Bush voters: are you glad you elected a war criminal?

Myron Proudfoot said:
I see Tony has taken the "Subtle rightie-bashing OP" title away from Travis! :D
Click to expand...

"subtle"?

Lolz.

He brings an edgy, youthful 4chan vibe to every discussion, and I for one find it a refreshing departure from stodgy old arguments based on facts and logic.
 
16.5 said:
"subtle"?

Lolz.

He brings an edgy, youthful 4chan vibe to every discussion, and I for one find it a refreshing departure from stodgy old arguments based on facts and logic.
Click to expand...

There has yet to be a reasoned argument for why I am wrong. All I get is nonsense like "the dems too".
 
Tony Stark said:
You're free to cite an international law that makes killing your war enemies illegal.
Click to expand...

We're not in a war, first of all. The "war on terror" is not a real war. Terrorism will always exist. If that makes all countries who have terrorist enemies "in a war", then the term war has become pretty much meaningless.

But regardless, by international law, you cannot simply kill anyone you want to and then claim they're on your secret enemies list. They have to be a specific threats involved in direct military action against you.

If Russia started killing Americans, claiming that they are on their secret enemies list in their own "war on terror", I cannot imagine that you would defend their actions as legal.
 
cornsail said:
We're not in a war, first of all. The "war on terror" is not a real war. Terrorism will always exist. If that makes all countries who have terrorist enemies "in a war", then the term war has become pretty much meaningless.

But regardless, by international law, you cannot simply kill anyone you want to and then claim they're on your secret enemies list. They have to be a specific threats involved in direct military action against you.

If Russia started killing Americans, claiming that they are on their secret enemies list in their own "war on terror", I cannot imagine that you would defend their actions as legal.
Click to expand...

We're at war with a terrorist group, al Qaeda. Congress authorized it and everything.


If a terrorist group of Americans which decided that it was at war with Russia killed thousands of Russians and Putin responded by targeting the members of that terrorist group for death, I would absolutely think that his actions were legal.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, if you guys ever go ahead and prosecute the war criminals the US is harbouring, do let us know and we'll send you Tony to stand beside George on the stand. If we can catch him between speaking engagements.
 
3point14 said:
As an aside, if you guys ever go ahead and prosecute the war criminals the US is harbouring, do let us know and we'll send you Tony to stand beside George on the stand. If we can catch him between speaking engagements.
Click to expand...

What's stopping you guys from prosecuting Tony yourselves? You're even signatories to the International Criminal Court, which we're not, thankfully.
 
Tony Stark said:
We're at war with a terrorist group, al Qaeda. Congress authorized it and everything.
Click to expand...

No we aren't. Congress approved the use of military force, not a declaration of war.

If a terrorist group of Americans which decided that it was at war with Russia killed thousands of Russians and Putin responded by targeting the members of that terrorist group for death, I would absolutely think that his actions were legal.
Click to expand...

And you would just take Putin's word for it that whoever he had killed was a terrorists without expecting any evidence?
 
sunmaster14 said:
What's stopping you guys from prosecuting Tony yourselves? You're even signatories to the International Criminal Court, which we're not, thankfully.
Click to expand...

Politics, probably.

And I think it's not quite as clear that Tony was party to the implimentation of illegal torture. I suspect he was well aware and the UK government has as much blood on it's hands as the US government does.

If it were up to me there's be a complete and impartial investigation into the situation. Apparently, however, these things take a very, very long time.
 
cornsail said:
No we aren't. Congress approved the use of military force, not a declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Exact same thing. You might as well say that Vietnam wasn't a war.

And you would just take Putin's word for it that whoever he had killed was a terrorists without expecting any evidence?
Click to expand...

I would say that in order to prove him a war criminal, you would have to prove that he intentionally targeted innocents.



Bush tortured people. Thus he is a war criminal. The end.
 
Last edited:
I am very happy we elected Bush. I am substantially less happy that we elected Obama. However I approve of the actions both have taken in the war on terror--Bush with enhanced interrogation techniques, and Obama with extrajudicial killings by drone, including American citizens. I will not be a partisan jerkwad and approve of one while moaning that the other is murder.
 
Brainster said:
I am very happy we elected Bush. I am substantially less happy that we elected Obama. However I approve of the actions both have taken in the war on terror--Bush with enhanced interrogation techniques, and Obama with extrajudicial killings by drone, including American citizens. I will not be a partisan jerkwad and approve of one while moaning that the other is murder.
Click to expand...

From that I gather that you believe that torture works?
 
3point14 said:
Politics, probably.

And I think it's not quite as clear that Tony was party to the implimentation of illegal torture. I suspect he was well aware and the UK government has as much blood on it's hands as the US government does.

If it were up to me there's be a complete and impartial investigation into the situation. Apparently, however, these things take a very, very long time.
Click to expand...

Well, that's for sure. The Bosnian genocide trial is still going on. Apparently, the wheels of European justice turn very slowly. IIRC, Amanda Knox's fate is still being decided. There might be a thread on that somewhere around here. Probably dormant though. ;)
 
Brainster said:
I am very happy we elected Bush. I am substantially less happy that we elected Obama. However I approve of the actions both have taken in the war on terror--Bush with enhanced interrogation techniques, and Obama with extrajudicial killings by drone, including American citizens. I will not be a partisan jerkwad and approve of one while moaning that the other is murder.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that torture is a war crime or are you ok with the President committing war crimes?
 
Tony Stark said:
You're free to cite an international law that makes killing your war enemies illegal.
Click to expand...

Post #80 in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10475368&postcount=80

Point out the clause in The Laws of Land Warfare that allow targeting of the civilian populace with firebombing or nuclear weapons.

I know you might consider a post in this thread as far back as #80 ancient history, but for those of us with adult attention spans the question is valid.
 
BStrong said:
Post #80 in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10475368&postcount=80

Point out the clause in The Laws of Land Warfare that allow targeting of the civilian populace with firebombing or nuclear weapons.

I know you might consider a post in this thread as far back as #80 ancient history, but for those of us with adult attention spans the question is valid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm still not going to buy into your terrible argument of "the dems too" where you literally point out crap that my grandparents (all of whom are alive) don't remember.
 
3point14 said:
From that I gather that you believe that torture works?
Click to expand...

As I have said several times over, I am very suspicious of the claims that it does not work or that other methods are better at obtaining information. For starters, it defies personal experience. When a bully twisted your arm behind your back on the playground, did you cry uncle as he demanded? I sure did.

In addition, it strikes me as a classic "something for nothing" claim. We can gain the respect that comes with not using these enhanced interrogation techniques and still get all the information we need. Because the al Qaeda fighters are tough enough to withstand hard treatment, but not tough enough to withstand affection?
 
Tony Stark said:
There has yet to be a reasoned argument for why I am wrong. All I get is nonsense like "the dems too".
Click to expand...

No actually, Tony, I explained that he was not a criminal.

Your retort was that "you are not a court" I am a "genius" and Republicans are "stupid."
 
Tony Stark said:
Do you deny that torture is a war crime or are you ok with the President committing war crimes?
Click to expand...

Sigh. Yes to the latter, within limits. And I am also okay with the President murdering Americans abroad without trial. Like I said, I am not a partisan jerkwad.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
As I have said several times over, I am very suspicious of the claims that it does not work or that other methods are better at obtaining information. For starters, it defies personal experience. When a bully twisted your arm behind your back on the playground, did you cry uncle as he demanded? I sure did.

In addition, it strikes me as a classic "something for nothing" claim. We can gain the respect that comes with not using these enhanced interrogation techniques and still get all the information we need. Because the al Qaeda fighters are tough enough to withstand hard treatment, but not tough enough to withstand affection?
Click to expand...


I think you're denying absolutely all the research that's ever been done into the efficacy of torture in favour of your own, non-critical viewpoint. You want it to work so you've decided, with no basis in reality, that it does. Dunning Kruger once again. It's everywhere!!
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
As I have said several times over, I am very suspicious of the claims that it does not work or that other methods are better at obtaining information. For starters, it defies personal experience. When a bully twisted your arm behind your back on the playground, did you cry uncle as he demanded? I sure did.

In addition, it strikes me as a classic "something for nothing" claim. We can gain the respect that comes with not using these enhanced interrogation techniques and still get all the information we need. Because the al Qaeda fighters are tough enough to withstand hard treatment, but not tough enough to withstand affection?
Click to expand...

Crying uncle isn't a truth claim. If anything, your personal experience example only suggests that torture will provide info people want to hear, which has an unknown probability of being true. This was pointed out many times in the torture report thread, iirc.
 
3point14 said:
I think you're denying absolutely all the research that's ever been done into the efficacy of torture in favour of your own, non-critical viewpoint. You want it to work so you've decided, with no basis in reality, that it does. Dunning Kruger once again. It's everywhere!!
Click to expand...

First, there is no good scientific research on torture. None. There is a very good reason for that, and you should ponder that reason before you appeal to research.

Second, torture does work. This is not supposition, this is historical fact. Whether it works better or worse than alternatives is probably context-dependent (what kind of information is being sought? From whom? By whom?), but that's a separate question whose answer is basically unprovable.

Third, the specific techniques at issue here, whether you call them torture or not, unquestionably worked. They succeeded. Again, we can only speculate whether something else might have worked as well, and whether or not these techniques were justified is also a separate question. But it is not in doubt that the techniques we used (such as waterboarding) were, in fact, successful. To believe otherwise is flat out delusion.
 
3point14 said:
I think you're denying absolutely all the research that's ever been done into the efficacy of torture in favour of your own, non-critical viewpoint. You want it to work so you've decided, with no basis in reality, that it does. Dunning Kruger once again. It's everywhere!!
Click to expand...

I am quite sure there is a lot of research that has been done.
:rolleyes:

ETA: Here's an example of how it worked in the case of an American:

Major General Carl Stiner stated that "Buckley's kidnapping had become a major CIA concern. Not long after his capture, his agents either vanished or were killed. It was clear that his captors had tortured him into revealing the network of agents he had established."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pharphis said:
Crying uncle isn't a truth claim. If anything, your personal experience example only suggests that torture will provide info people want to hear, which has an unknown probability of being true. This was pointed out many times in the torture report thread, iirc.
Click to expand...

This is obviously a problem. But are you claiming that torture never results in solid information? Never?
 
Ziggurat said:
First, there is no good scientific research on torture. None. There is a very good reason for that, and you should ponder that reason before you appeal to research.

Second, torture does work. This is not supposition, this is historical fact. Whether it works better or worse than alternatives is probably context-dependent (what kind of information is being sought? From whom? By whom?), but that's a separate question whose answer is basically unprovable.

Third, the specific techniques at issue here, whether you call them torture or not, unquestionably worked. They succeeded. Again, we can only speculate whether something else might have worked as well, and whether or not these techniques were justified is also a separate question. But it is not in doubt that the techniques we used (such as waterboarding) were, in fact, successful. To believe otherwise is flat out delusion.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence you can show me? It may be that I am ill informed.
 
3point14 said:
I think you're denying absolutely all the research that's ever been done into the efficacy of torture in favour of your own, non-critical viewpoint. You want it to work so you've decided, with no basis in reality, that it does. Dunning Kruger once again. It's everywhere!!
Click to expand...

Since your reference to Dunning-Kruger is completely inapt, I suspect that a meta version of Dunning-Kruger is at play in your case.
 
Brainster said:
I am quite sure there is a lot of research that has been done.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, I appreciate that 'reserach' was the wrong word. I should have used 'evidence'.

Yes, I understand the moral implications of such 'research'. Incorrect wording on my part, apologies.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Since your reference to Dunning-Kruger is completely inapt, I suspect that a meta version of Dunning-Kruger is at play in your case.
Click to expand...

People making random guesses on the effectiveness of torture based on cring uncle when a bully twists their arm in school isn't someone overestimating their own knowledge? I disagree.

The other evidence presented for the positive effects of torture, I present in quotes below. Along with the required rebuttal:

"



"


I would be interested in any evidence that shows torture works. I have seen none.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Bush is completely selfless. Even during the transition after the 2008 election, he was extremely helpful to Obama and did everything he could to help him hit the ground running and be successful, including lending money to GM in order to give Obama the option of saving them if he wanted. Clinton's administration did exactly the opposite, even going so far as to vandalize White House offices. And out of office, Clinton was a vocal political opponent.
Click to expand...

Every outgoing President helps the incoming President. Unless the outgoing President was assasinated.

Even the Iraq war, which Bush is so hated for, was something he undertook because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he refused to kick the can down the road, as Clinton had done and as Obama likes to do. Politically, war is a losing proposition - no upside, and lots of downside. I have no doubt that Bush knew this, given that his father derived absolutely no political benefit from a hugely popular and successful war in 1991.
Click to expand...

Who cares if he thought it was the right thing to do? It wasn't. It doesn't matter what he THINKS. Wow.

You seem to be using the word "murdered" incorrectly. In any case, much was accomplished from the Iraq war. You just can't see it because you have not seriously contemplated a counterfactual scenario. If Saddam had been left in place, it's quite possible that there would be a raging nuclear arms race in the Middle East right now, or worse.
Click to expand...

That region was stable because of Hussein. He stuck his nose in Kuwait, and got hit on the nose with a paper from Bush 1. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is a typical liberal conceit. Most people in the military do not want to be coddled and protected. What they really want is for people to respect and support what they do. Polls of the military bear this out. The military is overwhelmingly conservative and/or Republican, and Bush is extremely popular with the military. Clinton and Obama, in contrast, are not.
Click to expand...

I absolutely respect and support what they do. I do not respect or support the President who had them killed for NO REASON. None.



And yet you cannot counter the claim with logic and evidence. Rather it provokes an emotional, even physical, response from you. Perhaps you are not capable of analyzing the Bush Presidency objectively.
Click to expand...

Smoke 'em if you got 'em I guess.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
You have 'mixed feelings' about torturing people?
Click to expand...
For me, it is not sufficient simply to see someone cry "torture!" on the Internet, in order to reach a conclusion. I would want to know more details of specific methods. Things like the amount of psychological and physical harm the method causes, and whether the harm is thought to be temporary or long-lasting. I'm interested in the legal and moral reasoning that justifies the use of that method, and the mechanisms for oversight and authorization. I would want to know if the guidelines for use of the method are reasonable, and if the method was used according to those guidelines. Similar to collateral damage, I'd want to know the context of military necessity and proportionality in which the method is applied.

Regarding the method of waterboarding in general, I'm satisfied that it is a moral interrogation method, as long as it has good oversight, follows certain guidelines, and is used in keeping with the principles of military necessity and proportionality. It's a tool I'd like to keep in the toolbox, but I do have concerns about our ability to use it wisely and responsibly. These are the same concerns I have about the use of any tool of war, from the assault rifle to the nuclear bomb. I am not frightened away from waterboarding just because someone on the Internet says "but it's tooortuuure!" as if that magically wins all arguments.

I think the term "torture" is overloaded with negative connotations, and generally gets in the way of intelligent discussion of specific methods. I would reserve that term for methods that are expected to cause lasting harm, have little or no chance of producing a result, or are used with the intent of eliciting confessions rather than information. There is a whole other thread for discussing that topic, though, so I won't get into it any further here. Suffice to say that I understand it's a contentious topic, and that disagreement abounds. If you want to call it "torture" for whatever reason, that's fine, I understand. But if you're using the term to erase nuance and foreclose debate, then I don't see much point in responding to your queries, in this thread or any other.

Regarding the waterboarding of KSM in particular, I have no a priori objection. However, I have concerns that there was inadequate oversight, and that the principles of military necessity and proportionality may not have been closely followed. As we see in the OP, Bush has recently reaffirmed that these standards were met to his satisfaction. I would like to believe that my government really did meet the standards I have for this kind of thing, but we know that is not always the case. Not only that, but because some measure of secrecy about methods and outcomes is necessary, I will probably never know for sure if waterboarding KSM was the right thing to do, or if it was done rightly. I will always have doubts, but overall I think it's reasonable to expect that what was done to KSM meets my standard for acceptable use of harsh interrogation methods.

In short: I have mixed feelings about this case. There's another thread on the topic already, so I won't discuss it further here. Feel free to bump that thread if you feel you have some meaningful new insight to impart. I might participate, but last time I checked, that discussion had already covered all the ground that's interesting to me.

Closer to the topic of this thread: I already knew about the waterboarding of KSM, and of Bush's responsibility for it. I already knew how I felt about those topics. Nothing in Tony's OP provided new information or new reasoning. I've given clear, direct, and honest responses, and I'd like to know what Tony thinks I'm dodging.
 
Brainster said:
This is obviously a problem. But are you claiming that torture never results in solid information? Never?
Click to expand...

I'm sure torture can and does result in true information. The problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not the information is true without testing it, which takes time and risk, as well as the fact that torture is immoral imo. In instances where time is of the essence, I'm not convinced torture gets you the necessary info fast enough if at all (you need the right guy, after all)
 
theprestige said:
Closer to the topic of this thread: I already knew about the waterboarding of KSM, and of Bush's responsibility for it. I already knew how I felt about those topics. Nothing in Tony's OP provided new information or new reasoning. I've given clear, direct, and honest responses, and I'd like to know what Tony thinks I'm dodging.
Click to expand...

Because you pretend that the President saying it isn't a crime has anything to do with the matter. In reality, him saying that his actions are ok is completely to be expected.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Sigh. Yes to the latter, within limits. And I am also okay with the President murdering Americans abroad without trial. Like I said, I am not a partisan jerkwad.
Click to expand...

Except for the President killing war enemies (whether they be Americans or not) is not murder.
 
pharphis said:
I'm sure torture can and does result in true information. The problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not the information is true without testing it, which takes time and risk, as well as the fact that torture is immoral imo. In instances where time is of the essence, I'm not convinced torture gets you the necessary info fast enough if at all (you need the right guy, after all)
Click to expand...

We're rehashing old ground here from the CIA torture report thread, but in many cases, information obtained from torture is immediately verifiable. The simplest possible example is "what is the password to decrypt this hard disk we obtained from an al Qaeda safe house?" The verification process is quick and easy, but you need something to work with. Even if the information you want is not immediately verifiable, it is still possible that false information that the suspect gives you is immediately disprovable. And the suspect might not know that because he doesn't know what you know. In those situations, the suspect is taking a big risk if he lies because he might end up telling you something that you know to be false. There's a lot of game theory involved in interrogation, even if torture is used.

The desire to avoid pain can be just as powerful an incentive, or more so, than the desire to obtain pleasure. In fact, at a philosophical level, they're indistinguishable. If one believes that positive incentives "work" in interrogations, then surely one must believe that negative incentives also "work."
 
sunmaster14 said:
The desire to avoid pain can be just as powerful an incentive, or more so, than the desire to obtain pleasure. In fact, at a philosophical level, they're indistinguishable. If one believes that positive incentives "work" in interrogations, then surely one must believe that negative incentives also "work."
Click to expand...

In fact the desire is so strong that people being tortured will tell eventually tell the torturers anything, whether or not it is the truth.
 
3point14 said:
Do you have any evidence you can show me? It may be that I am ill informed.
Click to expand...

Of what, exactly? That torture has worked? There are countless examples.

Waterboarding worked on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, as just one example. He gave up good information that stopped multiple Al Qaeda plots.
 
pharphis said:
I'm sure torture can and does result in true information. The problem is that there is no way to tell whether or not the information is true without testing it
Click to expand...

That is true of all forms of interrogation.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yeah, I'm still not going to buy into your terrible argument of "the dems too" where you literally point out crap that my grandparents (all of whom are alive) don't remember.
Click to expand...

The time honored finger in ears "I Can't Hear You!" defense.

If you had the ability of critical thinking and some knowledge of history you'd be aware that our country under Democrats and Republicans have engaged in all sorts of illegal and immoral actions, some based on expediency, some on neglect, and some flat out planned operations.

As far as the office of the President being directly involved with some horrible people doing ugly things, here's one of my favorites. Check with your grandparents if you don't know who JFK was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Roberto

After visiting the United Nations, he returned to Kinshasa and organized Bakongo militants.[3][7] He launched an incursion into Angola on March 15, 1961, leading 4,000 to 5,000 militants. His forces took farms, government outposts, and trading centers, killing everyone they encountered. At least 1,000 whites and an unknown number of natives were killed.[8] Commenting on the incursion, Roberto said, "this time the slaves did not cower". They massacred everything.[9]

Roberto met with United States President John F. Kennedy on April 25, 1961. When he applied for aid later that year from the Ghanaian government, President Kwame Nkrumah turned him down on the grounds that the U.S. government was already paying him.[10] Roberto merged the UPA with the Democratic Party of Angola to form the FNLA in March 1962 and a few weeks later established the Revolutionary Government of Angola in Exile (GRAE) on March 27, appointing Savimbi to the position of Foreign Minister. Roberto established a political alliance with Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko by divorcing his wife and marrying a woman from Mobutu's wife's village.[3][7][11] Roberto visited Israel in the 1960s and received aid from the Israeli government from 1963 to 1969.[1][12][13]


Because of the TOS here I won't insert images of the carnage in Angola, but here's a link to Google images where you can view evidentiary photographs of the atrocities carried out by his "troops"

https://www.google.com/search?q=hol...attack+in+angola+fabric+of+terror+photographs

and there's an excellent book on the attack, The Fabric of Terror:

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Terror...d=1423847470&sr=1-1&keywords=fabric+of+terror

That puts the attack into human terms for the victims, and many of the photos at the Google link of the atrocities came from this book.

Here's the bottom line - Holden Roberto masterminded a horrible terrorist attack on 15 March 1961. He was welcomed into the White House as a visitor to JFK on 25th April 1961.

Because I'm an equal opportunity assigner of fault, I'll note that Presidents Ford and Carter later supported Roberto with funding, logistic support and intelligence material when he fought against the Cuban side in Angola post-'75 when the Portuguese pulled out of Angola and Mozambique. It was one of our greatest national shames that in the post WWII period any leader that raised their hand and said "Hey! I don't like the commies" received aid, no matter how far they went in repressing and/or murdering their own people. It's coming back to haunt us even today.

Like I've posted many times here, nobody has a monopoly on virtue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom