too -- but when that premises falls where will

Torture apologists turn.

[merh]

32. most will still be in denial

[MADem]

8. I think they'll go the OTHER way with their argument, and complain that

torture is "relative." For example, some people think going to the dentist is "torture," others think sitting in a hot car in rush hour traffic is "torture." They will claim (and, FWIW, let's get this out of the way... anyone who thinks I am "defending" these practices, and approaches me from that perspective, is a big fat idiot stupider than Rush Limbaugh) that "torture" was not their intent, their intent was to make the prisoners extremely uncomfortable and, as they gave up info, they would make them more comfortable. They will try to pass it off as "carrot and stick."

What we know about it, whatever it's called, is that it doesn't work in most cases.

[Atman]

10. Offering to be waterboarded is a meaningless, stupid stunt.

When you KNOW you are just giving a demonstration, the fear of death is all but gone. You KNOW the camera crew and doctors and friendly demonstration folks aren't actually trying to hurt you or extract information from you. You KNOW you just have to bear with it for your 15 second television spot, then towel off and say "See, that wasn't so bad!"

Try submitting to a demonstration of having your fingers smashed with a hammer, or electrodes placed on your balls while you hang from the ceiling.

.

[safeinOhio]

16. I think it'll work even better with them knowing they aren't actually trying to

hurt them. Just waterboard them until they say it's is torture. It would more than prove the point.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Exactly. .I fantasize about the look on ...

Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly/Limbaugh's faces as someone asks them to defend sodomizing a teenage boy as an enhanced torture technique.

I can't wait until these depraved bastards who have spewed hate and lies for so long are revealed for all to see (granted, probably 20% will continue to defend such actions and behavior). BushCo and their loyal cheerleaders. Pathetic excuses for human beings, one and all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5511625&mesg_id=5511625

[Stuart G]

13. Agreed..If the Military protects Karpinski..and goes against the

Bush/pols...the military in its support of its own will bring em down..

[OneGrassRoot]

14. That's what needs to happen. But I wonder....

how do the conflicting worldviews break down within the military population?

I don't know...

Another thing I have NEVER understood is how the military can respect those who take them to war on false pretenses, when these SAME chickenhawks invested so much time and energy avoiding service?

I don't get that either....

[Political Heretic]

15. There arguments don't even ruffle my feathers. The MSM and the world are calling it torture.

The world has defined these things as torture consistently for ages. And despite the right's attempts to make the issue "debatable," the MSM has ceded the argument and simply refer to the practice as torture.

The right may be making this argument - but its not sticking.

[Political Heretic]

17. PS - Hannity's argument that the practices are "benign" is a catch-22

The entire purpose of torture is to be anything but benign. If you claim the practices are totally benign it begs the obvious question, "then why were interrogators wasting their time doing them?"

You can't make the "Torture works" argument and the "this isn't torture" argument at the same time, though the right is so throw off its game its throwing every argument at the wall just to see what sticks.

What I like about the hard right is that they never stop to think about a position before they defend it. If a decision was made by someone with an (R) after their name, then they simply think "what kind of argument can I spin up to defend this?"

They never think "do I want to defend this?"

Say whatever you want about the left, I LOVE the fact that we question our leaders.

[Laelth]

28. "I LOVE the fact that we question our leaders."

Hear, hear!

:dem:

-Laelth

[DireStrike]

19. Unfortunately it doesn't matter

They can change their arguments at will and the public never notices or cares.

[JohnnyLib2]

20. I think that's very realistic, unfortunately.

If I leave a particular radio station on in my car for the next week, I'll hear nonstop RW talk, all full of patriotism, results, calls of cowardice, on and on.

[DCKit]

34. Nationalism, masquerading as patriotism.

The wingnuts wouldn't know patriotism if it bit them on the ass - slogans are not principles.

[chill_wind]

21. To keep defending it, they'll have to keep defending Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

Four horseman for the policies that are not to get re-appointed to national positions of power ever again.
Their interest in defending those four will continue to dwindle. They'll be looking for someone to try to return the spin and defense of it into a bizzare national security plea in the next election though. They don't care about the real dialogue. They only care about an uber-nationalist formula for winning and keeping power that they thought would never be destroyed.

[90-percent]

22. What about?

What about the over 100 people that have died in US prisons over the last six years?

Isn't torturing enough to kill over a hundred people a little more than "a few bad apples blowing off a little steam"?

Enduring one staged water-boarding test is one thing. Enduring 6 water boardings a day for a month is fucking torture no matter how you slice it.

Are any of these guys arguing how it's not torture willing to sign up for six times a day for a month?

Hanging by your wrists for a week or being deprived of sleep for a week is not torture? I'd like anyone making that statement to sign up for a week of receiving this brand of "frat pranks".


-90% jimmy

[tekisui]

23. Good point. Hannity needs to have it done 188 times to make his point.

[hlthe2b]

24. I want more to point out the fact we tried & executed Japanese

post WWII for waterboarding our troops. There is NO answer they can provide to that fact, but one that has not been pointed out nearly enough.

[tekisui]

25. Agreed.

Down in this rabbit-hole, not much makes sense.

[chill_wind]

29. RW Head Cases: Typical Apologist Sputum here:

"Torture Documents: What's The Deal And Who Cares?"

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/04/torture_documents_whats_the_de.php

There are millions of garden variety wingnuts out there exactly like this, and their position will never change. We have to realize that.

[chill_wind]

33. Talking Point # 3: Trying to prosecute would be "extremely dangerous".

Trying To Prosecute The Bush Administration For "Torture" Would Be Extremely Dangerous--- would be

"Scaring the CIA into Not Doing Their Jobs"

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/04/trying_to_prosecute_the_bush_a.php

We'll be hearing that one a lot more, I'm sure.

[Hekate]

35. I can hardly wait for another batch of torture memos to be released. The public seems to disapprove

... of torture when it's actually described to them, for some reason.

Hekate