L.B.: Boutros Boutros Carpathia 2

Left Behind, pp. 242-247

Nicolae Carpathescu, er, sorry, Carpathia, the new president of Romania and Antichrist-in-waiting, is about to speak at the United Nations.

It's not clear why he's there, or why anyone should be particularly interested in what he might have to say. He isn't an expert in any particular field. He's had less than a week of experience as a national leader.

Carpathia has been described as the "consummate politician," but in his short career so far we've only seen him make one political decision and that was a disaster. Newly elected to lead his crisis-stricken nation, he decides — indefensibly — to leave, taking off to America. And once in America, he doesn't head to Washington, to the superpower's seat of power, but instead he goes to the UN. There he will meet with a room full of ambassadors — officials empowered to speak but not to decide or to act.

Strangely, the delegations from every nation seem to have remained there, in New York. Like Nicolae, they seem not to realize that their first responsibility, post-Event, should have been to return home. That's where they're needed. But instead they're here, on the East Side of Manhattan doing … well, it's not really clear what they're doing. Today, arbitrarily, they're gathering to hear a speech from some kid from Romania.

Carpathia … stood relaxed and smiling before speaking extemporaneously. Not only did he not use notes, but he also never hesitated, misspoke, or took his eyes off his audience.

He spoke earnestly, with passion, with a frequent smile, and with occasional, appropriate humor. He mentioned respectfully that he was aware that it had not been a full week yet since the disappearance of millions all over the world, including many who would have been "in this very room."

Our authors neglect to provide any examples of his occasional, appropriate humor, but it's good to know that in a world still traumatized by shock and grief, Nic is able to keep smiling and to give others something to chuckle over as well. The reference there to the "millions" of disappeared confirms that LaHaye and Jenkins do not count most of the world's 2.1 billion Christians as Real True believers. But they seem to be forgetting, yet again, that their rapture also included all of the world's children, which means that "millions" should be "billions" even before counting a single adult RTC. This seems like a particularly cruel fact to forget about at the site that also houses the headquarters of UNICEF.

Carpathia spoke primarily in perfect English with only a hint of a Romanian accent. He used no contractions and enunciated every syllable of every word. Once again he employed all nine languages with which he was fluent, each time translating himself into English.

Now I'm not so much picturing a young Robert Redford as I am a young Brent Spiner.

In one of the most touching scenes Buck had ever witnessed …

It needs to be said: Never, ever start a sentence that way.

In one of the most touching scenes Buck had ever witnessed, Carpathia began by announcing that he was humbled and moved to visit "for the first time this historic site, where nation after nation has set its sights. One by one they have come from all over the globe on pilgrimages as sacred as any to the Holy Lands, exposing their faces to the heat of the rising sun."

Geography, apparently, is not Carpathia's forte. New York City is, indeed, on the East Coast but it is not therefore a part of the East. I suppose, though, that if you flew into Newark, your face might be exposed "to the heat of the rising sun" as you traveled to the U.N. from New Jersey.

"Our forebears were thinking globally long before I was born," Carpathia said. "In 1944, the year the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established, this great host nation, the United States of America, along with the British Commonwealth and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, met at the famous Dumbarton Oaks Conference to propose the birth of this body."

His whole speech is like this — dull, stilted and full of the trivia of history while oblivious to its meaning. The U.S., Britain and the USSR were, indeed, "thinking globally" in 1944, but neither Little Nicky nor the authors seems to realize why. Carpathia's speech sounds a bit like a lazy schoolchild's book report — the kind where the kid avoids learning anything at all about the big picture, instead just listing a bunch of names and dates copied out of the World Book Encyclopedia and wrapped up with a ridiculously transparent bit of padding.

Displaying his grasp of history and his photographic memory of dates and places, Carpathia intoned, "From its official birth on October 24, 1945, and that first meeting of your General Assembly in London, January 10, 1946, to this day, tribes and nations have come together to pledge their wholehearted commitment to peace, brotherhood and the global community."

This, keep in mind, is being presented as stirring oratory. "Buck was tired and felt grimy wearing two-day-old clothes," L&J write. "But his worries were a distant memory as Carpathia moved along."

And what, exactly, does Carpathia say that causes Buck to forget his worries? He recites the names of the member states of the United Nations. Alphabetically.

No, really.

He began in almost a whisper, "From lands distant and near they have come: from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria …" He continued, his voice rising and falling dramatically with the careful pronunciation of the name of each member country of the United Nations. Buck sensed a passion, a love for these countries and the ideals of the U.N. Carpathia was clearly moved as he plunged on, listing country after country, not droning but neither in any hurry.

It's like the opening ceremony of the Olympics, only without the music and the pageantry, and with a bunch of diplomatic funtionaries instead of the world's finest athletes. You can read a transcript of this part of Carpathia's speech in the CIA World Factbook — just click on the "Select a Country or Location" menu bar and scroll down. Carpathia's "speech," in other words, is simply the Table of Contents for a world atlas.

Great actors are sometimes said to be so captivating, so skilled at speaking, that "You could listen to them read the phone book." But that compliment isn't meant to be taken so literally. Think of any of the great voices about whom this has been said — Orson Welles, James Earl Jones, Judi Dench — and try to imagine them capturing and keeping your attention by reciting this list. It's inconceivable. No one could make such a recitation bearable, let alone enthralling. And attempting to recite this list "dramatically" could only result in giggle-inducing silliness. (Go ahead and try it — click over to the Factbook and read that list, out loud and dramatically. Emote. You'll be laughing before you even get to Djibouti.)

A charitable interpretation here would be to read the banality of Carpathia's "speech" as intentional. Perhaps L&J meant to demonstrate his awesome charisma by showing the effect he is able to have on his listeners even while mindlessly parroting a list of disconnected dates and facts laced together with vapid clichés. But the context of the rest of the chapter won't allow for such a subtle interpretation. The substance of his speech is clearly intended to be seen as inspiring, and L&J portray Carpathia's audience as being justifiably moved by what they have heard. His words are, in themselves, intended to be read as emotionally stirring, and it's not merely his supernatural, anticharismatic aura that prevents his listeners from walking out muttering that this Romanian idiot is wasting everyone's time thinking he's hot stuff because he has the building directory memorized.

A minute into his list, representatives noticed that with each name, someone from that country rose in dignity and stood erect, as if voting anew for peace among nations. Carpathia smiled and nodded at each as they rose, and nearly every country was represented. Because of the cosmic trauma the world had endured, they had come looking for answers, for help, for support. Now they had been given the opportunity to take their stand once again. …

By the time he got into the Ss in his alphabetical listing, those standing had begun to quietly applaud each new country mentioned. It was a dignified, powerful thing, this show of respect and admiration, this re-welcome into the global village. …

Buck found himself eager to stand as well, ruing the fact that his country was near the end of the alphabet, but feeling pride and anticipation welling up within him. As more and more countries were named and their people stood proudly, the applause grew louder, merely because of the increased numbers. Carpathia was up to the task, his voice growing more emotional and powerful with each new country name.

On and on he thundered as people stood and clapped. "Somalia! South Africa! Spain! Sri Lanka! Sudan! Suriname! Swaziland! Sweden! Syria!"

Members of the Afghan delegation, by this point, have to be kicking themselves for starting this whole stand-and-clap business. The Zimbabweans, meanwhile, are trying to figure out if they still have time to run to the bathroom and get back before their name is called since they've had to go since somewhere around Burundi.

More than five minutes into the recitation, Carpathia had not missed a beat. He had never once hesitated, stammered or mispronounced a syllable. …

This would actually be a good time for him to hesitate, stammer and miss a beat, because right after "Syria!" comes "Taiwan!" — and whether he says it or not, he's going to provoke some kind of international incident.

Buck was on the edge of his seat as the speaker swept through the Ts and reached "Uganda! Ukraine! The United Arab Emirates! The United Kingdom! The United States of America!" And Buck leaped to his feet, Steve right with him, along with dozens of other members of the press.

… With such electricity and power in the simple naming of all the countries who had longed to be united with each other, Carpathia had brought the entire crowd to its feet in full voice and applause, press and representative alike. …

And there was more …

Oh, good. There's more. What's next, a list of state birds? No, something even worse:

Over the next half hour he … casually worked in the name of every secretary-general from Trygve Lie of Norway to Ngumo and mentioned their terms of office not just by year but also by specific day and date of their installation and conclusion. … Then he swept through the 18 U.N. agencies, mentioning every one, its current director, and its headquarters city.

One of those agencies, again, is UNICEF. I'm not sure which is more cruelly callous — to discuss that agency in the current context without any reference to the world's missing children, or to subject an audience to a speech in which he says things like "Boutros Boutros-Ghali served as secretary-general from January of 1992 until December of 1996" in nine languages.

The sentence above is astounding on its own, but even more terrifyingly awful in the context of the complete paragraph:

Then he swept through the 18 U.N. agencies, mentioning every one, its current director, and its headquarters city. This was an amazing display, and suddenly it was no wonder this man had risen so quickly in his own nation, no wonder the previous leader had stepped aside. No wonder New York had already embraced him.

How could New York not embrace him?

"Honey, thanks to the disappearances, I was finally able to get tickets to Wicked!"

"Never mind that now — I'd rather go see this Romanian fellow who can recite trivia about all 18 U.N. agencies!"

After this, Buck knew, Nicolae Carpathia would be embraced by all of America. And then the world.

The connotations of that "And then the world" only underscores how wretchedly inept this whole chapter has been. Carpathia's rise should be far more ominous and creepy, more unsettling.

Bob Fosse knew how to do this scene.

A fresh-faced lad stands in the sunshine and begins to sing in an angelic voice. The words of his song, at first, seem innocent, but there's a sense of foreboding as the camera pans slowly down to reveal his smartly pressed uniform. Slowly, inexorably, the bucolic scene grows darker and uglier, building to a fierce and horrifying crescendo.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: In the example you gave, a nuclear terrorist, you are making the implausible assumption that the prisoner knows exactly what information the American authorities know and what information they don’t know.
    Just as you are making the implausible assumption that torture gets people to speak the truth and nothing but the truth.
    We’ve been through this. You know – at least, you do if you bothered to go look for the opinions of any professional interrogators on the subject – that torture is not an effective means of gathering intel. Yes, it works on 24 and other TV programs – because the confessions there are scripted. In real life, it doesn’t.
    But again – you claimed you could live with sleep deprivation, hearing damage, stress positions, fear, humiliation, and disgust. I don’t believe you, frankly – but I point out a way you can prove that you can live with these forms of torture. Arrange to have them done to you, and then tell us you can “live with” them.

  • aunursa

    Certainly, if it’s done so that the prisoner will suffer sleep deprivation
    What if it’s done at a lower decibel and done in a manner such that it allows for a normal sleep pattern. Would you consider that to be torture as well?
    Acts done specifically to humiliate or disgust the prisoner? Yes.
    Thank you! Now we’re making real progress.
    Is that merely your personal definition of toture? Or can you cite an internationally-recognized standard that states that any act that causes humiliation constitutes torture? Or that any act that causes disgust constitutes torture?
    Are you okay with the idea of being humiliated and disgusted by people holding you prisoner?
    If it will prevent me from detonating a bomb that will kill thousands of innocent people, yes.
    And let’s go back to sleep deprivation and hearing damage being torture you can “live with”.
    As soon as I am in a position of having concealed information that can prevent terrorist attacks, I will gladly submit to your request in order that others may live.
    Just as you are making the implausible assumption that torture gets people to speak the truth and nothing but the truth.
    I never said nor suggested that. You are misrepresenting my position. Again.

  • A.Kennedy

    Are you okay with the idea of being humiliated and disgusted by people holding you prisoner?
    If it will prevent me from detonating a bomb that will kill thousands of innocent people, yes.
    The simple fact is, drama television shows aside, these are not the people who are getting tortured. The people who are, in fact, being tortured are individuals suspected of being terrorists, for various reasons ranging from “was captured at a terrorist camp” to “some guy said he was probably a terrorist.” These are not criminal masterminds who are going to blow up New York City in 20 minutes if you don’t get the password to the bomb, or whatever (I’m sorry, I don’t watch the show). So now, we’re talking about doing all these things to people who may not even done anything wrong, and who certainly are not an imminent threat to you or your loved ones. Still OK?

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: What if it’s done at a lower decibel and done in a manner such that it allows for a normal sleep pattern. Would you consider that to be torture as well?
    No, probably not. Why do you ask?
    Or can you cite an internationally-recognized standard that states that any act that causes humiliation constitutes torture? Or that any act that causes disgust constitutes torture?
    Certainly: the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (emphasis mine) You were asked – persistently – whether you accepted the UN Convention’s definition of torture. You refused to answer. I ask you again: do you accept this definition? And if you do, do you intend to assert that inflicting humiliation and disgust on a prisoner is not intended to cause extreme suffering and pain?
    If it will prevent me from detonating a bomb that will kill thousands of innocent people, yes.
    But not if you’re just in the position of thousands of prisoners held by the US, being tortured by the methods you said you could “live with” who are not part of your fantasy “ticking bomb” scenario? So, basically, you’re only okay with torture in fantasy? (You and a hundred thousand other BDSMers.) But this discussion is about torture in reality: real prisoners, not part of your fantasy world, who really are being tortured by the methods you’ve claimed you can “live with”. (when do you plan to take that week off work and prove your claim, by the way?)
    As soon as I am in a position of having concealed information that can prevent terrorist attacks, I will gladly submit to your request in order that others may live.
    Again – you’re trying to divert into fantasy, and I’m asking you to stick with reality.
    Respond with a real-world example: what if you are an American civilian, captured by Iranians, accused of being a spy? What can you “live with” the Iranians doing to you? What if it’s your son? Or your daughter?
    Assume, since this is the commonest circumstance, that neither you or your son or your daughter are spies – you have nothing useful to tell them. Are you saying you can “live with” your daughter suffering humiliation and disgust because her captors want to make her confess to being a spy? With your son coming home with permanent hearing damage?
    I never said nor suggested that.
    You are suggesting that in this very post, and consistently on this thread – along with the implausible suggestion that people are only tortured when they have useful information to provide. Don’t accuse me of misrepresenting your position, when I’m not.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa, the reason why your position as represented by you on this thread is that torture victims tell the truth and nothing but, and that no one is tortured unless they have useful information to communicate: you think torture is useful. You’ve said so, over and over again. You’ve even claimed that you’re willing to be tortured by the methods you’ve said you could “live with” if you had useful information to people who had kidnapped you and were holding you prisoner, just as the US has done.
    Prisoners A to Z are being held in a facility. Their captors want to make them talk. Prisoner G is an international terrorist: prisoners D, L, and Z have information about military plans and strategy and bass that will be useful short-term if they share it immediately. The other 22 prisoners have no useful information. Their captors know that some of the prisoners probably have useful information, but they don’t know which, and they know that one or more of the prisoners may be real terrorists, but they don’t know which. Some of the prisoners do, though.
    Now, you assert that the best solution to dealing with these 26 people is to torture the ones who have useful information – but you don’t know which. So what’s your solution: torture none, torture all? The American solution is to torture them all: humiliate them, try to shame them, force them through sleep deprivation and stress positions, put them in fear of being attacked by dogs, turn up the sound on the music that keeps them awake until they suffer hearing damage.
    Unless you think all of these people will tell the truth and nothing but under torture, this is nothing but a waste of time and resources. Some of them will tell everything they can think of or make up, hoping to stop the torture. Some of it may be true, some of it may be wrong, all of it is just what they think the torturer wants to hear. Some of them will tell all the lies they can think of because it’s the last way they can fight back against their torturers. The result is an enormous mass of information, and most of it, the only way to verify it is to ask other prisoners under torture if it’s true. After days of sleep deprivation, they’ll certainly do so, true or not: someone who hasn’t slept in days will say anything. Even if a few true and useful bits of information are to be found in this mass of lies and inventions and misunderstandings, finding out which is a virtually impossible job.
    Yet you don’t appear to be aware of any of this: you keep claiming that the information that the torture victims provide is useful, which it can’t be unless it’s the truth, and nothing but the truth.
    Better solution, as professional army interrogators consistently point out: make the prisoner want to talk. Torture won’t achieve that.

  • Jesurgislac

    Nothing to say, Aunursa?

  • aunursa

    What if it’s done at a lower decibel and done in a manner such that it allows for a normal sleep pattern. Would you consider that to be torture as well?
    No, probably not. Why do you ask?
    Because I described various possible interrogation techniques including “playing Brittney Spears music.” You described the techniques collectively as “torture techniques you said you could ‘live with,’” making it unclear whether you considered the mere sound of Brittney Spears music to be a torture technique. Your refutation clears up the confusion.
    can you cite an internationally-recognized standard that states that any act that causes humiliation constitutes torture? Or that any act that causes disgust constitutes torture?
    Certainly: the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
    It’s interesting that you present the UN Convention against Torture. Ironically the very name of the instrument you cite indicates that there are other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments and punishments that are NOT classified as torture. Otherwise the document would simply be known as “The UN Convention against Torture.”
    Moreover, the definition itself, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…” (emphasis mine), clearly indicates that there exist moderate levels of pain and suffering that by definition are not torture.
    You were asked – persistently – whether you accepted the UN Convention’s definition of torture. You refused to answer.
    Up until now I was not presented with a definition.
    I ask you again: do you accept this definition?
    I accept that torture involves severe physical pain or suffering. I’m not entirely convinced that torture involves severe mental pain or suffering. I’d like to reserve my personal opinion on that until I see whether definitions posed by other authorities include non-physical suffering. (And not just authorities that quote the UNCAT definition verbatim.)
    And if you do, do you intend to assert that inflicting humiliation and disgust on a prisoner is not intended to cause extreme suffering and pain?
    Absolutely.
    So, basically, you’re only okay with torture in fantasy?
    I am not okay with any act that causes intentional severe physical pain or suffering inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining a confession, etc…
    You and a hundred thousand other BDSMers.
    BDSMer?
    what if you are an American civilian, captured by Iranians, accused of being a spy? What can you “live with” the Iranians doing to you?
    I am not aware that the Iranians maintain any standard of humane behavior regarding treatment of prisoners. You were talking about sticking to reality with real world examples???
    You are suggesting that in this very post, and consistently on this thread – along with the implausible suggestion that people are only tortured when they have useful information to provide.
    I have never suggested that people are only tortured when they have useful information to provide. Again I challenge you to cite verbatim any post in which I suggested any such thing.
    Don’t accuse me of misrepresenting your position, when I’m not.
    I don’t. I only accuse you of misrepresenting my position when you do so.

  • aunursa

    Aunursa, the reason why your position as represented by you on this thread is that torture victims tell the truth and nothing but, and that no one is tortured unless they have useful information to communicate
    I have never stated nor suggested that torture victims tell the truth and nothing but; nor have I ever stated or suggested that no one is tortured unless they have useful information. You. Are. Misrepresenting. My. Position. Again.
    I don’t attempt to misrepresent your position. In fact I have gone out of my way by asking you pointed questions in order to better understand your position regarding specific details. I have never attempted to put words into your mouth. Why do you continue to do so to me?

  • aunursa

    Nothing to say, Aunursa?
    I read several blogs and websites, and I participate on a number of political, religious, and social message boards. In addition I actually have a life outside this forum. I was busy Thursday evening. My daughter’s birthday party was Sunday, so I was pretty busy all day. Monday night I was out of town. And as a rule I don’t post on Friday night or all day Saturday.
    All that said, I apologize for keeping you waiting for my response.

  • aunursa

    The simple fact is … The people who are, in fact, being tortured are individuals suspected of being terrorists, for various reasons ranging from “was captured at a terrorist camp” to “some guy said he was probably a terrorist” … So now, we’re talking about doing all these things to people who may not even done anything wrong, and who certainly are not an imminent threat to you or your loved ones. Still OK?
    We’re still working on the definition of torture. That said, I support the use of certain interrogation techniques on prisoners who are likely to have knowledge that can disrupt future terror attacks. As I have stated, the specific technique(s) I would support depend on the circumstances. (Circumstances include, for example, the prisoner’s level in the enemy’s hierarchy — because that would determine how much and how valuable is the information to be gained. A KSM or RBA is certain to have more valuable information, and should thus be subject to harsher techniques than a low-level operative.)
    The only reason to subject prisoners to harsh techniques would be to gain information that can save lives. I see no legitimate reason to interrogate people who have not done anything wrong and who are not an imminent threat and who do not conceal information on terror cells and attack plans.
    These are not criminal masterminds who are going to blow up New York City in 20 minutes if you don’t get the password to the bomb, or whatever (I’m sorry, I don’t watch the show).
    Neither do I.

  • Rosina

    The only reason to subject prisoners to harsh techniques would be to gain information that can save lives. I see no legitimate reason to interrogate people who have not done anything wrong and who are not an imminent threat and who do not conceal information on terror cells and attack plans.
    I see no legitimate reason to hold such a person as a prisoner, either. But if the authorities do not admit that prisoner x has not done anything wrong, is not a threat and is not concealing information which he doesn’t have, then why do you assume that they are going to exempt him from their ‘harsh techniques’ as you call them? And that is ignoring the fact that torture doesn’t get reliable information, or even reliable confessions, and has been known to be ineffective since the days of the Holy Inquisition.

  • aunursa

    why do you assume that they are going to exempt him from their ‘harsh techniques’ as you call them?
    I don’t necessarily assume that the authorities are going to exempt a prisoner based on their own good will. That’s why we have laws and systems for oversight and punishments for those who violate the law.
    And that is ignoring the fact that torture doesn’t get reliable information, or even reliable confessions, and has been known to be ineffective since the days of the Holy Inquisition.
    You seem to have missed the beginning of the discussion. Watch this video.

  • Rosina

    I may not have done. I didn’t miss this
    Wintermute> BRIAN ROSS: In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with Al Qaida, in [the United States] and in Europe, and at one particular plot which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles, known as the Library Tower.
    Yes, yes. KSM was arrested in March, 2003. His torture lead to the foiling of a plot that scheduled for mid-2002. Unless Bob Ross is also claiming this was a victory for the CIA’s use of time machines, colour me unimpressed with his claims
    I probably did miss the bit where you explain that this isn’t the ‘valuable information’ provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
    I will however concede that sometimes the person being tortured will tell the truth – torture isn’t the equivalent of an anti-truth serum. But – and this is a very big ‘but’ – if you have no other information to confirm his statement, you can’t rely on it, and if you go off and torture anyone he names, you can’t believe what that person says either. You end up kidnapping people in ‘friendly’ countries, and sending them to members of the Axis of Evil, and then having to rely on them (people you claim are on the other side in this War on Terror) to tell you that your ‘victim’ is probably totally innocent.
    I have lost the logic of this course of action.

  • Rosina

    ‘You’ in this means any Government that believes Torture Works. I do not of course mean Aunursa, except in the sentence I probably did miss the bit where you explain that this isn’t the ‘valuable information’ provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
    Sorry for the confusion

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa, I apologize (again) for nagging you to reply: you’re absolutely right that sometimes RL (and other blogs) get in the way. I won’t do that again.
    Aunursa: Because I described various possible interrogation techniques including “playing Brittney Spears music.”
    Yes. The various torture techniques you described, used by the US military to cause pain and suffering both physical and mental, does include playing music (Britney Spears or anything else) at a decibel level to keep the prisoner awake/damage the prisoner’s hearing. Obviously, if Britney Spears is being played at musak level and turned off to allow the prisoner to get regular and sufficient sleep, it’s not an “interrogation technique”, as you so euphemistically describe torture.
    You claimed: I have never stated nor suggested that torture victims tell the truth and nothing but; nor have I ever stated or suggested that no one is tortured unless they have useful information. You. Are. Misrepresenting. My. Position. Again.
    Yet you wrote: The only reason to subject prisoners to harsh techniques would be to gain information that can save lives.
    And the only reason to believe that torturing people (your “harsh techniques”) gains information that can save lives, is if you believe – people are only tortured if they have useful information to give: torture victims tell the truth and nothing but.
    So, I am not misrepresenting your
    position after all.
    I don’t necessarily assume that the authorities are going to exempt a prisoner based on their own good will. That’s why we have laws and systems for oversight and punishments for those who violate the law.
    In theory, yes. In practice, no. The highest-ranking soldier to be punished for torturing a prisoner – an Iraqi general, protected as a PoW, who had turned himself in after US soldiers had taken two of his children hostage, who was killed in Abu Ghraib – was an NCO who received three months house arrest.
    That’s the pragmatic problem with having a list of acceptable torture techniques, and making it legal to torture prisoners on the assumption that the prisoners have useful information and will tell the truth and nothing but when they’re being tortured. It means a man who was guilty of being a Iraqi soldier, who was available to be tortured because he wanted to save his children from being tortured by the Americans, can be murdered by a US soldier, and nothing much will happen to the murderer – not even the loss of his pension. I say this is a pragmatic problem, because it shows the difficulty with enforcing laws against torturing people too much. How much is too much? Whereas a law that simply says “Do not torture” can be obeyed. (It’s also a moral problem. But someone who is okay, as you have said you are, with torturing people, would not be too bothered about the moral problem.)
    I am not aware that the Iranians maintain any standard of humane behavior regarding treatment of prisoners.
    Doesn’t answer my question. You’ve said you can live with prisoners being tortured a little bit – just enough to damage their hearing or their tendons, or send them crazy. And you’re just fine with prisoners being humiliated. So, I’m asking you – does this apply to your daughter, kidnapped by the Iranians as Iraqi children have been kidnapped by Americans? You’re okay with the Iranians threatening to rape her in front of you to get you to talk, because that’s just mental suffering for you – you yourself won’t actually be harmed by seeing her being raped?

  • Jesurgislac

    I wish to apologize to Aunursa and to his daughter for the last sentence of my comment above. (Whether his daughter reads Left Behind Fridays or not: I’m still sorry I said it.)

  • aunursa

    if you have no other information to confirm his statement, you can’t rely on it, and if you go off and torture anyone he names, you can’t believe what that person says either.
    It’s not a matter of relying on such information or simply conducting additional interrogations. There are other ways to verify the information.

  • aunursa

    Aunursa, I apologize (again) for nagging you to reply
    No problem.
    And the only reason to believe that torturing people (your “harsh techniques”) gains information that can save lives, is if you believe – people are only tortured if they have useful information to give: torture victims tell the truth and nothing but.
    1. You are equating “harsh interrogation techniques” with “torture.” I don’t — therefore you are misrepresenting my position when you attempt to place the term “torture victims” in my mouth.
    2. Your reasoning is faulty. I never said nor suggested that such techniques are 100% effective and always cause the prisoner to spill the beans. It’s merely a(nother) straw man that you have contructed.
    In theory, yes. In practice, no.
    Following that reasoning it doesn’t matter if we have rules or not regarding interrogations and torture, since they may not follow the rules anyway. At any rate American soldiers can and are prosecuted for unlawfully killing unarmed civilians. If they can be prosecuted for unlawful killings, they can be prosecuted for unlawful interrogations.
    But someone who is okay, as you have said you are, with torturing people, would not be too bothered about the moral problem.
    That is a non-sequitur.
    You’ve said you can live with prisoners being tortured a little bit – just enough to damage their hearing or their tendons, or send them crazy. And you’re just fine with prisoners being humiliated.
    You are misrepresenting my position and taking it out of context. And I note that you are distinguishing between torture and humiliation.
    I wish to apologize to Aunursa and to his daughter for the last sentence of my comment above. (Whether his daughter reads Left Behind Fridays or not: I’m still sorry I said it.)
    No offense taken. I appreciate the challenging questions. FYI: my daughter’s current reading list includes “Olivia Saves the Circus” and “Strawberry Shortcake Storybook Treasury”, so LB and this blog are a little out of her range. ;)
    I would appreciate it if you would address my Mar 06 points about the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that you had previously cited.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: No offense taken. I appreciate the challenging questions. FYI: my daughter’s current reading list includes “Olivia Saves the Circus” and “Strawberry Shortcake Storybook Treasury”, so LB and this blog are a little out of her range. ;)
    Thank you, I appreciate that. When I thought about it, I realized that – however old your daughter might be – I wouldn’t be happy with her ever reading a question like that one, even years after it was written. So, I take it back and I apologize for asking it.
    Moving on.
    It’s not a matter of relying on such information or simply conducting additional interrogations. There are other ways to verify the information.
    But if there’s any other way to get the information, why are these people being tortured?
    And if the idea is just to torture people and then verify every scrap of information they scream at you, (a) that’s quite literally an impossible workload – and (b) we do know that the only way that the US found of verifying the information screamed at them in torture sessions was to kidnap more people, torture more people.
    1. You are equating “harsh interrogation techniques” with “torture.” I don’t — therefore you are misrepresenting my position when you attempt to place the term “torture victims” in my mouth.
    You are claiming that when the US tortures people according to a series of torture techniques that you can “live with” – though not if they’re applied to you, I note – this is “harsh interrogation”, not torture. I do not accept that euphemism and will never accept it.
    2. Your reasoning is faulty. I never said nor suggested that such techniques are 100% effective and always cause the prisoner to spill the beans. It’s merely a(nother) straw man that you have contructed.
    Ah. So, in fact, you are in favor of torturing people to no purpose. I apologize: I thought you actually had some (rather stupid) but moral reasoning behind your defnse of torture.
    Following that reasoning it doesn’t matter if we have rules or not regarding interrogations and torture, since they may not follow the rules anyway.
    They may not. But, there are laws against torturing people, and until last year when the US made some torture techniques legal and repealed habeas corpus, when American soldiers tortured their prisoners, they were committing a crime. Americans who cared about their country’s moral standing could hope that eventually there would be a clear-out at the Pentagon and everyone responsible for okaying the torture of prisoners would be gone – either court-martialled or simply dishonorably discharged, depending whether they gave the order to have prisoners tortured, okayed torture techniques, or merely followed orders to torture the prisoner. Further, soldiers who refused to torture prisoners – and some, to their eternal credit, did – could not be formally/seriously punished without raising the question “Why are they being punished for obeying a criminal order?”
    But make torture a little bit legal – as the US government has done – and it becomes impossible to prosecute, or at least infinitely more difficult.
    Aunursa: At any rate American soldiers can and are prosecuted for unlawfully killing unarmed civilians. If they can be prosecuted for unlawful killings, they can be prosecuted for unlawful interrogations
    Well, most unlawful killings of unarmed civilians by American soldiers go quite unprosecuted. And all unlawful interrogations of prisoners by American soldiers have so far gone quite unprosecuted.
    You are misrepresenting my position and taking it out of context.
    I haven’t misrepresented your position yet: you’ve consistently said you’re for people being tortured.
    And I note that you are distinguishing between torture and humiliation.
    No, I’m not. But you are.
    I would appreciate it if you would address my Mar 06 points about the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that you had previously cited.
    That was a serious question? It struck me as a lawyer’s verbal quibble.
    Do you intend to answer my question – the earlier one? Are you okay with being kidnapped by Iranians and tortured for information? You’ve declared yourself to be okay with having this happen to other people – even if, as you now admit, if they have no useful information to give up.

  • aunursa

    But if there’s any other way to get the information, why are these people being tortured?
    I said other ways to verify the information (besides additional interrogations.) I didn’t say other ways necessarily to get the information in the first place. For example, information may lead authorities to capture others who have incriminating evidence in their possession (or in their apartment, automobile, etc.) That is independent corroboration regardless of any statements — coerced or voluntary — that these newly-captured prisoners may make.
    torture techniques that you can “live with” – though not if they’re applied to you … I do not accept that euphemism and will never accept it.
    I am not asking you to accept it. But it’s relevant to point out that whenever you use the word “torture”, your definition includes acts that elicit humiliation and disgust but no physical pain — a definition that I do not accept and will never accept.
    And I previously indicated that (1) I don’t support any and all techniques used indiscriminately … only certain ones and only in certain situations; and (2) if the authorities have good reason to suspect that I have been involved in planning and/or committing terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians and I am concealing information that can lead to the capture of other terrorists and/or disrupting their plans, then the authorities would be irresponsible if they failed to use coercive techniques in order to convince me to share that information.
    Ah. So, in fact, you are in favor of torturing people to no purpose.
    Another non-sequitur. Are you gonna go for the hat trick?
    Americans who cared about their country’s moral standing
    What about American who care about their country’s ability to prevent a hijacked airplane from crashing into their building tomorrow? Any concern for them?
    I haven’t misrepresented your position yet: you’ve consistently said you’re for people being tortured.
    I have never said any such thing.
    I’m not [distinguishing between torture and humiliation].
    You wrote: You’ve said you can live with prisoners being tortured a little bit – just enough to damage their hearing or their tendons, or send them crazy. And you’re just fine with prisoners being humiliated.
    Since I have never stated a position in favor of what I consider to be torture, clearly in the intial sentence you are applying your definition of torture to interrogation techniques I previously listed. If humiliation were indistinguishable from torture, you would not have referred to torture “and” humiliation. Or you would have distinguished between what you consider physical torture (e.g. hearing loss) and mental torture (humiliation).
    That was a serious question? It struck me as a lawyer’s verbal quibble.
    Is it your position that the actual words and terms used in international treaties and other such documents arern’t that important? That the lawyers don’t actually comb through the documents before they are approved? That the various representatives don’t actually do the quibbling before such documents are finalized?
    If torture by definition includes “any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, why would the title include the words “and other”? Did the UN representatives like the letters in those words better than the letters in the word “including”?
    Do you intend to answer my question – the earlier one? Are you okay with being kidnapped by Iranians and tortured for information? You’ve declared yourself to be okay with having this happen to other people – even if, as you now admit, if they have no useful information to give up.
    I don’t see any point in my answering this question when you’ve repeatedly misrepresented and distorted my answers to your previous queries. (Hint: the last sentence in your response includes multiple straw men.) When you decide to begin restating my positions accurately … then I will answer your question.

  • Jesurgislac

    For example, information may lead authorities to capture others who have incriminating evidence in their possession (or in their apartment, automobile, etc.)
    Well, yes, torturing people in order to get them to name names leads to authorities capturing others. (Discussed upthread.) These others are – given that people under torture will often say anything, incriminate anyone, to get the torturer to stop – unlikely to have incriminating evidence in their possession (though attempts can be made to make innocence material look like incriminating evidence), but they can be captured anyway, their possessions searched, and when no incriminating evidence found, tortured to make them provide some. We know this happens: Mahar Arar is probably the most famous example. This isn’t a hypothetical possibility: this is a known and inevitable consequence of torturing prisoners. Unless you are hypothesising (and you’ve claimed you’re not) that torture victims are (a) only tortured when they have useful information (b) tell the truth and nothing but, you’ve just declared yourself to be okay with capturing and torturing innocent people as an acceptable consequence of torturing prisoners “for information”.
    I am not asking you to accept it. But it’s relevant to point out that whenever you use the word “torture”, your definition includes acts that elicit humiliation and disgust but no physical pain — a definition that I do not accept and will never accept.
    Never? You must be very confident that neither you yourself, nor anyone dear to you, will never yourself be kidnapped and tortured – subjected to humiliation and disgusting acts – to be so certain that you would never regard being subjected to that as torture. Because everyone who has been so subjected, knows it is. As you’d know, if you troubled yourself to check the facts. Torturers know it too: that’s why the US torturers do it.
    (1) I don’t support any and all techniques used indiscriminately … only certain ones and only in certain situations
    Yes, you’ve listed the torture techniques that you think you can live with being used on other people.
    ; and (2) if the authorities have good reason to suspect that I have been involved in planning and/or committing terrorist attacks against unarmed civilians and I am concealing information that can lead to the capture of other terrorists and/or disrupting their plans, then the authorities would be irresponsible if they failed to use coercive techniques in order to convince me to share that information.
    But, since you’ve argued about that “good reason” can simply be that another torture victim screamed your name and made up a plot that this victim claimed you were involved in, this amounts to saying : you’re in favor of innocent people, implicated by torture, being tortured themselves. You think it’s irresponsible not to torture innocent people who have been implicated by torturing others? Again – you seem to be very certain that no torture victim will ever implicate you. (And, in the US, if you’re white and non-Muslim, that’s probably right.)
    Since I have never stated a position in favor of what I consider to be torture, clearly in the intial sentence you are applying your definition of torture to interrogation techniques I previously listed. If humiliation were indistinguishable from torture, you would not have referred to torture “and” humiliation. Or you would have distinguished between what you consider physical torture (e.g. hearing loss) and mental torture (humiliation).
    More verbal quibbling.
    Well, I can’t say it’s been pleasant arguing with someone who’s pro-torture, but it’s been interesting finding out how so many Americans have mentally justified to themselves knowing their government has tortured innocent people, sometimes to death.
    I’m going on holiday Thursday, and won’t be back till near the end of March, so while you may feel you want to respond to this comment, it’s only fair to tell you that I’m declaring my participation in this thread at an end.

  • aunursa

    Unless you are hypothesising (and you’ve claimed you’re not) that torture victims are (a) only tortured when they have useful information (b) tell the truth and nothing but, you’ve just declared yourself to be okay with capturing and torturing innocent people as an acceptable consequence of torturing prisoners “for information”.
    No I have not. I’ll state my answer in a manner that you cannot misunderstand or twist it: I am not okay with capturing and torturing innocent people.
    But, since you’ve argued about that “good reason” can simply be that another torture victim screamed your name and made up a plot that this victim claimed you were involved in,
    I have claimed no such thing.
    More verbal quibbling.
    It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who twists my words out of context but refuses to take responsibility for the words she uses.
    Well, I can’t say it’s been pleasant arguing with someone who’s pro-torture
    Personally I much prefer argue with someone with whom I disagree completely but who seeks to understand my position rather than distort for her own purposes.
    it’s only fair to tell you that I’m declaring my participation in this thread at an end.
    That’s fine. I was getting tired of the way this discussion was going.

  • Rosina

    I’ll state my answer in a manner that you cannot misunderstand or twist it: I am not okay with capturing and torturing innocent people.
    Just so I’m clear. Does this mean:
    1. That you are OK with capturing and torturing guilty people:
    2. That you are OK with capturing and torturing people who you (or the Intelligence Services) believe are guilty:
    3. That you are OK with capturing and torturing people to find out if they are guilty:
    4. That you are OK with capturing and holding innocent people, but not torturing them.
    Does your standard of ‘innocent’ mean that there is a presumption of innocence, or a presumption of guilt? Does it have to be on the balance of probabilities, or beyond all reasonable doubt?
    Do you think that your Government has the same high standards as you? If not, are you willing for them to torture in your name, anyway?

  • aunursa

    Rosina,
    My answers to your questions depend on (a) your definition of torture, and (b) whether you are referring to criminal suspects or terrorist suspects.

  • Rosina

    a) My definition of torture is, in this case, your definition – the sort of ‘torture’ you are not happy to see meted out to the innocent. Presumably it is more than just a black look, but if you are OK to see the innocent threatened with rape and made to assume stress postures because you don’t consider these actions torture, then apply that definition. I do not wish to twist your words which were I am not okay with capturing and torturing innocent people.
    b) Either criminal or terrorist. Presumably your innocent people are innocent of both criminal and terrorist activities. In fact, terrorist activities are criminal, so there is an overlap. But if you wish to modify your statement to say I am not okay with capturing and torturing people who are innocent of terrorist activity, even if suspected of murder, rape and kidnapping for purely criminal ends then it is your right.
    Of course, under US and UK law, a suspect is ‘innocent until proved guilty’, so you are presumably not OK to see either criminal or terrorist suspects tortured. That was the point of my questions – whose judgement do you trust to say who is innocent and who is guilty? Do you trust them not to torture (using your definition) the innocent? Are there any limits to what you would be OK with, if applied to terrorist or criminal suspects? Are they the same limits as are in operation now?
    I repeat: Do you think that your Government has the same high standards as you? If not, are you willing for them to torture in your name, anyway?

  • Jesurgislac

    FWIW, Rosina: I am not okay with people who have been given a fair trial and convicted being tortured, either. Even if one could establish beyond doubt that the person being tortured is guilty of horrible crimes and can be said to deserve to be tortured… that does not mean that anyone would deserve to become a torturer.

  • Rosina

    Jesurgislac – I didn’t think you were happy about anyone being tortured, not even the Left-Behind goats. But some adverse treatment – being locked up in prison, having your movements and contacts restricted, only having five TV channels – are properly applied to ‘the guilty’. They might even count as humiliating and degrading treatment, in the UN terms.
    My question however was that whatever our standards of what can be done to whom, we have to rely on others – our representatives – to apply them. And I don’t know if I trust them.

  • aunursa

    I am not okay with torturing people under my definition of torture — which may or may not differ from your definition.
    For the purpose of moving along the discussion, I’ll assume that you are referring to coercive interrogation techniques that are do not rise to the level of torture. Also for the purpose of answering your question, I’ll assume that you are referring specifically to designated enemy combatants who are suspected of terrorist activities. None of my answers refer to people accused or convicted of criminal activity that does not include terrorism or supporting designated terrorist groups.
    Does this mean:
    1. That you are OK with capturing and [interrogating] guilty people: I am okay with capturing and interrogating people suspected of involvement in planning, attempting, or supporting terrorist attacks or providing material support to terrorist organizations.
    2. That you are OK with capturing and [interrogating] people who … the Intelligence Services believe are guilty [of terrorism]: Yes.
    3. That you are OK with capturing and [interrogating] people to find out if they are guilty [of terrorism]: Only if the authorities have a preponderance of evidence that the person is involved in terrorist activity.
    4. That you are OK with capturing and holding [people that the authorities know -- or should know are innocent], but not [interrogating] them. No.
    Do you think that your Government has the same high standards as you? If not, are you willing for them to torture in your name, anyway?
    My government allowed waterboarding so it did not have the same high standards at one point. I admit that I am not fully aware of the current American standards, so I cannot answer that part of your question. As to the second part, I object to the phrasing “in your name”. Either I am willing for the government to conduct certain techniques or I am not.

  • aunursa

    FWIW, Rosina: I am not okay with people who have been given a fair trial and convicted being tortured, either. Even if one could establish beyond doubt that the person being tortured is guilty of horrible crimes and can be said to deserve to be tortured… that does not mean that anyone would deserve to become a torturer.
    On this matter, at least, we are in agreement. Torture is not a valid punishment under any circumstances.

  • aunursa

    we have to rely on others – our representatives – to apply them. And I don’t know if I trust them.
    That is the situation in almost everything we authorize the government to do — including creating and enforcing the entire legal system, teaching our children, defending the country against domestic and foreign threats, protecting the environment, etc., etc.

  • Rosina

    Me: Do you think that your Government has the same high standards as you? If not, are you willing for them to torture in your name, anyway?
    Aunursa accepts that techniques have been used to which she would have objected and continued: As to the second part, I object to the phrasing “in your name”. Either I am willing for the government to conduct certain techniques or I am not.
    If you are not, and you protest that unwillingness than the government’s conduct ceases to be ‘in your name’. If you object to the government’s techniques, but do not protest, then from the point of view of the outsider (and the insider) the actions taken have your support. qui tacet consentire videtur (“he who is silent is deemed to consent”; Digesten 19, 2, (And don’t ask me whose Digest it is, I just Googled for silence and consent). If you tacitly agree without protest of some meaningful kind then the Glorious Leader can count your name among those supporting his actions.
    In most cases when we authorize others to act – doctors, teachers, bureaucrats – we know what they are meant to do, what rules govern their behaviour, and can protest when they step outside the rules, whether we are patients, students or social welfare claimants. Or Veterans looking for treatment. We can see the laws, the rules all laid down at central/local or federal/state/county level and if we don’t like it we can seek to change it.
    But if you have to admit I am not fully aware of the current American standards you cannot play a role in setting a moral stance for a Democratic country. [I am assuming you are a USian - if not, please ignore this, since you definitely can't influence what US forces do.]You cannot force your President and Administration to stop before beating a taxi-driver to death, striking him repeatedly about the legs, or prevent the waterboarding of a genuine Prisoner of War until he died. So you are either going to accept that your government is doing this in your name, or you are going to protest, and seek to change the laws.
    If you want to change the ‘Rules of Interrogation’, you might feel, as I do deep within myself, that a bit of harsh treatment is called for, particularly against criminals. I grew up with the Sweeney, and Life on Mars reminds me how it was meant to be. There was a criminal, well known and the right one. He was taken to the station and ‘roughed up’. This seemed (on TV) to consist of shouting at him, giving him cigarettes then snatching them from him, and when it got rough pushing him off his chair, grabbing his coat and shouting into his face from a distance of about 5 inches, and – if there were kids involved – punching him. Sometimes, if the real villain was ‘getting away with it’, our good cops would add a bit of weight to the evidence – but the man going down was guilty, so that, again was all right.
    So unlike Jesurgislac, I am not fundamentally against torture-lite, and in the scenarios I mentioned above, I don’t think the police were being turned into torturers – just ‘thief-takers’ doing their best.
    But – and there is always a but. When you go past the TV Cop shows and into the real world you find that the violence is rather worse, that the police are much less certain that they have the right man, and that the motivation for both ‘roughing up’ and ‘fixing-up’ are only partly about ensuring justice is done, but also about achieving clear-up rates (Gaming the Stats), paying off old scores, soliciting bribes, and protecting the real villains who are either bribing or grassing their way into favour.
    And the violence was more than I was content with. My first reaction was that they weren’t playing fair. But the second was that you had to set absolutely firm limits for police etc. Which had to be known to the public and the prisoners, who had to have channels to protect themselves. Or the men who were doing the ‘roughing up’ I could live with, would be dropping people out of planes into lakes, and it was terribly difficult to retreat.

  • hapax

    Rosina: “And don’t ask me whose Digest it is, I just Googled for silence and consent”
    Justinian I, Byzantine emperor. A fascinating character and a mass of contradictions.
    “But if you have to admit ‘I am not fully aware of the current American standards’ you cannot play a role in setting a moral stance for a Democratic country.”
    In all fairness, I don’t think ANYONE’S aware of the current American standards, including the people doing the interrogations. The Decider and his henchmen won’t tell us — that would just let the emeny know what to expect, doncha know.

  • Rosina

    Everything seems to be making my point. If you can’t set the standards, then the standards set and the practices followed might exceed what you have ‘voted’ for. Who watches the torturers? And who watches them?

  • aunursa

    Aunursa accepts that techniques have been used to which she would have objected and continued
    She?
    If you object to the government’s techniques, but do not protest, then from the point of view of the outsider (and the insider) the actions taken have your support.
    The government is responsible for thousands upon thousands of decisions and policies. There is no expectation that any citizen is going to review each and every policy and decision, much less express disapproval of those with which that citizen disagrees. Others, including a nation’s leaders, may automatically equate silence with approval — I do not.
    But if you have to admit “I am not fully aware of the current American standards” you cannot play a role in setting a moral stance for a Democratic country.
    Not necessarily. I can express my opinion as to what I believe the standards should be irrespective of my level of knowledge regarding current standards.
    If you can’t set the standards, then the standards set and the practices followed might exceed what you have ‘voted’ for. Who watches the [interrogators]? And who watches them?
    In a republic the citizens trust their elected representatives to act in the national interest.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: I am okay with capturing and interrogating people suspected of involvement in planning, attempting, or supporting terrorist attacks or providing material support to terrorist organizations.
    And since you have listed the torture techniques you are okay with having been used in interrogation, with this statement you make clear that you are okay with having innocent people tortured. You know that some of the people “suspected” will be innocent. You said in your comment to me that you are unwilling to have people who have actually been convicted – who have gone through the accepted process of establishing guilt – being tortured. But torturing innocent people – that’s okay.
    Your claims that you are not okay with what you have just approved of, are your means of pretending to yourself that your approval of allowing innocent people to be kidnapped and tortured, doesn’t actually mean you approve of innocent people being kidnapped and tortured. Which is how, as I realized before I went on holiday, so many Americans have talked themselves into believing it’s okay to have a government that has formally legalized torture.

  • bulbul

    In a republic the citizens trust their elected representatives to act in the national interest.
    I will almost certainly regret asking this, but dude, are you friggin’ nuts?
    As long as there is blood flowing through my veins, as long as I draw breath and as long as there are two functioning neurons in my brain exchanging signals, I will never EVER trust a politician. EVER.
    The difference between a republic and any other system of government is that in a republic, the leaders are at the mercy of the people (and not the other way around).
    Sweet Jesus, I hope you wrote this only because Jesu’s got you in a corner and you don’t actually believe that shit. Coz if you do, you’re fucked.

  • Jesurgislac

    Rosina: But some adverse treatment – being locked up in prison, having your movements and contacts restricted, only having five TV channels – are properly applied to ‘the guilty’.
    Actually, I think that the primary objective of a penal system ought to be to protect people from crime: and the best way to do that is to ensure prisons are places of reform, rather than punishment.

  • Rosina

    The government is responsible for thousands upon thousands of decisions and policies. There is no expectation that any citizen is going to review each and every policy and decision, much less express disapproval of those with which that citizen disagrees. Others, including a nation’s leaders, may automatically equate silence with approval — I do not.
    And the decision on whether Mrs Jenkins gets her pension, and the handling of the evacuation of New Orleans, and the kidnapping and torture of foreign nationals, are all much of a muchness, and you’d better just let the government get on with it, because getting involved in requiring morality, efficiency or legality is not work for a citizen! It’s not even that you have to investigate much – the facts as they are known could lead someone to want to impose values on this administration. If enough voters felt that they did not want to be known as a nation that supports torture they could have voted for a new Administration after the facts came out. That’s the point of an election – to allow you to express approval or disapproval of what the Government has done.
    And if you are not ‘she’ then I am sorry – I don’t have a copy of the database.

  • aunursa

    And since you have listed the torture techniques you are okay with having been used in interrogation, with this statement you make clear that you are okay with having innocent people tortured.
    It’s pointless for me to continue discussing this subject with you, since you have made it clear that your only interest is in misrepresenting my point of view. I hope you have a chance to read my belated response to you at the bottom of the 84% reject civility thread. Not only have I observed you distorting your opponents’ arguments on other message boards, but apparently you have been accused of similar tactics on other threads on this website. I guess it’s a habit you can’t break.
    Rosina for one appears to be able to discuss this subject in a grown up manner, so I’ll continue with her. At least it won’t be a complete waste of my time.

  • aunursa

    I will never EVER trust a politician. EVER.
    Do you vote? If so, on what do you base your selection?

  • aunursa

    If enough voters felt that they did not want to be known as a nation that supports torture they could have voted for a new Administration after the facts came out. That’s the point of an election – to allow you to express approval or disapproval of what the Government has done.
    Absolutely. The United States electorate make their choice known regarding how they feel about the executive branch every four years. They made their opinion known in 2004 regarding the current administration. They will do so again in 2008 to choose a new administration. They made similar choices regarding the legislative branch every two years. We are in agreement.
    And if you are not ‘she’ then I am sorry – I don’t have a copy of the database.
    No offense taken. I just find it amusing.

  • R. Mildred

    In a republic the citizens trust their elected representatives to act in the national interest.
    No, in a republic the leadership of the nation is not expected to be divine or unimpeachable or uncriticisable – ideally this should also involve some sort of system of checks and balances that stop any ruler being too big a monster and doing what all monsters always end up doing; collapsing the whole system of government and the nation which it maintains with their bloated monstrosity, like hitler and gaius julius and napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm and That Particular King Louis of France and Tsar Nicholas II – however in our current system the main checks and balances are supposed to be, in descending order of importance,
    - The Electorate (which in a true democracy consists of everyone who the government affects, and would be more difficult to opt out of than to engage in – atm in america the reverse actually holds true), via the voting system or via first amendment type rights to demand redress of the public grievances via protest and other means (the latter of which Bush has systematically fucked to death btw, while at the same time routinely engaging in ludicrous amounts of voter fraud towards traditional dem voters (like poc in general) thus fucking with the former).
    The electorate is then supported and enabled in this soveriegn duty by:
    - The Media (which unfortunately is owned entirely by people who back republicans and the far right, and so doesn’t support the interests of the people, but the interests of hte people who support rpublicans and hte right wing).
    And if all else fails:
    - The Courts (which is also being fucked with until it also becomes a distinctly partisan thing).
    In a Dictatorship, the public are expected to treat the government like they’re working in the public interest, even (or probably especially) when they’re not.

  • Jesurgislac

    Aunursa: It’s pointless for me to continue discussing this subject with you, since you have made it clear that your only interest is in misrepresenting my point of view.
    It’s pointless for anyone to continue discussing this subject with you, so long as you refuse to face the reality that being okay with having people suspected of terrorism tortured means you are okay with having innocent people being tortured. I’m not misrepresenting your point of view: I am spelling out to you what, in the real world, your point of view entails.
    Which is, of course, precisely what I do to people who say “Of COURSE I’m pro-life” – point out to them that to be pro-life means, in the real world where being pro-life means being opposed to women having the right to legal abortion, that you are saying “Of COURSE I want women to suffer and die! Of COURSE I like it when people mob health clinics and harass patients and staff! Of COURSE I think it only right to force women through unwanted pregnancy and childbirth!”
    It’s very like being pro-torture, in way: wanting to believe in a rosy happy TV-land world and getting very annoyed with anyone who points out that the real world is nothing like a TV series: allow suspects to be tortured and innocent people will be tortured. Call torture “harsh interrogation” all you like: it will not make a torturer any better.
    OTOH, it may be pointless to debate with you, but I don’t doubt people will…

  • aunursa

    in a republic the leadership of the nation is not expected to be divine or unimpeachable or uncriticisable – ideally this should also involve some sort of system of checks and balances
    Absolutely. We are in agreement on this point.
    In a Dictatorship, the public are expected to treat the government like they’re working in the public interest, even (or probably especially) when they’re not.
    In a democracy, the government serves the citizenry; in a dictatorship, the citizens serve the government.

  • http://blogs.grab.com/OFFICE_FURNITURE Used office furniture in orlando fl.

    Office furniture.

    Office furniture. Used office furniture in orlando fl. Used office furniture minneapolis mn.

  • http://blogs.grab.com/OFFICE_FURNITURE Kids office furniture.

    Office furniture.

    Bush office furniture. Office furniture perth wa. Used office furniture. Office furniture. Home office furniture calgary. Black office furniture suites. Used office furniture minneapolis. Modular home office furniture.