Richard,
Those links are interesting. I'd not realized that Phelps and Co. were operating beyond military funerals. Being in the Reserve I only ever really hear about it when Phelps and Co. show up for a fallen Soldier. News of that kind of antic travels fast through the uniformed grapevine.
If Phelps and Co. are going all-out, well, I imagine we'll see more than just a single lawsuit. As Ursula pointed out, any funeral is a solemn event, and nobody likes it when their solemn event is crashed by self-designated moral protestors.
As Bruce said, back to the original subject....
I think it can be accurately stated that "Thou doth protest too much" applies to many people who spend their time scorning others on sexual issues. I have little doubt that some of the Phelps clan are, in fact, closeted homosexuals of the variety which experience so much self-loathing, their only response is to project an image of total intollerance towards gays.
As Ursula pointed out, it's rather odd, then, that they choose to target military funerals; unless (as has been hypothesized) some clever soul in the Phelps clan deduced that being rude at military funerals would achieve quick and easy media coverage, and that quick and easy media coverage was the best way to get the "message" out.
The irony of all this is that Phelps and Co. have actually managed to build a bridge between Left and Right on this issue. I am not sure if this is what Phelps and Co. intended, but it is a reality.
IMHO the Republican party would probably do itself a favor to start shifting away from the evangelical base and begin aggressively appealing to the libertarian base. Sexual "indiscretion" only becomes an issue if you stake your claim as the "sexual morality party", which is what Republicans have done my whole life. A more Libertarian Republican stance, rooted in ostensibly neutral individual freedoms, would be easier to defend, and you'd probably have fewer scandals. And more accountability among the ranks.
But that's just my opinion.
The Republicans are in a big fat mess. When the Democrats control the White House in 2009 I think it'll be a good decade or more before the Republicans recover enough face (and the public forgets enough wrongs) for Republicans to pose a challenge to the Democratic majority.
The political pendulum, she keeps a-swingin'....
Ursula, since the "God Hates Fags!" folk don't crash civilian funerals, I didn't think it necessary to include civilian funerals in my statements against Phelps and Co. You read too much into my post.
You all do realize, of course, that the content-keyed Google ad banner on the right, is running "Vote for Guliani!" advertisements?
Just thought I'd point it out.
I actually do need to buy some chains for my Chevy 1500. Got the sleeping bag under the back seat, check. 300 pounds of sand in the bed, check. Tow cable, check. Gloves, both snow and leather, check. Flashlight, check. And two rolls of TP. Can't forget those.
Lee @ #51: That's nice Lee. I really don't care.
Lee @ #40,
Funny, my Waller Hall-issue CAC in my wallet says you're mistaken.
Which reminds me. I need to see if I'll have a problem logging on with my new unit at Fort Douglas. I've never tried using the CAC in a different state, though it did work fine at Fort Lawton when I did a BA up there this summer.
They changed it about a year ago so that you couldn't log on to Army computers without having a current CAC and pin. Used to be your domain password would suffice.
I miss my old ID. I looked better in the BDU. More sergeantly. Ah well, change is the only constant in the service...
I just re-read the entire thread, before departing for the night.
I'd like it administratively noted that, in spite of some of the ad hominem language directed against me, I have not responded in kind.
I am willing to continue tomorrow, with those who have managed to retain civility and have not stooped to name-calling.
Perhaps my key goof was in not focusing on the waterboarding specifically. In this same way, I goofed on the "Go Bag" thread and got us off on a firearms conversation.
Perhaps if I'd stuck strictly to the waterboarding topic (and I do not support waterboarding) things might have gone more smoothly?
Anyway, it's almost midnight, month-end is done, and I am going the hell home.
Lizzy @ 117,
Okay, good idea.
I've got half a dozen people telling me I am wrong, and half of them think I am absolute evil in addition to being wrong.
Maybe Halloween was the wrong night to dip my foot in this particular stream?
Later.
James @ #112,
My wife worked DV for many years. I am intimately familiar with the likelyhood that when a wife is murdered, it's often the husband that did it. Which is why I'd rather die or be beaten to a pulp than say I'd killed my wife, because I know what kind of men do that, and I am not that kind of man, and would sooner do a hari-kari than tell anyone, cop or no, I was a wife-killer.
That's not really the point, though.
Some people break. Not everyone. And as I explained to Lee, in a manner far more gracious than Lee deserved, the 'whether or not' I confessed would depend on the thing I confessed to, and if I could live with myself confessing it afterward.
And no, I never once said I thought it would be OK for the cops to waterboard.
Can you please find for me where I said, "I demand that our cops be allowed to waterboard! It's not torture!" I never said that.
I said I think we need to be careful how far we expand our definition of "torture", lest we rob our police and Soldiers of their ability to extract information from subjects that are recalcitrant. The carrot only works so far. And yes, sometimes nothing will work. But once in awhile, the stick must be reached for. And 90% of it depends on the situation and the circumstance.
And if I can drag this gottdamned thing all the way back around to my original sentiment, eschewing all this stupid scenarioing about killing wives, I think it's wrong for people go ahead and just say, "All torture is wrong and all people who torture are hideous villains", because what one man calls torture and another man calls torture are two different things, and sometimes good people have and will choose to do some distasteful things they'd rather not do, based on mission requirement or just plain expediency and lack of time to find another option.
Month-end is now underway, nothing to do but sit and let Crystal spin.
Lee,
You're right. If the cops beat me up and wanted me to say I was the King of France, I might be inclined to say I was the King of France. Or Mickey Mouse. Or Napoleon.
But a wife-killer? And my wife is dead by another man's hand?
Sorry. I'd rather die or be beaten unconscious than say I'd killed my wife. Or child. Or parents. Or committed any murder I knew I did not commit. Saying I committed the murder of any of these people, having not actually done it, would mean that I was not only lying, but that I'd let the cops off the hook to get out there and find the real killer.
You might think it's impossible for anyone to face down pain or death in this fashion.
Anyone who has died under pain or torture, and refused to renounce a God, or a prophet, or a belief of any sort, proves you otherwise. Shall I site examples? There are lots of them. It can be done. You just have to not care about pain or death. Hopefully none of us are ever put to that extreme in our lives.
I've experienced mind-boggling pain so bad I passed out several times within a couple of hours because of it. It was during a situation that nearly cost me my life. I'm not exactly a stranger to that kind of thing.
As for your other scenarios, would I lie to save a child? Depends on what the lie would be, and who it would affect.
If someone pointed a gun at my child's head and told me to renounce Christ ten times, or they'd shoot my girl, I don't think I would renounce Christ. I'd do everything within my power to rip their heads off before they shot my girl, but if I was powerless to stop them, I'd rather my daughter get shot (and possibly live) with her father being a faithful Christian, than her probably getting shot anyway and having a father who renounced his faith and was a fraud when the chips were down.
But if they pointed a gun at her head and told me to scream that I was Elton John or Slash from the band Guns'n'Roses, I might be willing to do that.
I suppose if I really think about it, there are stupid lies that it won't matter if I tell them under coercion, and big giant lies that I'd rather die than tell, even under pain of death, because possibly living with those lies would be worse than dying or being fucked up.
Got any more scenarios to throw my way, while you are excoriating me?
Marna....
No doubt you also hold one or more opinions on a subject or subjects, and that there are lots of people who would think you're a "mess" as well.
They wouldn't be right. Because you're more than just a single opinion on a single subject.
And so am I.
And with that, I gotta bet back to work. Month end closing processes. Wee.
John @ #101,
I think the definition of "torture" is too blurry these days.
To me, torture is a prolonged (hours to days) infliction of extreme amounts of pain, usually accompanied by bodily harm or life-long mutilation, done by people who enjoy it and who don't really care if you talk or not. They just want to see you suffer.
When I think "torture", I think Joe Pesci's character extracting info from the young gangster in the movie "Casino". I am thinking ice picks in ears, through genitalia, through tongues, in eyeballs, dangling guys in positions that crack or break bones, pull joints out of sockets, shoving someone's hand in a drum of industrial acid, etc, etc. Stuff that kills and cripples and fucks you up and will never go away, assuming you survive.
Is sleep-deprivation "torture"?
How about light-deprivation?
Constant, loud noise?
How broad are we willing to make our definition of "torture" and at what point does that definition become so broad that virtually all our police and military interrogators, whether they're working routine crime or fighting the GWOT, will be found guilty of "torturing"?
If a cop hauls me in and punches me around, I might call it battery or rough treatment, I might even sue his ass. But it's not torture. To call it torture is a disservice to those who have been truly and horribly tortured throughout history.
Similarly, if a Soldier uses sleep or light or noise tactics, even a punch in the face, to try and get something out of a captured foe, is it really "torture" worthy of war crimes consideration? And is that soldier, for the rest of his life, a morally unredeemable individual worthy only of scorn and derision?
Because that's where this thread seems to be taking us: the absolute and eternal moral judgment of those who have, and will, use force to extract information.
Me? I think there is a spectrum. And while I don't want the U.S. or its military and police to go too far down the spectrum, I do think there is a zone on the "soft" end that is, for lack of a better word, practical. Much of it dovetails some physical with a lot of psychological, and as I have said earlier, the carrot (or honeypot, as someone else noted) will yield better results, more often, than the stick.
But once in awhile, the stick is necessary.
And to deny this, or worse, criminalize and morally cast out those who use the stick, without considering situation and context, is just wrong IMHO.
Marna,
People are complex. I do mean what I write. But you won't be able to divine the moral or ethical essence of me from my views on a single, narrow subject.
For example....
Many right-wingers think everyone who is pro-choice is a "baby-murderer." They are absolutely convinced of it.
Of course, we all know they are full of shit. They're using a single-issue, inflammatory litmus test to pass judgment on a vast sector of America.
I see something strangely similar happening on this thread, and it bothers me quite a bit, and so I speak out, unpopular or "wrong" as my thoughts might be.
Again, people are complex. And most of us, if we find out enough about each other, will eventually find out something about the other person which disturbs or bothers us. How much are we willing to summarily declare people "bad" for holding opinions, and how willing are we ourselves willing to be declared "bad" for the opinions we hold?
And I said I'd stop contributing to this thread, didn't I?
I'm lousy with resolutions.
Again, people need to re-read post #83.
I'll say several more times.
I do not apologize for sadists. I do not advocate sadistic methods of forced extraction of information. I believe the carrot will work far more often, and should be option a, b, and c, before you get to the d.
Oh, and one thing for Jim.
The cops could beat me to death, but if I didn't kill my wife, I wouldn't say I killed my wife just to keep them from beating me to death.
Pain and death are transitory. A lie, even if told under coercion, will follow you forever. And yes, I've experienced some amazing physical pain in my life. I know from experience that eventually you pass out from it. The police will either have to kill me, or get tired of their schtick and send me to jail and try to prosecute on evidence.
Everything I have to say from this point forward, I have already said in post #83.
If people think I am wrong, OK.
If people think I am somehow a horrible man for what I write, I'm going to say they don't know anything about me and are in no position to make that call.
Goodnight. At least on this thread.
I'm in the Army and I know nobody in uniform who thinks Phelps is anything less than a complete creep. His right (and the right of his followers) to declare their beliefs, ends where the solemn burial ground of a Soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman begins. A military funeral is not the place to come and make a brash, outlandish statement about sexuality. It should be a dignified, hallowed event, and I applaud the fact that someone is finally making Phelps and his ilk pay for all the harm they have done, pushing their ideology into a place where it does not belong.
If all Phelps did was have a web site or "preach to the choir" in chapel, fine. No problem. He's still creepy, but it's a contained creepy.
If Phelps (or anyone) came into the funeral of my loved one, with signs and picketing and noise, I'd be murderous within a few seconds.
The gaul, the nerve, the utter lack of civility...
The "God Hates Fags!" group can't be shut down quickly enough. Or at least barred from shoving themselves into places where their demonstrations are neither welcome, nor called for.
Why aren't they down at the state capitol steps? Why mar a military funeral??
It's maleovolent.
John @ #80,
This is what the moral thrust of this thread seemed to be: all forced extraction of information is equivalent to torture, and since we already know that torture is never forgiveable nor excusable in any circumstance, and never works anyway, anyone who advocates it or apologizes for it or commits it is a debased cretin.
My point has been that those who use forced extraction are not always cretins, not always guilty of the same "crime", and we behind our keyboards should not go out and pass sweeping judgments on these men.
If I seem to be taking it personally, I am. I've got friends who have been placed in these situations and while some might argue that their actions have been "immoral", to pass judgment on them as human beings, to breezily declare them [i]anything[/i], as if we have a right to judge...
The whole thing just seems too pat, too simple, too smug.
And as Steve C. pointed out, what do you do when you are holding a man who has info you need, and is not willing to share it, and you don't have all the time in the world to use the "carrot" as it were?
I think the line between torture and forced extraction gets crossed when men inflict bodily pain for the sake of seeing another man scream, cry, howel, wimper, or just plain bleed. And you won't see me apologizing for that kind of thing, nor will I go to bat for Soldiers or Marines who get a kick out of seeing an Iraqi moan in agony, just because they think it's funny.
I've met a couple of these kinds of Soldiers, yes, and I couldn't get away from them fast enough.
But not everyone engaged in the GWOT is using forced extraction because they like it, nor is everyone who uses forced extraction using methods I would call "routinely extreme" or otherwise brushing the edge of reasonable coercion.
Does this make my position more clear?
I'll say it again, for the Terry and Jim contingent:
I. Am. Not. Apoligizing. For. Sadists.
I am saying we need to look at this as a far more complex moral, ethical, and practical issue, than it might first seem.
If it was an easy moral call, we wouldn't be having this big national debate on it, now, would we?
What bugs me is that you guys seem to think I said all forced extraction or "torture" of any sort was OK in any and every circumstance.
Go back and read my caveat.
The carrot will work most of the time, and only in rare circumstances should anything more be appropriate. But that doesn't mean there have not been times when, sadly, the stick is called for.
I grieve for the Soldiers I have known, good men, who have been forced down the road they've been forced down. But duty and expediency do not always permit easy moral decisionmaking. I have no doubt a couple of guys in particular are quite hurt by what they ended up doing. But what they ended up doing amounted to child's play compared to what a captured Soldier in the grasp of the insurgency goes through, before he dies.
So maybe I just see degrees here, a graduation of steps. Kind of like in the criminal system, how not every crime is automatically equated to be as terrible as every other.
Is a Soldier who blares loud music 24/7 into a cell and sleep-deprives a detainee, guilty of the same "torture" as a man who shoves an ice pick into a detainee's body parts?
If you answer is, "Yes!", I guess this discussion is over.
You, sir, are a torture monger. -- TK
And you, sir, are making yet another sweeping judgment.
Fine.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 66 |
Total: 66 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by CommunityRadioVet:
Show all comments by CommunityRadioVet.