Bush knowingly ordered torture

[RavenHawk]

I am an American and have been screaming at the top of my lungs they should be brought to justice for war crimes.

I just have to laugh at this. It is so indicative of a lack of awareness. This is not meant as an insult, just an observation. Do you really know the history of torture? When has it never been used in warfare? In essence Bush approved water-boarding on one or two prisoners. At the end of the day, these men would be able to see their families again. What about Dan Pearl or the four men (Helveston, Zovko, Batalona, Teague) hung on a bridge in Fallujah or a myriad of other incidents? These men will never see their loved ones again. Why aren’t you screaming at the top of your lungs for them?

Torture is a part of war. In some instances, it is very distasteful to some. And some forms of torture are very effective while others are not. If you are a field commander and you need to know information that will save your men and you have a prisoner that may know something, you’re going to do everything possible to pry that info out of that prisoner, even though at a different time, it would be considered extreme cruelty. Like I have said before, the only rule in war is to win. You can’t legislate war or you risk losing. Now there are considerations that can occur in war but those are usually established on the battlefield. For instance, not mistreating prisoners because that will open up the other side to do the same. It’s more of an understanding than anything else. But in the case of Dan Pearl, the other side has already crossed the line. We are under no obligation to observe such niceties; neither does it change our moral fabric to use torture.

So the bottom line is that your self-righteousness is pompous and disingenuous. You’re brainwashed by Hollywood that the good guys always wear white hats. That’s simply not the case.

I also agree that were not at Hitler level yet.

This is something else that is laughable. You want to make a comparison between Hitler and Bush because of Bush’s approval of limited non lethal EI, yet here comes Obama who is so blatant in his Hitleresque usurpation of the Constitution. Unbelievable! Hitler wasn’t only a monster because of the Final Solution but for pulling the wool over the eyes of the German people which then allowed him to grab power and press his agenda unhindered, which included the Final Solution. It all began from little changes (here and there) to their society deemed beneficial to society’s safety. It was the State that determined what was good for you.

I also would put Raven Hawk on my ignore list too since he seems to not have anything to say but insults and talking points.

I just call’em as I see’em. If you think that is insulting then maybe you should go home and come back when you mature. Don’t be so shallow to threaten to put me on ignore, do so or do not. We don’t know who the Hell the other is. All I can tell from your replies is that you are naïve. I personally never do put anyone on ignore because I consider it childish. If you don’t think I have anything to say, you just haven’t been listening. What I say usually sours the koolaid others quaff. Besides, if you put me on ignore, you’ll never know what I say about you.

I never liked the term “Talking Points”. I find that itself is a talking point. Points are points. They are either right or wrong. I have supported my points very well and today the only retorts aimed at me are misdirection. To me that confirms that my points are correct and the arguments against them are feeble.

Oh I am not socked at all that he knowingly did torture on people. He was Hypocritical, when it came to torture calling it special integrations.

That’s just the art of Statesmanship. Obama has been far smoother than Bush or even Clinton. Obama has people eagerly bending over to grab their ankles. And many still don’t realize it.

Why has he not been arrested for war crimes yet? .

Maybe because he hasn’t committed war crimes. You do realize that the water-boarding and the Abu Ghraib photos amount to nothing more than college fraternity initiation? When I was a private, I committed a very minor infraction while on firewatch. The NCO’s had a field day with me. They had me in a position that has since then been known as a Brazilian. It was a means to instill discipline, I understood that and I knew that it wasn’t personal. And I wasn’t the only one. That is just the way things are. When we go through scuba or jump school and you get your pin, they pin it to your chest, literally and everyone lines up to take their turn to help secure it. They each pound it in a little deeper. That is far more painful that anything you saw at Abu Ghraib. Believe me, I know.

[RavenHawk]

I am a pragmatist - whatever works.

Just blow with the wind, eh? That’s how Socialism takes over.

Its not founded on an immoveable ideology.

That’s called principle. It is what the Constitution is based on. Of course it is immoveable ideology. There has to be something to anchor us or we will end up like you blowing in the wind like underwear on the line. The Constitution must remain immoveable so that we may remain free. I doubt you understand that.

I even admit that my understanding is partial and evolving.

As if I’ve never had a period in my life that wasn’t evolving. The world just can’t wait for you to reach an epiphany. I don’t understand everything either but I trust the intent of the Founding Fathers. Their insight was flawless.

Ravenhawk starts off from the belief that anything which he disagrees with is socialist - including me.

It’s not what I disagree with. It is what our Founding Fathers warned us about.

I must admit that I like your avatar, but if you’re not that cross between Caesar/Che then you should think about changing it. BTW, Caesar was not anti establishment. He was the establishment. Revolutionaries are not all socialists. We had several (including ancestors of mine) about 240 years ago that were not Socialist. They found the wisdom to escape the trap.

Maybe now you can spot the difference between RavenHawks dogma and the things I say. Probably not.

I think it is quite clear. My dogma is the US Constitution.

[Guest]

Your funny Ravenhawk, but I doubt you realise how funny

All of the worst tyrants have been driven by immovable ideologies - even the socialist one's - you should remember that when you place ideology over compromise and seeking what actually works

Certainty is no substitute for been right.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 23, 2013 by Guest

[Harte]

Certainty is no substitute for been right.

Br Cornelius

Did you mean "left?"

LOL

Harte

[Guest]

Did you mean "left?"

LOL

Harte

No.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

Your funny Ravenhawk, but I doubt you realise how funny

I can never be as funny as you. Or even as sad.

All of the worst tyrants have been driven by immovable ideologies - even the socialist one's - you should remember that when you place ideology over compromise and seeking what actually works

All tyrants are driven by their desires and there are only the Socialist ones. There is no compromise with Socialism and it doesn’t compromise itself. Compromise is a tactic Socialism uses to defeat its opponent. If you don’t stand on a firm foundation or ideology (i.e. the Constitution), you have nothing to compromise. That is why it is only a tactic of the Socialist. Compromise only works with people with the same foundation but have differences.

As I stated before, Socialism degrades the whole system. We saw that in the Soviet Union, we’re seeing it in Europe and even the beginnings here. Socialism does not work for a free people. It works fine for dictators.

[pallidin]

I'm 100% OK with non-lethal torture on confirmed terrorists.

There are often 3-5 terrorists future plans other than the one he was caught.

Would be good to know what the plans are.

I don't care what anyone else thinks, that's my position.

[Guest]

I can never be as funny as you. Or even as sad.

All tyrants are driven by their desires and there are only the Socialist ones. There is no compromise with Socialism and it doesn't compromise itself. Compromise is a tactic Socialism uses to defeat its opponent. If you don't stand on a firm foundation or ideology (i.e. the Constitution), you have nothing to compromise. That is why it is only a tactic of the Socialist. Compromise only works with people with the same foundation but have differences.

As I stated before, Socialism degrades the whole system. We saw that in the Soviet Union, we're seeing it in Europe and even the beginnings here. Socialism does not work for a free people. It works fine for dictators.

The constitution had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It was a statement of independence from colonialism and Monarchy. The concepts you attempt to frame everything with didn't even exist at the time of the writing of the constitution.

Your head is so grossly twisted that you have one tiny pill box which you force all concepts through.

Your the very definition of a fanatic. Sad and a bit tragic really.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 23, 2013 by Guest

[Babe Ruth]

RavenHawk

So Dan Pearl or Joe Jones is more important to you than the principle of the rule of law?

[regeneratia]

No surprise here. Bush is clinically insane and was when he sat in the Oval Office.

[regeneratia]

For shame Mr. President. We're supposed to be the good guys.

The USA has not been the good guy for quite some time. We are just taught to think we are. HOwever I do honestly believe we can be again,... if we fire all government workers and rebuilt it.

Edited April 23, 2013 by regeneratia

[Babe Ruth]

RavenHawk

Over on the Bloomberg thread you make most clear your devotion to the US Constitution and the principle of the rule of law. Great post and I could not agree more!

But my question still stands--can we allow and condone torture and assault because some soldier is killed somewhere?

[RavenHawk]

The constitution had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism.

Actually it does. If you consider the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill or Rights as one train of thought, it becomes very clear that the Founding Fathers created something completely opposite to Socialism. This was intentional.

It was a statement of independence from colonialism and Monarchy.

Correct! But that wasn’t a static declaration.

The concepts you attempt to frame everything with didn't even exist at the time of the writing of the constitution.

The concept existed long before the term. The Founding fathers knew Socialism as Colonialism and Monarchy. Don’t get caught up in trying to worry about the differences in these terms, that’s not what is key. In today’s world “Socialism” is a more appropriate word to use as opposed to “Oligarchy”. “Oligarchy” is an obsolete, academic term that doesn’t mean much to most people. The popular usage of “Socialism” incorporates all the “Isms” into one term. The bottom line being that there really isn’t much difference between them all. They all trend to take or steel more and more power from the people as time goes by even if the initial government is benevolent. It is the political version of Maximum Entropy. As government become larger, unintentional consequences of legislation become more blatantly obvious.

Your head is so grossly twisted that you have one tiny pill box which you force all concepts through.

Anything but twisted. I just acknowledge that all forms of government originate from that tiny pill box of yours except for our original Constitutional Republic. I don’t have to force anything. You’ve just been brainwashed to believe that there is a world of difference between all the “Isms”. It’s very similar to the history of the Particle Zoo and how it developed into the Standard Model. One “Ism” is pretty much like the next. It robs and destroys.

[Guest]

There is no way of talking rationally with someone who has a cooky cutter approach to interpreting history and will distort facts in any way which suits his prejudices.

Monarchy is not and never was a form of socialism and the fact that you belieev it so says everything about your understanding of reality.

God save us from fanatics.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

So Dan Pearl or Joe Jones is more important to you than the principle of the rule of law?

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what you’re saying here. You’re not making sense. I tried googling to see which Joe Jones you are referring to. None of them have anything to do with Daniel Pearl. You do understand that Daniel Pearl was tortured to death? But I really don’t hear much about bringing his killers to justice. Interesting enough, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did confess but he wasn’t the only one involved and his confession is being seconded guessed. But there is no movement on punishment and he’s seen as a victim. Yet, two people (including KSM) are water-boarded and Bush needs to be tried as a war criminal? This is totally insane. If KSM is ever released, he’ll go back to his family. What about the family of Daniel Pearl? What do you tell them?

And the second half of your statement is just as confused. It should be that seeking justice for Daniel Pearl is the rule of Law. Doesn’t Pearl deserve Justice? This irrational desire to try Bush as a war criminal carries no weight.

But my question still stands--can we allow and condone torture and assault because some soldier is killed somewhere?

It’s not a matter of condoning torture as it is understanding that it is part of war. And the point is that torture is done in war and with far more cruelty than has ever occurred under Bush, so why the intense interest to try Bush and only Bush?

Torture has many kinds. Using it for data mining is not to bring death. If the other side crosses the line and tortures one of ours to death (obviously not trying to get information out of) then we are under no obligation to not do the same. Remember, this is war. So you want to compare data mining to execution? McCain was tortured to get a confession. The VC weren’t interested in information. The application of torture in these two situations is totally different. Torture for data mining involves breaking the body’s defenses down and setting baselines. Torture for confessions involves just beating the subject until they give in. In one, you are looking for accurate info, in the other, you are interested in the subject performing some action. With repeated application of torture for data mining, you can catch someone in a lie. For a confession, it doesn’t matter if one is lying. And then there is the case of Daniel Pearl. He was just tortured and killed to elicit fear. If one makes a list of all those that committed torture and then ordered them in seriousness, Bush would be at the bottom of the list.

[RavenHawk]

There is no way of talking rationally with someone who has a cooky cutter approach

You just don’t understand. And you’ve made it clear that you refuse to try. You’re the one bringing up pillboxes and cookie cutters.

to interpreting history and will distort facts in any way which suits his prejudices.

In a way, we all do this. We discover epiphanies and interpret history to better understand it. I haven’t distorted anything thing. You simply have no imagination to look at things in different ways. This is how we learn. Dictators do not want their people to view history in different ways and they stay in ignorance.

Monarchy is not and never was a form of socialism and the fact that you belieev it so says everything about your understanding of reality.

Monarchy *IS* a form of Socialism. Why do you think Socialistic Democracies took off in Europe? SDs are a natural transition from Monarchies. The Founding Fathers saw this possible transition for this country and steered away from it.

God save us from fanatics.

I guess I’d rather be a fanatic than someone that just blows with the wind.

[Guest]

Ravenhawk by abusing objective descriptive terms you have backed yourself into a ghetto where no-one will understand you because you do not share the same language as everyone else.

Words have meanings for a reason - to aid in conversation and understanding.

You should attempt to remember this when you go off on one of your rants and no one follows you down your rabbit hole

Br Cornelius

[Babe Ruth]

Raven

I appreciate your honesty with the modern google twist, and a bit of humor for this old man. I mentioned Daniel Pearl only because you did, and Joe Jones was intened to be any man at all, a nameless man. Sorry for the confusion.

At the Bloomberg thread and others, you have offered noble sentiments in defense of the US Constitution and its legal principles. I very much agree with your sentiments in that regard.

However, for your information, actually torture is illegal in the US and 'round the world. Under US statutes and international law, torture is unlawful. It was prosecuted at Nuremberg after WWII. Even under the dyslexic barbarian Dubya, a few young enlisted men were prosecuted under UCMJ for it, once Abu Ghraib was exposed.

That you may honestly believe in your mind that it IS lawful is simply testimony to the efficacy of government propaganda. It is testimony to how well the sophistry of Bush and Yoo effected the thought processes of some people.

So my question is, are you willing to throw away those noble principles you expressed, if certain conditions are met? Are you willing to deny those principles if some human, Pearl or anybody else, is maimed or killed?

Do you understand that if your enemy commits barbaric acts, and then you follow suit, you are both barbarians?

[RavenHawk]

I appreciate your honesty with the modern google twist, and a bit of humor for this old man. I mentioned Daniel Pearl only because you did, and Joe Jones was intened to be any man at all, a nameless man. Sorry for the confusion.

Good. I thought I was losing it. But still, your example then is lacking. It’s non sequitur.

At the Bloomberg thread and others, you have offered noble sentiments in defense of the US Constitution and its legal principles. I very much agree with your sentiments in that regard.

Check! But that has nothing to do with this.

However, for your information, actually torture is illegal in the US and 'round the world. Under US statutes and international law, torture is unlawful.

Well, yes and no. You’ve never been in combat have you?? Yes, I am very aware that torture is *illegal*. In boot camp, one learns this. But they also teach you that the enemy will torture you if you are captured. In war there is always this *torture is illegal* but it always came with a wink. We can point to My Lai or Abu Ghraib but these are tip of the iceberg incidents. We have this romantic view of the Americans in WWII that we rarely tortured, but that is incorrect. We tortured just as much as the Japanese or Germans. As I said before, rules of torture are usually established on the battlefield. It all depends on how much each side can give or take.

It was prosecuted at Nuremberg after WWII.

You’re not catching the subtly here. I’ve been pointing out that there are various kinds of torture. Nuremberg was for war crimes like genocide. I don’t think that any of the accused was prosecuted for data mining.

Even under the dyslexic barbarian Dubya, a few young enlisted men were prosecuted under UCMJ for it, once Abu Ghraib was exposed.

Didn’t I mention that the photos that we see are nothing more than plebe initiation. It happens even within the ranks of our own servicemen. The issue was prisoner abuse by Specialist Graner that lead to the death of al Jamadi. This incident was intertwined with the photos so that one couldn’t discern the differences.

That you may honestly believe in your mind that it IS lawful is simply testimony to the efficacy of government propaganda. It is testimony to how well the sophistry of Bush and Yoo effected the thought processes of some people.

That is an incorrect summation on your part. I don’t believe that torture is lawful or not lawful. It is reality. I have no use for the *sophistry* of nations trying to legislate war.

So my question is, are you willing to throw away those noble principles you expressed, if certain conditions are met? Are you willing to deny those principles if some human, Pearl or anybody else, is maimed or killed?

You’re confused at several levels. For one, don’t confuse the principles behind the Constitution as applying to anyone else besides US citizens or wards. And war prisoners are not wards. Secondly, if Pearl was just tortured to gain information that would be one thing, but he wasn’t. He was tortured and killed just for the sake of it. That act alone nullified us observing any protective treatment for Muslim prisoners. We did not deny those principles to Pearl. The enemy did. So to answer your question, *I* would not deny those principles to any American (Pearl or otherwise), but I never had a say in the matter.

Do you understand that if your enemy commits barbaric acts, and then you follow suit, you are both barbarians?

In war both sides are barbarians. If you are not, then you’ve already lost the war. War is not some Sunday picnic. The goal of war is to destroy your enemy’s capabilities to make war. That includes killing their soldiers the most efficient way you can.

[RavenHawk]

Ravenhawk by abusing objective descriptive terms you have backed yourself into a ghetto where no-one will understand you because you do not share the same language as everyone else.

Words have meanings for a reason - to aid in conversation and understanding.

Sigh! I’m not abusing “objective descriptive terms”. I’m challenging your set- in-stone dogma; trying to bring you in from out of the wind. And you are doing everything to fight it. Yes, words have meaning. So do sentences and paragraphs. When are you your going to start understanding? I’ve made my stance very clear but you are out of your comfort zone because I am forcing you to confront the failings of your dogma. I’ve taken a myriad of definitions and boiled them down to *black & white* and that undercuts your ability to use the differences in order to sidetrack and defend Socialism.

You should attempt to remember this when you go off on one of your rants and no one follows you down your rabbit hole

Still doing your best to distract from the argument. Actually, I would guess that people are just annoyed at this because they already know how useless it is to get any kind of thought in that brain housing group of yours. I don’t mind beating my head against a wall, that is what I do. It allows me to put my thoughts down. I’m not here to abide by your set of grammar rules. But even for me trying to plant a new thought in your head is getting boring. I realize that if your information doesn’t come from the right sources, it just doesn’t exist.

[regeneratia]

Recently there has been a serious PR campaign in bought mainstream media to present Jr. in good light. But it seems the public will not have it. Jr.'s legacy will be that of squandering a surplus, recessions, neglect, torture, clinically insanely hearing voices, 9-11 happening on his watch despite a myriad of warnings, two expensive and useless and senseless wars, and that he took the USA one hades of an alcoholic joyride.

Bush was and is clinically insane. He was also still drinking while he was in the Oval Office.

Just reminding you how Bush used to PAY reporters to present the story he wants to circulate. He had been caught at it. Stands to reasons this new PR campaign in mainstream media for Jr. is also being purchased.

Edited April 29, 2013 by regeneratia

[Guest]

Sigh! I'm not abusing "objective descriptive terms". I'm challenging your set- in-stone dogma; trying to bring you in from out of the wind. And you are doing everything to fight it. Yes, words have meaning. So do sentences and paragraphs. When are you your going to start understanding? I've made my stance very clear but you are out of your comfort zone because I am forcing you to confront the failings of your dogma. I've taken a myriad of definitions and boiled them down to *black & white* and that undercuts your ability to use the differences in order to sidetrack and defend Socialism.

Still doing your best to distract from the argument. Actually, I would guess that people are just annoyed at this because they already know how useless it is to get any kind of thought in that brain housing group of yours. I don't mind beating my head against a wall, that is what I do. It allows me to put my thoughts down. I'm not here to abide by your set of grammar rules. But even for me trying to plant a new thought in your head is getting boring. I realize that if your information doesn't come from the right sources, it just doesn't exist.

Let me put this simply - you have dogma and a one size fits all solution to all problems. I don't need to brought "into the light" I fully understand where you are coming from. As you said yourself you had an epiphany of understanding and now you have the key to solving all problems. Forgive me if I fail to share your enthusiasms because I have had a long slow evolution of understanding which is just a tad more subtle than your smash and grab rhetoric.

I am resisting the loud outbursts of someone who doesn't even know how to formulate his concepts into a dialectic which it is possible to have a conversation with any sense of progress towards a resolution - because you have your resolution - and your not for turning.

Your argument is that NeoLiberal free markets work, when all the evidence says they do not, every place which has failed to achieve your NeoLiberal nirvana has done so because it has succumbed to the siren call of socialism. Everything which is not NeoLiberalism is socialism. A simple religious dialetic of easily resolvable black and white, good and evil with you as the great free market palladin with the magic wand to make everything better - if they just followed your perfect prescription. You see its such a simple concept that I could frame it in two single sentence's. There is nothing subtle or deep about your understanding.

I turn my back on your childish world view and get on with living in the real world.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 29, 2013 by Guest

[Babe Ruth]

RavenHawk

Your statement "Well, yes and no" is rather confusing, isn't it. Torture may indeed be reality because of the Lucifer Effect that Zimbardo discovered, but assuming that laws mean what they say, it is illegal.

Now I know that Yoo and Bush & Co successfully corrupted the language and the thought process with their use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and that certain young troops were tricked into the Lucifer Effect by way of Bush's sophistry, and maybe you are one of those young troops, but some of us old farts knew that Bush was pushing sophistry then, and we still know it today. Sometimes, however rarely, things are black or white. Assaulting another person, whether by rape or by torture, is illegal, no matter what a politician might say.

Some of us do not allow a politician to define our moral standards. I suppose some do, and perhaps you are one?

Is there such a thing as a noble war? Is it possible to be fighting for an objectively defined good? Or are subjective interpretations the heart of the legislative effort? That is, is it possible in a noble war for one side to be barbaric while the other is honorable? Or must both be barbarians?

It sounds like you are trying to rationalize being barbaric to me, as you are trying in your own mind to rationalize assault in the form of torture.

Should we really have any laws at all, since we are warlike? After all, once the war begins, there is no more right or wrong, eh?

[RavenHawk]

Let me put this simply - you have dogma and a one size fits all solution to all problems.

I’m not even talking about having one solution to all problems. That’s insane but I guess you don’t understand that. I do know what won’t work. I know enslavement when I see it no matter what you call it.

I don't need to brought "into the light"

Well, that’s partially true. You won’t come into the light until you are ready if ever.

I fully understand where you are coming from.

No you really don’t. If your reply here is any indication of your full understanding then you are clueless.

As you said yourself you had an epiphany of understanding and now you have the key to solving all problems.

No that’s not what I said. This just shows that you really don’t understand what I said. Below is the short exchange:

I even admit that my understanding is partial and evolving.

As if I’ve never had a period in my life that wasn’t evolving. The world just can’t wait for you to reach an epiphany. I don’t understand everything either but I trust the intent of the Founding Fathers. Their insight was flawless.

To be fair, I can see where that could be implied but the focus was on you. And it still remains waiting for you for that light bulb to go off. And again, I don’t have the solution to all problems. Never claimed I did, ever! But I do know what won’t work because I trust the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. I understand their intent.

Forgive me if I fail to share your enthusiasms because I have had a long slow evolution of understanding which is just a tad more subtle than your smash and grab rhetoric.

I love the barrage of adjectives you are throwing out to try to sidetrack my statements. That seems to be the bulk of your retort. I wouldn’t call the understanding of our Founding Fathers as *smash and grab*. The FF did all the leg work, all you need to do is read and understand. Just about any time I look at different writings from any of them, I can see that they thought it through. Much of what they came up with still applies today. They may not have had all the answers but they knew what wouldn’t work. They gave us a government that was as far away from Socialism as possible for a reason.

I am resisting the loud outbursts of someone who doesn't even know how to formulate his concepts into a dialectic which it is possible to have a conversation with any sense of progress towards a resolution - because you have your resolution - and your not for turning.

There you go again with the adjectives. If I’ve been loud then you have been deaf. I’ve done pretty much everything but stand on my head to establish my points (and I think I’ve done a really good job), yet at every turn you fight and refuse to understand the way I present it only because I don’t allow you any room to squirm. Socialism is just a means to control the people and that is totally unacceptable. As I’ve said many times there is no compromising with Socialism. It is a “greedy algorithm” (for lack of a better term). It is a virus that needs to be placed in check and then eradicated.

Your argument is that NeoLiberal free markets work, when all the evidence says they do not, every place which has failed to achieve your NeoLiberal nirvana has done so because it has succumbed to the siren call of socialism.

I believe in a private free market free of government involvement (ok - laissez-faire). I thought that was clear? Yes, there are inherent problems with this but they are far better than the government controlling the markets. Ultimately, the government doesn’t help the people as much as it helps itself. Let the people figure it out.

We have this idea of Separation of Church and State. We should also have a Separation of Market and State. Yes, I realize that you can’t have any economic system totally free of government infringement (some/very little is necessary) but the government should be finding ways to empower the consumer through education and awareness rather than regulation.

I’ve always thought that the evidence shows that free markets do work. Any market system in history has worked at least for a time. The staying power is dependent on how much is controlled by the people or the government. In the places that have failed, it has been because Socialism has crept into the system causing corruption. Places like Sweden, Ireland (I believe), and China are stepping away from Socialism, at least partially but that may not be enough. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Cypress are on the verge of collapse. Even the French government is beginning to second guess Hollande’s 75% income tax.

Socialism destroys any system it mixes with (and you seem to agree with that). As you say is why they succumb to the siren call. That is probably a good description of Socialism and why it must be completely exercised. The false promise of its call draws men to their doom. On the other hand, the free market is chaotic (there is no nirvana to it). That’s what makes it work. No one person or entity controls it and abuses are laid open. And being in the open, the consumer can then react to make change. You think that the government is the only entity that can make this change?

Everything which is not NeoLiberalism is socialism.

I’ll agree with that. Although, I still hate the term. It seems that “liberalism” in economics is good but “liberalism” in government is bad. Laissez-faire is really a Conservative concept as it preserves the wealth of a people or nation. That has always been confusing especially for one like me who tries to simplify. Perhaps that is the best reason to separate them. Government should never be allowed to tap into the power that the market system creates. That is the source of all evil. The wealth belongs to the people, not the collective.

A simple religious dialetic of easily resolvable black and white, good and evil with you as the great free market palladin with the magic wand to make everything better - if they just followed your perfect prescription. You see its such a simple concept that I could frame it in two single sentence's. There is nothing subtle or deep about your understanding.

Except you have it wrong. You are filled with such irrational jealousy. That tells me that I threaten your comfort zone. I consider that good. I’ve defined the problem as black and white as much as I can make it. However, the solution is far from black and white. Defining the problem is not the same as solving or coming up with solutions. Returning to our Constitutional principles and exercising Socialism from our system is far from simple and there is no magic wand. But it must start someplace and speaking about it is a first step. Calling a spade a spade is the first order of business.

Socialism is slavery along with all its brother and sister *Isms* because these are forms of government that trend toward grabbing more and more control over the people robbing them of their freedom. What is needed is a government that doesn’t protect the people but stays in its proper place (out of the lives of the people) to protect the Rights of the people. And gee, if that isn’t the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers established. My guess is that you really don’t understand such a subtle and deep concept.

I turn my back on your childish world view and get on with living in the real world.

Yeah, whatever.

[RavenHawk]

Your statement "Well, yes and no" is rather confusing, isn't it. Torture may indeed be reality because of the Lucifer Effect that Zimbardo discovered, but assuming that laws mean what they say, it is illegal.

I don’t think that has anything to do with it. It’s an astute observation but that’s all. I think everyone has a bit of evil in them. But that’s assuming that all torture is evil. Again, torture does not carry any value of good or evil. It is in the intent of the one doing the torturing. If it is part of war, then it isn’t. Then any law to make it illegal is artificial. If you look at what Specialist Graner or Lt Calley or the Nazi war machine (in a collective sense) did you can see that effect. But what about the actions of Genghis Khan? He was certainly brutal but was the Lucifer Effect in effect here? There were no laws written at that time so he surely didn’t violate any. I think he was a shrewd commander making logical decisions to save as many people as possible and as much infrastructure as possible. It was better to sacrifice a few to capture and secure the rest.

Zimbardo’s experiment only took one form of torture into consideration, prisoner pacification. Plus, everyone going in knew it was not real. I don’t think it even touched on data mining.

Now I know that Yoo and Bush & Co successfully corrupted the language and the thought process with their use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,

Yoo didn’t corrupt the language, he exploited holes in it. Diplomacy and statesmanship requires being precise or equally vague with language. It is an art form. If one can put artificial laws on torture, then someone else can equally legally establish caveats. If you want legal then you have to play in the realm of legal. Obama plays this game like a master and people sop it up.

and that certain young troops were tricked into the Lucifer Effect by way of Bush's sophistry, and maybe you are one of those young troops, but some of us old farts knew that Bush was pushing sophistry then, and we still know it today.

Well, it can be young troops or low information voters. No, I am an old fart too and I approved of Bush’s actions or as you say it, pushing sophistry. Bush did what I would have felt needed to be done.

Sometimes, however rarely, things are black or white.

Including torture.

Assaulting another person, whether by rape or by torture, is illegal, no matter what a politician might say.

I see rape as a form of torture and I agree that rape is wrong but as we saw with Genghis Khan, other forms of torture can be used for good. Or for accomplishing a noble goal, like building an empire. When GOD set the Israelites on the Canaanites, to kill them all to every man, woman, and child was good because it fulfilled a covenant. But there are other forms that are good, like Data Mining. Any nation must have the Right to do this form especially in war.

Some of us do not allow a politician to define our moral standards. I suppose some do, and perhaps you are one?

I’m hardly a low information voter. But you seem to be under an incorrect assumption that there are moral standards in war. There are not. I follow the very wise advice: “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

Is there such a thing as a noble war? Is it possible to be fighting for an objectively defined good? Or are subjective interpretations the heart of the legislative effort? That is, is it possible in a noble war for one side to be barbaric while the other is honorable? Or must both be barbarians?

There are always noble objectives. It is always subjective. Quite simply, the victor writes the history. The other side is always the barbarian but truth be told both are just as barbarous. War is not a gentleman’s club, it is a killing field.

It sounds like you are trying to rationalize being barbaric to me, as you are trying in your own mind to rationalize assault in the form of torture.

I’m not trying to rationalize, that is what it is. I’m not trying to rationalize torture, I merely accept it. I know there are forms that I would not participate in and I know that there is no way for me to prevent the enemy from persecuting those forms I do not agree with. But I must be able to use those forms that have a purpose that will give me an edge in battle.

Should we really have any laws at all, since we are warlike? After all, once the war begins, there is no more right or wrong, eh?

In war, it depends on the battlefield situation. In war there is no right or wrong, only winning. It must be this way. We are a warrior people and someone had once calculated that in the last 3500 years, there have only been about 6 days (world wide) totally conflict free, but war without end is not good.