Skip to main content

View Diary: I'm sorry my government tortured you, David (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You know we're in serious trouble... (21+ / 0-)

    ... when a good percentage of people on THIS, a supposedly left-leaning site, have supported torture in one way or another. Whether it's claiming Obama is right to protect the war criminals Bush and his buddies; or whether it's pretending anything we're currently doing is just wonderful, since it's now (supposedly) being done under the rules of the Army Field Manual (itself not too far from torture); or whether it's literally laughing at how Bradley Manning is now being (IMO) tortured.

    "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

    by ratmach on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:05:56 PM PST

    •  Valtin argues convincingly (18+ / 0-)

      that certain techniques in the Army Field Manual are in fact torture.

      Don't believe everything you think.

      by geomoo on Wed Feb 16, 2011 at 11:08:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  bradley's torture is not a matter of... (10+ / 0-)

      opinion, it's plain fact.

    •  Haven't seen that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, geomoo, foufou
      good percentage of people on THIS, a supposedly left-leaning site, have supported torture in one way or another

      I don't think you can support that statement. It would not be unfair or an overstatement to say that you are simply wrong and mistaken, and are making an outrageous claim completely fabricated out of thin air.

      Should Bush and Cheney be led into a courtroom in manacles and leg-irons, dressed in orange jump suits and prosecuted for war crimes against Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes.

      Is there any likelihood of that happening in the real world? No.

      Recognizing that fact is not "supporting torture."

      •  Such a sad comment (8+ / 0-)
        Is there any likelihood of that happening in the real world? No.

        Recognizing that fact is not "supporting torture."

        Politics is not the accounting of existing votes.  Politics is the creation of votes.

        We are not a free people if any of us can be detained without trial and tortured.

        "Sorry, not enough votes for freedom.  We'll have to all remain slaves"   Bzzzzt!  Not in my lifetime!

        We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

        by Mosquito Pilot on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 04:18:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can make these arguments without (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno, frandor55

          accusing people of "supporting torture".  What most of them are doing falls short of that, imho.  The farthest I would go is to say some are apologists for torture, and that is the minority.  The rest, I think are in denial, are confused about the amount of available evidence, or are convinced that attempting to prosecute the Bush era war criminals will be counter-productive  in preventing torture going forward.  I think they are wrong.  We can argue these points without accusing decent, well-meaning people of "supporting torture".

          Don't believe everything you think.

          by geomoo on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:50:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Being in denial about supporting torture... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MixedContent

            ...still means one is supporting it.

            Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

            by expatjourno on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 03:16:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              expatjourno, MixedContent, I love OCD

              Being in denial means being unable to accept a reality.  Often, the very reason for the denial is a deep abhorrence of the reality being denied.  I think it is inaccurate to categorize this as "supporting" the reality being denied.

              In any case, in practical terms, I don't see anything profitable in arguing in this way.  Either the person being argued with truly does support torture, in which case, you're wasting your time.  Or the person is a potential ally who is open to being persuaded by evidence and logic.  In the latter case, insisting on categorizing their position as extreme slams shut the door of persuasion.

              Don't believe everything you think.

              by geomoo on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 04:21:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  This adminstration fought to get (4+ / 0-)

        Spanish courts to stop looking into Bush war crimes.

        Please stop embarrassing yourself, and this site.

        Everyone knows that only witches stand up for accused witches!!

        by JesseCW on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 08:31:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is an excellent point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          I love OCD

          I am intentionally stopping short of pointing out Obama's legal hazard, for the sake of discussion.  No need bickering when we can't even get to those whose guilt is obvious.

          Still, the poster does have a point.  We can make these arguments without accusing people of "supporting torture".  What most of them are doing falls short of that, imho.  The farthest I would go is to say some are apologists for torture, and that is the minority.  The rest, I think are in denial, are confused about the amount of available evidence, or are convinced that attempting to prosecute the Bush era war criminals will be counter-productive  in preventing torture going forward.  I think they are wrong.  We can argue these points without accusing decent, well-meaning people of "supporting torture".

          Don't believe everything you think.

          by geomoo on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 12:52:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, Geomoo, I've read your comments... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, geomoo

            ... and I PARTLY agree with you. Among the people I was talking about, there are several different motives/attitudes involved, so I probably shouldn't have lumped them all.

            The ones who TRULY believe that having war crimes trials would bring this country to a standstill and cause even more suffering, I don't think that's "supporting torture". As you said, it's wrong, but not malicious.  Also, the ones who've had their heads buried in the sand (about the only way this could happen) and don't believe there's real evidence of Bush et al torturing, I can forgive.

            But those weren't the ones I was thinking of.

            I was thinking of the ones who oppose torture prosecutions mainly as a way to COVER FOR Obama. Obama doesn't want prosecutions, and even BLOCKS them, and so some of his supporters follow in lock step. I consider what Obama has done to very much be "supporting torture", and so what the people in this category are doing is, in my opion, at a minimum "supporting someone who supports torture", if that makes any sense.

            Another group are the people who think it's all fine and dandy, as long as we follow the Army Field Manual. If they don't really know what those techniques involve, then they've got an excuse (though they should LEARN). But if they know about certain of those techniques, and think they're OK, then yeah, they are supporting torture.

            And of course we've got the people who have been litterally making fun of Bradley Manning's treatment, and belittling us for caring about it. While Manning is not being treated like, say, those who we waterboarded, what's happening to him most definitely is some level of torture. So I'm comforable declaring that those who laugh about his treatment are "supporting torture."

            So you're right I used too broad a brush. But a smaller brush would have been perfectly legit, I think.

            "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

            by ratmach on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 08:06:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Supporting a president who supports torture... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ratmach, MixedContent

        ...by failing to prosecute torturers and by allowing people to continue to be tortured by the U.S. military of which he is commander-in-chief, is, in fact, supporting torture.

        Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

        by expatjourno on Thu Feb 17, 2011 at 03:15:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I heard a very vocal anti-torture (0+ / 0-)

          proponent, the man who actually gets results from treating people kindly, say that from what he's hearing from his compatriots, there is no one torturing people anymore.  The line has been drawn, and is being respected.

          He said the problem is that there are still people in power who don't differentiate between Muslims and terrorists who claim to be Islamic.  As long as we vilify any other human being, we are not respecting his or her humanity, which creates the environment for torturing people - they're not really human, so who cares.  

          His point was that there's a deeper issue we are avoiding, the issue of creating enemies, dehumanizing people we don't agree with or don't like.

          I have not been really exercised about prosecuting Cheney, for reasons most people don't understand or don't want to know about.  If it was easy, he'd be in prison.  If there was enough evidence for a quick trial, he'd be in the process.  

          The point is that Cheney is simply the latest and most arrogant of Americans who support and promote torture.  Starting a RW/LW war around him will serve, IMO, to keep the focus off the underlying problem:  as a nation We've been supporting dictators all over the world who routinely torture and murder their dissidents.  That's a fact.  What we say we stand for is just a sentimental overlay that keeps American citizens from having to face some really ugly truths.  If Cheney becomes a martyr to the RW/neo-con cause, and our media manage to twist prosecutions into partisan persecutions won't that enable the dirty secrets to stay dirty?  Once Wikileaks has all the dirt, won't the Murdoch's have ample evidence that Democrats are as guilty as Republicans, and won't that end the whole discussion?

          This is so much bigger than Dick Cheney.  If we really want to hurt the man let's make sure he and his never regain political power.  Let's bust our asses to make sure Democrats are running things, and that they know that torture, repression, and the status quo are totally unacceptable.  Let's be the people who educate the masses.

          If I thought it would be an easy thing to do I'd be parked outside the White House with a sign demanding that Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld be arrested today.  The long-term consequences of that are what concern me, mostly the kinds of consequences that come from reality being swept under yet another rug.

          I keep reading, wondering when someone will come up with a solution to this underlying problem.  It concerns me that the focus stays on this man/these men, when it's truly an enormous problem that we've left untouched for decades, perhaps centuries.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Fri Feb 18, 2011 at 01:40:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site