1

The indisputable point here, from a Christian perspective, is that the Islamic terrorists are created just as much in the image of God as you and I are. The depravity of their hearts is coextensive with that which lies within us. They are just as much the object of God's redemptive love as are we. As Christians we are to pray for them and do all we can to bring the Gospel to them.

Our government is not charged with evangelizing them or anyone else. Our government is charged with keeping the peace and protecting its citizens from all enemies, domestic and foreign. The government (and especially the military) has a duty to protect us from these terrorists. We do not dehumanize the enemy to note that they are not lawful combatants. That is, they do not have a regular command structure; they do not wear uniforms; they do not openly display their weapons; and they deliberately target civilians in their attacks. As such they do not fall under the provisions of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention. The US wisely did not subscribe to Protocol I Amendment of the Geneva Convention which extended Article 3 protections to irregular soldiers such as were at the time fighting in anti-colonial "wars of liberation." It has always been the position of the US government that Protocol I would extend Article 3 status to terrorists.

So while we as Christians must recognize and respect the value of every human as redeemable by the grace of God and possessing intrinsic worth as created in the image of God; and while the government must have policies consistent with respect for the humanity of the terrorists; these terrorists are not entitled to the same deference due to an honorable combatant who is a POW, nor ought they entitled to the same standards of due process which are extended to quotidian criminals who are citizens of this country.

2

Good post, Joe. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and this strain of conservativism (that I see a lot especially on fox news) is deeply troubling. In addition to what you've said, it can also lead to hypocrisy and blindness - "We are incapable of doing anything so horrible. They are monsters."

Never are we more vulnerable to committing horrible atrocities ourselves than when we let our guard down against that which is deceitful above all things: our own hearts.

3

Two points:

First, as a person who is a fairly close observer of the news, I really don't see a concerted effort to "dehumanize" terrorists. After all, don't we regularly get treated to rambling speeches from the podium at the UN by these very same folks? It appears to me that our news organizations even go to the effort of promulgating obviously doctored photographs to make sure that we are all too aware of the humanity of our enemies. So I think this claim, while interesting if it were based in reality, is not a good representation of the situation.

I think a more interesting point, one often cited by the terrorists themselves as well as the Left, is that the terrorism that exists is "our" fault. Although any such nostrum oversimplifies the truth, I do think there is definitely a point there worth paying attention to.

First, a short thought experiment. Suppose Cousin Lefty and I are out for a drive one evening. Lefty says "Let's knock off that liquor store!" I respond, "I really don't think that's a good idea, man." I continue to protest vehemently, but Lefty is a free moral agent and knocks off the store, drives away waving the cash out the window, and goes home for the evening. Later, the owners and friends of the owners drive by and beat hell out of his family, and my family as well because I'm his cousin.

Now Lefty is alarmed, looks at me and cries at the top of his lungs, "Oh look what's happened! It's our fault." Well, there's some truth there, eh?

Devout Muslims are an extremely modest (according to Lefty, sexually repressed), God fearing, ultra-moralistic bunch of people. And Lefty, in his leftish universe, has made sure that every kind of smut, including celebration of homosexuality, is beamed by digital satellite high definition TV into the homes of these people. Beamed into the homes of people for whom homosexuality is a moral offense deserving of a brutal, vicious death. All because of an odd interpretation of Enlightenment liberalism that suggests that, simultaneously, it is philosopically necessary to permit "speech" in the form of women exposing their genitalia for pay in establishments that sell liquor but it is not necessary, and is in fact evil, for like-minded people to collectively speak out against a specific political candidate within 60 days of an election.

Folks, I really don't think the solution to this problem is building rural health clinics. Because I have no doubt whatsoever that the international left community would make absolutely sure these very same clinics were well-stocked with abortion pamphlets.

To these Leftish individuals, I say: "Yes, it is partially your fault, but it is not equally our fault." On the heels of the socialist revolution's failure to spontaneously emerge from the oppressed proletariat, it has become the political strategy du jour for the left to ram their ideas down other people's throats using the judiciary. Unfortunately, the left hasn't recognized that the strategy may work with turn-the-other-cheek Christians but it doesn't work equally well with a religion whose basic tenets (at least as interpreted by its religious leaders) offer summary beheading as a punishment for sin and glorify martrydom when engaged in killing infidels. These people will kill you, horribly, for stripping in a bar or mincing down Main Street in drag. Just that. We don't need to have done, or do, anything else. The conservative Muslim sees Western civilation as morally bankrupt and corrupting the world.

Although I personally believe that it is necessary to defend personal liberty and Enlightenment political theory, as long as we're beaming Britney into the middle east this problem is going to exist. Or so the perpetrators themselves tell us. But I'm sure Keith Olbermann, that sage political philosopher and polymath, knows better. It's Bush's fault.

4

OK - the problem with acknowledging that other people are people is that it makes it hard for us to treat them as if they weren't people, which they are, so we should carefully delude ourselves to that fact until they're dead when we congratulate ourselves for having killed them "with honor". It is vital, however, to make sure they don't read about abortion first. This is all to defeat terrorism, which is caused by homosexuality.

R-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. You know, if only you weren't screwing up the world, you people would be worth keeping around for the entertainment value.

There is, however, a rational dimension to this discussion that might be worth noticing.

Leaving aside nonsense like "tolerance for terrorism", there is an insistence by liberals on recognizing the essential (meaning "of the essence") humanity of any person, friend or enemy. The reason is simple enough: we should recognize them as people because it's true that they are people. We of the reality-based community do tend to think you should recognize things that are true, and act accordingly.

This recognition has important moral consequences, as well. The definition of ethics requires that it applies universally to all people. This doesn't mean that we cannot do anything at all to our enemies - which seems to be the only alternative conservatives can think of to behaving inhumanly to them. Intelligent people recognize that morality admits of a variety of responses to bad action, including the use of force if necessary. But they also recognize that it imposes constraints on those who claim it as justification for their actions.

What morality never condones is the denial of moral standing to any person who otherwise qualifies for it, for any reason. You can act against the interests of those who deserve it, or even, sometimes, kill them if there's no alternative. What you cannot do is declare anyone outlaw - beyond the bounds of any protections whatsoever. In asserting universal authority to impose law on all, you must accept that the law constrains your own behavior as well. (Hobbes goes so far as to say that anyone whose life is threatened by the state - but no one else - has the right to overthrow the state or kill the sovereign in self-defense. If you declare that some people have no protections under law whatsoever, you reduce them to a state of nature in which they are both protected by and subject to no law; in claiming you are justified in any action you take against them, you justify any action they choose to take against you; by abandoning the social contract, you absolve them of the burden of adhering to it, and thereby forfeit your right to punish them for failing to do so.) We must recognize the moral standing of our enemies because it is a moral obligation to do so, failing which we cannot claim to be within the moral sphere ourselves, or to have authority to enforce its rules.

At this point, a stupid person is going to say something like "but they forfeit their rights by breaking the law!" No, stupid person, they don't. Remember that having no rights at all is equivalent to being entirely outside the protections of the social contract. But it is the social contract - the implicit agreement that all will be bound by the dictates of morality - that grants society the authority to enforce moral rules. The obligation to observe moral rules is not voided because someone else has not observed them - because, of course, if it were then a violation of the law would not simply mean the miscreant could be punished, it would mean nobody was any longer bound by the social contract, which would mean there would be no social contract and no organized civil society - which, ironically, would not only be a bad thing but would also mean you no longer had the right to punish that person.

For there to be a social contract at all, that contract must remain in force at all times for at least most of society, and especially the sovereign power that claims a monopoly on the use of force. The contract is not gravely threatened by lawbreaking, or even war or terrorism to a certain degree - but it is voided absolutely if the sovereign declares they have no obligation to respect the moral standing of their subjects. It's literally true that if we sink to their level, the terrorists have won - because we will have forfeited our civilization, and the moral right to enforce rules prohibiting terrorism.

And we very nearly have done so now. Our government claims the right to torture, to issue extra-judicial assassination orders, to arrest without warrant, to hold prisoners in secrecy, to deny trials, to conduct secret trials without evidence, to imprison without legal conviction, to spy on its own citizens and foreigners without warrant, to violate even the laws it acknowledges with impunity, to conspire with lawless foreign governments to secretly imprison and torture people, and to violently override the sovereignty of any nation at whim. If any foreign power or group did even some of those things to US citizens, they would be recognized as terrorists and war criminals of the worst sort. Our government now openly does them to its own citizens and foreigners, acknowledging no limitations in law or morality. On strict Hobbesian terms, it's not clear we actually have a sovereign government anymore at all. But if we do, that government is unavoidably obligated to acknowledge the moral rights of every person, and the moral limits on its own behavior, in all circumstances. Accepting the obligations thus imposed is an absolute pre-requisite to being a government at all, and not just another band of armed thugs.

5

"It is vital, however, to make sure they don't read about abortion first. This is all to defeat terrorism, which is caused by homosexuality."

Man oh man, you sure whacked that straw man. Good job!

Let's skip the blather and get to the point... To paraphrase: If any foreign power or group claimed the right to torture, to issue extra-judicial assassination orders, arrested without warrant, held prisoners in secrecy, denied trials, conducted secret trials without evidence, imprisoned without legal conviction, spied on its own citizens and foreigners without warrant, violated even the laws it acknowledges with impunity, conspired with lawless foreign governments to secretly imprison and torture people, and violently overrode the sovereignty of any nation at whim... well, we'd call it the Saddam Hussein regime. That's an almost preternaturally perfect description. Nice job.

However, where the entire rant goes off the rails is equating waterboarding to being shredded in an industrial shredder, or having one wife and daughters gangraped in one's presence. If you see the latter as morally equivalent to waterboarding, then you've definitely bought the tinfoil hat. (We might, though, find common ground on being forced to listen to hip-hop music.) Test the theory, though. Jump in the pool and hold your breath for a long, long time. Then stick your hand into the garbage disposal while it's running. After you do that experiment, with your remaining hand you will be able to remove the tinfoil hat.

Next time you're admiring "Piss Christ", you go ahead and put your money where your mouth is; do a version called "Piss Mohammed". Observe. Learn. Say hi to VanGogh and Danny Pearl for me.

6

George said:

"Next time you're admiring "Piss Christ", you go ahead and put your money where your mouth is; do a version called "Piss Mohammed". Observe. Learn. Say hi to VanGogh and Danny Pearl for me."

This pretty much encapsulates the present situation we find ourselves in. Don't really need to add much, yet it astounds me that many of our own countrymen gladly point at Christians, specifically those who have conservative leanings, and say 'you win the award for most evil people on the planet'.

By the way KK, when I read "you people", I stop reading. You must listen to Rush---he likes that one, too.

7

George's critique of KTK is right on the money except for one point. The rant went off the rails much earlier than he credits it...pretty much with the first keystroke.

Just to cherry-pick a few from this target-rich environment:

"What morality never condones is the denial of moral standing to any person who otherwise qualifies for it, for any reason."

This little tautology uses absolute terms (never, for any reason) along with equivocation (any person who otherwise qualifies for it). Gee, Kev, what are these otherwise conditions which disqualify someone from moral standing? Rather than deny those people moral standing don't you usually just redefine them to not be persons? As it stands the force of your statement is: morality never condones the denial of moral standing to any person for any reason, except for when it does.

"If you declare that some people have no protections under law whatsoever..."

Where is the chorus of right-wing fanatics saying that anyone should have no protections under the law whatsoever? News flash: asserting that terrorists are not entitled to the SAME protections under the Geneva Conventions as are lawful combatants is NOT the same as saying that they have no protections under the law whatsoever. And you guys accuse us of lack of nuanced thinking.

"At this point, a stupid person is going to say something like 'but they forfeit their rights by breaking the law!'"

Again, where is anyone saying this? Your "stupid person" is entirely the product of your own fevered imagination. Perhaps a look in the mirror at this point would be helpful...

"Our government claims the right to torture..." etc., etc., etc.

Here we go again with another example of flooding the stage with all sorts of outrageous assertions with no backing whatsoever. When, precisely, did our government claim the "right" to "torture"? Perhaps what you really mean is that you want to redefine torture. What exactly are you talking about here? Perhaps a little reasoned discourse instead of meaningless ranting would make your position more clear.

8

Qaeda Follows Senate Lead on Humane Treatment

by Scott Ott
(2006-09-15) — Just a day after the Senate Armed Services committee rebuffed the Bush administration’s efforts to allow aggressive interrogation techniques on captured terror suspects, a spokesman for al Qaeda praised the committee’s 15-9 vote and said it would, in turn, make its prisoner treatment protocols more humane.

“We were inspired by the humanitarianinfidels in the Senate to update our own procedures,” said the unnamed al Qaeda spokesman in an audiotape released through Al Jazeera’s CNN news division. “We have approved a three-step plan aimed at improving our humanitarian image around the world.”

According to the source, al Qaeda has already issued the following new guidelines to its terror cells worldwide via overnight donkey courier:
1) Avoid taking prisoners.
2) Use a sharp sword and a brisk side-to-side motion.
3) Grant a speedy trial after beheading.

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who spearheaded the effort to block the president’s proposal, welcomed the al Qaeda announcement as “a positive and hopeful step toward full moral equivalency between the warring superpowers.

9

I've been thinking of the problem of "humanizing" the Islamic terrorists ever since seeing "Der Untergang" (The Downfall), a brilliant 2004 German movie that depicts the last 10 days in the life of Hitler and his intimates.

The movie has been criticized as portraying Hitler as a sympathetic character, but if you pay attention to what he actually says and how he acts, you can't help but wish someone would strangle him. But why humanize Hitler and make him a three-dimensional man, instead of a cartoonish goose-stepping moron (as Stephen Spielberg has done)?

So we never forget that Hitler was a man, just like Hitler-wanabee Ahmineedofabrain and Castro-wannabee Huge-ego Chavez are men, too. They are fanatics, cults of personalities, they have fanatical followers--and they, too, can be brought to their knees.

The Islamic terrorists are men, too--men acting on the most evil of desires to murder and destroy. We can stop them, but in the process we can't become them.

But just as Cheesehead said, it isn't the government's duty to be Christian. It's the government's duty to protect Americans from all threats. As an individual, I can humanize the terrorists. But the government isn't in such a business. Their duty is to protect Americans, period, and to do so within the constrains of American and international law--which it has done.

10

where the entire rant goes off the rails is equating waterboarding to being shredded in an industrial shredder, or having one wife and daughters gangraped in one's presence. If you see the latter as morally equivalent to waterboarding, then you've definitely bought the tinfoil hat.

So, George, anything that is not as bad as the very worst forms of torture isn’t torture at all…

Test the theory, though. Jump in the pool and hold your breath for a long, long time.

A description of waterboarding:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess.

Do you actually believe that is similar to holding one’s breath while under water? C’mon. The revised Army Field Manual prohibits waterboarding for good reason.

11

So Don, it is your position that if we capture an Al-Qaeda leader we cannot attempt to get any information out of him that he will not willingly provide?

12

We must never hesitate to defend our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us. The liberal's appeal to tolerance and understanding in the face of such an enemy is suicidal. The conservative position, which is willing to face up to and address the evil of terrorism, provides a more adequate approach.

What the #*%& are you spewing here?

First, whose culture? George Allen's CCC friends' "culture?"

Secondly "those who seek to destroy us" and our way of life happen to include conservatives, who want to trash the constitution.

Thirdly, we must judge "the conservative position" by their actions: Who cut and ran from Saudi Arabia? Who let bin Laden get away in Tora Bora? Who attempted to distract Bill Clinton with the bogus "Monicagate?" Who sat there frozen "like he had to go to the bathroom" reading "My Pet Goat" on Sept. 11, 2001? Who failed to understand that the Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States" meant, that bin Laden was determined to attack the United States? Whose policies have spawned more terrorists?

You sir, are an apologist for evil, plain and simple; no matter how much faithiness you apply like so much make-up on a cheap lady of the evening.

13

I see Cheesehead, the apologist for Bush's war crimes (yes, that's what water-boarding is) is back trying to justify torture and war crimes.

Evil.

14

So Don, was the old, unrevised Army field manual written by a bunch of Nazis? If waterboarding was allowed during the Clinton administration, but not allowed now, does this imply moral superiority of the Republican administration to the Democrats?

15

The traditional and, it seems, congenital conservative incapacity for reading comprehension makes it difficult to conduct these discussions through a written medium, but (sadly) it beats doing my actual work, so I press on . . .

George:

If any foreign power or group claimed the right to torture[etc., as above]... well, we'd call it the Saddam Hussein regime. That's an almost preternaturally perfect description. Nice job.

Except that it was a description of the Bush regime - all of it precisely what they have been and are currently doing (in . . . Iraq, among other places), and almost all of it what they claim the legal right to do. By your description, the Bush regime is indistinguishable from the Saddam regime, which many would not regard as a reason for them to continue this behavior.

If you see [being killed] as morally equivalent to waterboarding

The reading comprehension thing. If you get someone in a higher grade to go over it with you slowly during recess, you'll find that I did not offer any comparison between forms of torture. What I said was that ignoring the moral rights of enemies is not allowed. That has nothing to do with whether any form of torture is worse than another.

The issue at hand - the issue Joe raised - the issue on which Joe and I actually came to the same conclusion - is whether you have to acknowledge the moral standing of enemies. Your post in response to this was to note that some people who don't share your religion did some things that are really really bad, so you claim the right to do things that are just really bad in return. I would call this non sequitur if I thought you would understand that, but let's just call it "wrong".

Cheesehead:

Kudos for attempted logic. Anti-kudos for making no sense.

morality never condones the denial of moral standing to any person for any reason, except for when it does.

That wasn't bad until it got to the stupid part. Quite simply: Morality never condones the denial of moral standing to any person for any reason. There is no "except for". You seem to be confused by my reference to those who "would otherwise qualify" as moral persons, and I'm sorry for that. Let me clarify: persons have moral standing; non-persons don't, but we aren't talking about such objects here so I'm sorry I distracted you by a glancing reference to them.

Persons are always within the moral sphere by definition, and the people we are talking about in this thread (people a little bit angrier than you who worship a god you don't like) are unquestionably people. Nobody being fought in the "War On Whatever We Choose to Call Terrorism" is a non-person or anything close to such a thing. This isn't controversial. It's pretty obvious. So any question whether they have moral standing or not has nothing to do with whether they're moral persons - there's no controversy over that. The question is whether you can designate some persons as not having moral standing. And the answer is "no".

a stupid person is going to say something like 'but they forfeit their rights by breaking the law!'"

Again, where is anyone saying this? Your "stupid person" is entirely the product of your own fevered imagination.

Great. Nobody denies that terrorists, pretended terrorists, claimed terrorists, or totally random Canadians lack moral standing. Good. That makes Joe's entire post somewhat unnecessary, since it was aimed at establishing precisely the point you claim everyone already believes - and which I too thought was in question in conservative circles - but that's fine.

Just in case, though, you'll be sure to point this out to any conservatives who seem uncertain about it? That everyone, terrorists and suspected terrorists included, has the same moral standing and is subject to the same legal constraints on their treatment? Good.

When, precisely, did our government claim the "right" to "torture"?

Now you're just whistling past Bush's graveyard. This is immensely stupid and blatantly dishonest. And sadly famniliar, I might add.

16

Here's what people in the know say about torture:

In addition to being illegal, these acts are frequently ineffective and counter-productive. The Romans threatened the early Christians with crucifixion, being burned at the stake, or being fed to wild animals in the Coliseum if they did not reject their new religion and embrace the many gods of Roman: Thousands chose death. Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical tribunal accused of witchcraft and heresy because she claimed to be guided by divine voices. She was told to admit that she heard no such voices or be burned at the stake: She was not dissuaded by death. William Wallace, of Braveheart popularity, was hanged, drawn and quartered because he refused to swear allegiance to King Edward I. The threat of certain and excruciating death was ineffective in dissuading these and their deaths had opposite effects: the slaughter of Christians contributed to the conversion of Rome; Joan of Arc is widely remembered today while few remember the name of the French king she served and who contributed to her demise; and, the death of William Wallace invigorated the Scots to successively eject the English from Scotland.

This is not to say that coercive techniques always fail to influence or prompt some action. These techniques have caused men to do as their abusers wanted them to do or say, and, at times, caused the unintended death of the detainee; for example,

1) "The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know."

Napoleon Bonepart (5)

2) Four days after the war started and two days after he was captured, an American lieutenant was heard broadcasting over Seoul radio on behalf of the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea. He was followed by others making similar statements and even confessions of using germ warfare weapons. It wasn't long before a journalist explained what was happening to them: "Americans are being brainwashed in Korea." Although these men were not "tortured"--as defined at the time by the U.S. Army: "the application of pain so extreme that it causes a man to faint or lose control of his will"--they were coerced and abused into saying what the Koreans/Chinese wanted them to say. (6)

3) During the Vietnam War, Americans were, in the most profound sense of the word, tortured into making confessions of using bacteriological weapons against the North Vietnamese and other acts considered to be criminal by the world community: statements the Americans knew were false.

4) According to the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, duress, coercion, and violence (threatened or performed) have led innocent Americans to confess to crimes they did not perpetrate. The Project reports that, "33 of the first 123 postconviction DNA exonerations involve false confessions or admissions." (7)

5) On 27 May 2004, The New York Times reported that on 30 August 2003, LTC Alvin B. West, an artillery battalion commander, detained an Iraqi police officer named Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi for interrogation because West believed the officer knew about a "plot to ambush him and his men." West "made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force . . . [even though he previously] had never conducted or witnessed an interrogation." The Interrogation of Hamoodi, that included hitting him and threatening his life, failed to produce the desired answers. West then fired his pistol next to his head. Hamoodi gave West the names of several men who were purportedly involved in an effort to kill him. One man was picked up and shortly thereafter released; none of the named men were determined to be involved in the so-called plot. Later, "Mr. Hamoodi said that he was not sure what he told the Americans, but that it was meaningless information induced by fear and pain."

6) According to a 12 June 2004 Navy Times story, two Marines, during "motion hearings" held on 28 & 29 June 2004, faced charges in connection with the death of Nagem Sadoon Hatab, a 52-year-old Baath party member who was being held in a makeshift detention center outside Nasiriya. Allegedly, Hatab had been struck and kicked on 4 June 2003 and the following day was lethargic and had defecated on himself. On 6 June, he was found dead.

As these examples show, the use of torture and/or abusive techniques frequently fails to elicit the desired response, at times produces a false response, and can result in the death of a potential source of information: A dead source is no source of information!

And yes, waterboarding is torture.

What is interesting in all of this is the hubris of many so-called Christians here: somehow they don't think that Muslims won't be martyrs for their cause just like the Christian martyrs.

Think again, nudniks.

17

Mummmon, it always draws a chuckle when someone like you flings the word evil about like it has any meaning in your moral frame of reference.

We are judged by others not only by who we keep as friends, but also by who our most irascible foes are. I, for one, am pleased to count you among my most vociferous detractors. Thanks for the endorsement.

18

Mummy: Over on DKos they might think that the purpose of interrogating terrorists is to get them to either renounce their Mohammadenism or confess to crimes that they did not commit. However, in the real world stressful interrogation is done to uncover information to disrupt terrorist activities or catch more terrorists. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a perfect example of this.

Your last example proves that torture is not the policy of the government. The soldiers who engaged in it were prosecuted for it.

So, in your book, waterboarding is torture. How about using female interrogators on male Mohammedan terrorists? Is that torture?

19

Mummy Mia-here he goes again, my, my:

"Secondly "those who seek to destroy us" and our way of life happen to include conservatives, who want to trash the constitution"

This is why no one with a neuron banging around in their attic will ever take you seriously. Of course, I could be wrong; you could be on the websites of those sympathetic to our head chopping, suicide bombing, mayem plotting Al Qaeda brothers in arms calling them EVIL, EVIL, EVIL! everyday. Then we'd at least be comforted knowing you were spending equal time berating the world's worst enemies.

You are so blind and delerious that you can't see that conservatives wish to preserve the safety of this nation, preserve freedom and our way of life, and preserve your right to utter the idiotic dribble you spew here. This is the last time I'll direct a comment toward you, as it is as useful as trying to reason with the Haley-Bop comet riders. Best wishes in your life of dellusion.

20

Mr Keith:

Better move out of that glass house.

"The issue at hand - the issue Joe raised - the issue on which Joe and I actually came to the same conclusion - is whether you have to acknowledge the moral standing of enemies."

I believe if you actually look at my first post, that was, in fact, the first issue I addressed. I'm glad you and Joe agree, though. There's comfort in that, I know.

21

So Don, it is your position that if we capture an Al-Qaeda leader we cannot attempt to get any information out of him that he will not willingly provide?

Depends what you mean by willingly, Kaffinator. Do we give him cookies and milk and wait and see if he wants to tell us anything? No. But there are ways to interrogate someone without resorting to torture. Police forces do it all the time. And I agree with Senator McCain when he says that you don’t get useful information from people under torture.

If waterboarding was allowed during the Clinton administration, but not allowed now, does this imply moral superiority of the Republican administration to the Democrats?

Cheesehead, I don’t know whether waterboarding was allowed under Clinton and I don’t much care – it didn’t happen. Nor do I care which party gets to boast of moral superiority. It is the fate of the soul of the nation that concerns me. Torture diminishes us. Morals aren’t something that can be put on the shelf because we are threatened.

22

I'm surprised no-one seems to have mentioned Splieberg's great disservice to his own Jewish people in making the untruthful film 'Munich', which has the effect of 'over-humanising' the terrorists, while casting the Israelis in, at best, an Old Testament light of moral equivalence.
It was very dishonest of Spielberg to ignore those living agents of Mossad, and so distort their motivations and their essential humanity.
None of them were in fact dehumanised by their roles in seeking out the Munich murderers [and they deeply regretted one bad mistake, as any moral soldiers do], and none questioned the value of their defensive actions.
Spielberg is really saying -if you don't retaliate effectively against international, amoral ideological terror, that is a humane and worthwhile -even a 'Christian'- position.
It wasn't in 1939, 1941, 1972, 1973, July 2005, and it isn't now, and that is still the big issue of the current US elections..

23

You hand terrorists a victory when you make them out to be anything but other than what they are: insane, muderous criminals. A terrorist is just another serial killer. If you treat them any differently, you are conceding their game, play right into their hands, and give them the status they seek.

We've acted like scared rabbits to 911. Instead of calmly and effectively going about finding the mass murdereds, instead of enhancing and extending the international cooperation that we need to do that, we've sacraficed some civil liberties (a victory for the terrorists) and attacked a country that wasn't even involved (a really big victory for the terrorists) which sucked away the resources from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the country which served as the breeding ground for the criminals and turned a blind eye to their organized criminal funding network, Saudi Arabia is still treated as our great friend.

24

I thought these conservatives - people too dishonest to call themselves fascists - would roil at the fact that their opposition to America's tradition of liberal democracy makes them as un-American as the Nazis and Communists (that's why they always go off against liberals- they hate us for our freedom), but the responses by folks like Cheesehead are bizarre to say the least. Rather than deal with the ad hominem attacks by Cheesehead, I'll deal with the one negligible attempt at substance Cheesehead produced to try to avoid being seen as what he is: evil, and an apologist for evil-doers:

. However, in the real world stressful interrogation is done to uncover information to disrupt terrorist activities or catch more terrorists. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a perfect example of this.

In other words, Cheeshead denies - denies- what professional Marine interrogators themselves say about torture, and can't even be honest enough to call it what it is.

He cannot even say what Khalid Sheik Mohammed said.

Nothing.

RB?

No substantive reply; just ad hominem attacks.

Really, nobody, but nobody is taking these fascists seriously.

25

This discussion would be much easier to have if we could 1) discuss the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants and 2) define exactly what is meant by torture.

Lawful combatants (those who are acting under an established authority, wear uniforms, openly bear arms, and do not intentionally target civilians) who are captured on the battlefield are entitled to something analogous to two-star hotel treatment and may not be asked to provide any information beyond their names, ranks, and serial numbers. Unlawful combatants (which al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. clearly are) are not entitled to the same protections and dignities afforded to honorable and true POW's. It is legitimate to extract information from them which will aid in capturing their allies, disrupting future attacks, finding their sources of funding, or other such information as will aid in sparing innocent future victims. Torture is not acceptable. Stressful interrogation methods are perfectly legitimate.

26

Mummmmy: http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf
Here is a summary of information which was gleaned from talking to KSM. No doubt there is more information which has not been released. The purpose of interrogations is not to satisfy your curiousity.

Meanwhile, sir, if nobody takes "these fascists" seriously, why do you spend so much time here hurling insults? The sum total of your substantitive posts on all subjects here could easily be transcribed onto the back of a postage stamp.

27

Pelosi Slams Clinton Failure to Protect Detainees

by Scott Ott
(2006-09-28) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, today criticized former President Bill Clinton for what she called “his failure to connect the dots and do more to protect terrorist detainee rights before 9/11.”

Rep. Pelosi’s remarks came in the wake of Congressional passage of new terrorist detainee legislation that would enable U.S. troops and intelligence officers to aggressively question suspected terrorists, and would provide for trial by military tribunal for enemy combatants.

“None of this needed to happen,” said a visibly shaken Rep. Pelosi, “In the years before 9/11, the Clinton administration utterly neglected the opportunity to push legislation that would have prevented the horror of secret CIA detention facilities and the desperate inconvenience of Guantanamo Bay.”

The presumptive House Majority Leader said that since 9/11, cultural insensitivity has fueled a disregard for the Constitution that makes terrorist detainees among the most vulnerable members of society.

“People have become so obsessed with not being blown up,” she said, “that they’re willing to deny Constitutional rights to a foreign person just because he happens to belong to a group that has sworn to destroy America.”

Mrs. Pelosi suggested the nation has “lost its moral compass,” and should remember the Golden Rule which says, “do not unto others until others have already done unto you and you can prove it in court.”

She also paraphrased the Bible in saying, “If your enemy saws off your head, turn to him also the other head, unless you don’t have a second head, in which case, offer him an arm and a leg.”

28

Cheesehead :

And you know that's factual because it was tortured out of him?

Are you serious?

Well, pro-torture folks like you hate Americans for their freedom, and frankly, it's important to speak out.

And why should you consider "fascist" an insult? It's only the truth.

29

Cheesehead:

BTW, suppose, indeed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the 9/11 mastermind, and that he confessed to that under torture.

Know what the Geneva Conventions say about that?

Take a guess.

OK, I'll tell you: it means that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed can never be convicted of the horrendous crimes of which he is most likely guilty.

Unless of course, the US violates a law equivalent in precedence to the Constitution itself, which is why the Bush folks want to break that law, violating their oath of office.

And you get insulted at conservatives being labelled fascist? Get real: they're talking removing habeus corpus, they're talking removing fundamental guarantees of the bill of rights, and they're talking about the ability to do this not simply to al Qaeda, but anyone they deem to be an "enemy combatant," and sorry, you don't get to see the evidence against you if it happens to be you.

If you support this feces, you're evil. Period.

30

Mummmon: I found this quote telling: "Unless of course, the US violates a law equivalent in precedence to the Constitution itself..."

You folks who view international rules and governing bodies as equivalent in precedence to the US Constitution are the ones threatening our liberties. May your tribe atrophy.

It is obvious you are not interested in discussion, only in hurling invective and displaying your ignorance. As I said earlier, it gives me great pleasure to be able to count you among my greatest detractors.

31

Hey Cheesehead:
How about if you and I just admit our fascist, evil, torturous ways and throw ourselves on the mercy of the ACLU? I'm confident they'd take good care of us :-)

Of course, being from Illinois, and raised in Michigan, and yourself, (if cheesehead is an accurate descriptor and your from Wisconsin), we'd probably have to bring along an interpreter. Plain, easy to understand, midwestern sensabilities aren't readily understood.

By the way, hats off to Favre, he made my Lions look like the wannabees they are right now....(sigh)

32

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/download/ download ringtones. nokia ringtones: Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. [url]http://www.ringtones-dir.com/free/[/url] [link=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]ring tones[/link] From site .

33

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site. [URL=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]ringtones download[/URL]: Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. [url=http://www.ringtones-dir.com]samsung ringtones[/url] From website .

34

RB: LOL! Don't we have to, like, actually murder, rape, or kill someone or blow up some buildings somewhere in order for the ACLU to be interested in protecting us?

Poor Lions! I think where they ran off the rails was a few years back when they built their new stadium. They could have located it anywhere. But they put it down by Detroit rather than up in Gaylord where it belonged. That way they could have had a big "G" on their helmets, too.

35

Cheesehead:

You folks who view international rules and governing bodies as equivalent in precedence to the US Constitution are the ones threatening our liberties. May your tribe atrophy.

Umm... I know you guys are all about not obeying the law and all that if you're a Republican, and moral relativism is what you folks live by, but have you ever, you know, read what the Constitution says about treaties?

I didn't make those words up - they come from a literal reading of the US Constitution.

RB & Cheesehead:

The ACLU will represent anyone who's got a free speech/civil liberties case: they've represented Oliver North as well as the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie Ill.

You'd fit right in.

36

Senate Mulls Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell Detainee Policy

by Scott Ott
The Senate Armed Services committee this week will consider a bill designed to break the impasse with the Bush administration over the interrogation of terrorist detainees.

The new approach, dubbed ‘Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell’ by supporters, would sidestep thorny questions about compliance with Geneva Convention Common Article III, and “get the Central Intelligence Agency out of the intrusive business of prying into people’s personal lives,” according to the text of the proposed measure.

Four Republican senators on the panel, who have worked to block the president’s request for greater authority to extract intelligence data from terror suspects, are said to be open to considering the new protocol which would also prevent the CIA or the military from violating the separation of church and state.

“A terrorist detainee’s role in Islam’s jihad against the west is an inherently religious topic,” said one unnamed senate aide, “I believe it’s one of the five pillars of Islam. Questions about another human’s religious beliefs are what the Geneva Conventions call ‘outrages upon human dignity’.”

Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner have indicated they might support such a compromise measure, the source said, “especially if it would improve America’s image among the people who have committed their own lives to our destruction.”

“It would put the burden of moral responsibility on the enemy,” he said. “Ultimately, we believe it will win the hearts and minds of violent Muslim extremists so they will abandon their suicidal obsession with destroying the Great Satan and his minions.”

37

Andy: we've sacraficed some civil liberties (a victory for the terrorists) and attacked a country that wasn't even involved (a really big victory for the terrorists) which sucked away the resources from Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the country which served as the breeding ground for the criminals and turned a blind eye to their organized criminal funding network, Saudi Arabia is still treated as our great friend.

I beg to differ strongly on your analysis.
1. In any war you cannot always choose your allies. The USA armed Stalin as an ally in WW11. Was that wrong? No, it was a strategic necessity. So with making 'friends' of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now.
2. 'sacrificing some civil liberties' is also essential in a war when there can be fifth columnists and traitors in your midst, like this difficult conflict with Islamist fascism. Apparently radical Islam has some 40 centres operating in mosques in 40 US States. What do you suggest as a surveillance policy for them?
3. You are wrong on Iraq, a country ruled for decades by a maniacal murderer and his evil sons, an oppressed land that threatened its neighbours and sought WMD openly.
4. Are you saying that the Middle East and the USA would be safer with Saddam still in power, and not even under corrupt UN sanctions?
Do you oppose the Iraqi people, who even today say in a majority poll that they are still glad Saddam is gone?
5. How do you KNOW that world Islamist terror would not have been sponsored even more by Saddam's Iraq, as it is by Iran, Syria and [still] the Taliban?
6. If you do fight a great evil, it will fight back tenaciously, won't it? Remember Japan, Germany?
If you don't fight a world war AS a world war, you are foolish. Afghanistan always was the sideshow, as we saw in the Lebanon war recently..

38

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones, Cingular ringtones and more. From website .

39

I don't often find myself agreeing with Mumon but he is right on this issue. I believe waterboarding is clearly torture and torture is A)incompatible with Christian ethics and B)is not and has never been a RELIABLE form of interrogation.

First B) Sometimes it will produce accurate results but often it will produce bogus information revealed only to stop the torture itself. I just finished reading the Court of the Red Tsar, a tour de force recounting Stalin's years in power. Torture was a regular practice used to obtain "confessions" to support his various purges. Most of the victims ultimately confessed to crimes they did not commit even though they knew this would likely result in execution. Why would they act so illogically, why not show defiance to the end. Obviously some did but most could not.This is why torture is unreliable since the human mind confronted with two intensely painful choices will often opt for the one that will bring immediate (if only brief) relief of suffering despite the illogic of the situation. In his book The Perfect Storm Sebastian Unger describes in detail how the body and brain react to drowning. The climax comes when the brain reaches a point where it decides that trying to breathe underwater hold more promise than not trying to breathe at all. Similar reactions may occurred on 9/11 itself with the jumpers who may have opted to end immediate suffering knowning that the relief would be brief and the end result the same.

In fact one could almost hypothesize that the more terrifying and physically threatening the form of torture the more suspect the information.

Now A) Beyond all this however is the fact that as Christians we must oppose torture. There is no support of it in the gospels or any part of the bible. We cannot be so craven as to say my morality forbids torture but my government is exempt as was argued earlier. Torture is immoral plain and simple, we know it innately. I challenge Christians who contemplate supporting this policy to take it before God if you are so confident.

As far as deciding what is torture the famous quote about art, "I don't know art but I know it when I see it" comes to mind. Mental and physical suffering of the detainee must be taken into account and must not be severe. Incarceration which meets basic human needs, repeated questioning even for long or extensive periods of time, are all acceptable to a point where guilt can or cannot be established, certainly detention cannot be open ended in this type of conflict. New laws are desperately needed to address this unique aspect. However techniques deliberately concieved to induce physical and mental suffering, to co-erce forcibly upon threat of physical harm cannot be justified from a Christian perspective. Where our government advocates this we must oppose.
As Christians we have made a commitment that does not allow us to "enact war powers" or "suspend habeus corpus" our standards of conduct are meant to be applied at all times and in all siuations.

I believe a lot of the motivation for these tactics come from the Administrations desperate attempts to prevent another attack (tactical thinking) rather than it comprising a means to ultimate victory (strategic). To me this has given undue importance to the status and value of these detainees. Perhaps organizations opposed to these tactics may wish to acknowledge the pressure faced by the government to safeguard the population and relax there opposition to some of the more benign infringements on civil liberties that may yield practical information to safeguard us as a whole. The NSA intercepts, profiling, data mining and domestic survieliance may be distasteful, but put to the public honestly and conducted with oversight are at least not immoral.

In closing even non Christian supporters of the war on terror should admit that Abu Gharib and now waterboarding are defeats for the US in the war on terror. This is not a war for territory, it is a war of ideas, ours are undeniably superior but not if we throw them away. If we adopt even a semblance of the foe's tactics we lose our distinct advantage, and ultimate weapon of victory, our superior culture of free thought.
All soldiers know the high ground is always prized in battle, in this war of ideas it is no less important that we hold it...all of it.

40

The point of "humanizing" terrorists has never been to see them as good, but to find out what makes them tick and make sure no one ticks like that again. Good and bad don't enter into the picture; this is strictly instrumental reasoning.

41

The problem is not that most Islam people are terrorists, but most of the terrorists are Islam people.

42

ScotttheCanuck says: This is not a war for territory, it is a war of ideas, ours are undeniably superior but not if we throw them away. If we adopt even a semblance of the foe's tactics we lose our distinct advantage, and ultimate weapon of victory, our superior culture of free thought.

You fail to appreciate that SOME civil liberties must be curtailed 'for the duration' by any state that is seriously fighting a just war.
Democracies don't easily or permanently 'throw away' their civil and moral advantages, as you seem to assume.
'Free thought' is an idle concept to an indoctrinated Islamist - whether in Saudi Arabia OR in one of their funded mosques in many Western capitals. You seem to be in denial about this obvious and dangerous reality - it's even so in soft Canuckland.
The 'ultimate weapon of victory?' is an idea? Are you kidding? This is actually a WEAPON, unless you are just a naive pacifist. In the Pacific in '45 it was even an Abomb or two - actually SAVING 100,000s of lives!

'This is not a war for territory'. Pure Canuck Naivety, I'm afraid, easily said sitting under US protection for generations..
- Tell this to the Sudanese, to the Israelis, to the Lebanese, to the Kashmiris, to the Egyptians, to the Afghanis.. etc etc.
Was the 39-45 war only 'about ideas' too, and the Cold War?

Let's get REAL, Christians.

43

Barrie

You fail to appreciate that SOME civil liberties must be curtailed 'for the duration' by any state that is seriously fighting a just war.

- I agree, but I do not believe torture to be consistent with this premise. My entire post was in regards to the compatibility of torture and Christianity. In my post I clearly voice my support for other milder infringements.

Democracies don't easily or permanently 'throw away' their civil and moral advantages, as you seem to assume.

- but some participants of democracies can do just that, as the Bush administration has done in the case of torture.

'Free thought' is an idle concept to an indoctrinated Islamist - whether in Saudi Arabia OR in one of their funded mosques in many Western capitals. You seem to be in denial about this obvious and dangerous reality - it's even so in soft Canuckland.

- This is a non-sequiter

The 'ultimate weapon of victory?' is an idea? Are you kidding? This is actually a WEAPON, unless you are just a naive pacifist. In the Pacific in '45 it was even an Abomb or two - actually SAVING 100,000s of lives!

- Our culture of free thought is our ultimate weapon against any tyrannical enemy. Time and again it has proven superior to any foe. Our people sacrifice more, apply themselves harder, think faster in defense of this concept rather than to support a tyrannical regime or ideology.