Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (344221)	7/24/2007 9:06:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

No answer from Bigmouth?

To: Sully- who wrote (344221)	7/24/2007 9:43:58 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574326

Not a bad list, actually. A dozen are typical strawmen, but many are on point. And you missed quite a few. I guess the point you are trying to make is that there are a lot of extraordinary accusations against the Bush administration. And I can't argue with that. Many, many more than any admin in my memory. I wonder why that is? Could it be that the people and the historians are right; that this is the worst Presidency in US history?

To: Sully- who wrote (344221)	7/25/2007 5:40:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574326

* stolen election: never been proven one way or the other. * selected President: never heard that one. * tax cuts for the rich: duh.....what part of this one do you not get? * Saddam was contained - sanctions were working: they were....there were no WMDs, no purchase of yellow cake uranium, no ties to al Qaida....as the Bushies contended. * rush to war: that's right.....the weapons inspectors wanted more time......Bush wouldn't give it to them. Why? * unilateral - go it alone canards: we did go it alone,nothing false about that....oh yeah, there was the ten men from poland and the 6 guys and a gal from Bulgaria but the invasion was unilateral.......its been American lives and American money and American firepower......primarily. * Iraq war planned before 9/11: that's right.......the neocons were pushing for an invasion while Clinton was president. * Bush knew in advance about 9/11 & did nothing; I pray that's not true. * illegal war: all war is illegal. * Bush lied us into war: what part of his one do you not get? * the imminent threat canard: you're getting redundant. * civilians intentionally targeted/massive civilian casualties canards: I hope not. * if we go to War in Iraq, there will be a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks globally: There have been......terrorism has been on the ascendancy for the past two years. * the Wilson/Plame/yellowcake canards: you keep using the word canard incorrectly.....there is nothing false about Wilson/Plame/yellowcake.....stop listening to Rush. * quagmire: what do you call Iraq these days? * bogged down: see quagmire * Bush's justification for war was "stockpiles" of WMD's & nothing else: that was one of the major reasons given.......if you doubt that, then revisit Powell's Feb. presentation to the UN. * Saddam had no ties/connections to Al Qaeda: he didn't...if you think he did, prove it. * there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to Saddam's removal: if there were, they were much fewer than there are now. * The Bush Admin falsely linked Saddam to 9/11 as part of the justification to go to war: true. * Bush was AWOL: Where was he when he was missing meetings? * Bush received "special" treatment based upon Dan Rather's forged documents: haven't heard that one. * Bush's crushing of dissent & freedoms: haven't heard that one. He has restricted freedoms.......hasn't stifled dissent......yet. That's enough....throwing everything but the kitchen sink is a great way to get away from the core issues and prevent any meaningful discourse. Its a great way to deal when you can't possibly win a one on one discussion. And btw you overuse the word canard and with most examples, used it incorrectly.

To: Sully- who wrote (344221)	7/31/2007 9:05:13 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

What are you doing here? This thread is for righties and lefties, not punching bags. <g> Iraq war planned before 9/11 This one is obviously a lie, since we know there was no planning involved in the Iraq War. Tom

To: Sully- who wrote (344221)	10/10/2007 2:32:07 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

So Be It? The dangers of defining "torture" down. BY BRET STEPHENS Tuesday, October 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT It all but goes without saying that torture, properly defined and in nearly every circumstance, is wrong. But what do you make of the following statement, from a recent editorial in the Economist: "Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavory practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it"? The subject of torture is again in the news thanks to a front-page story last week in the New York Times. It claims that in 2005 the Justice Department issued secret legal memorandums authorizing what the paper calls "severe interrogations," even after the administration had apparently renounced such methods. President Bush responded to the Times's story, as he has previously, by insisting "this government does not torture people." But the editorial writers at the Times were not impressed: "Is this a nation," they asked, "that tortures human beings and then concocts legal sophistries to confuse the world and avoid accountability before American voters?" Two significant questions arise from this debate. First, what do we really mean by the word "torture"? And second, is the "So be it" standard put forward by the Economist a persuasive one? The first question is not just a hairsplitting one, although a lot of hair gets split when government lawyers are asked for their opinion. Torture is a word that preserves its moral force only when used precisely and consistently to denote uniquely barbarous acts. "The needle under the fingernail" is one example. Simply to mention it causes most people instinctively to shudder. By contrast, "slaps to the head," among the examples cited by the Times of the administration's "brutal" methods, doesn't come close to meeting any plausible definition of torture. The other examples--"hours held naked in a frigid [50 degree Fahrenheit] cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding"--come progressively closer to the line, and perhaps they cross it. But how do we tell? A useful benchmark was offered by a landmark 1978 decision laid down by the European Court of Human Rights. In Ireland v. the United Kingdom, which dealt with Britain's (extrajudicial) treatment of members of the Irish Republican Army, the court concluded that the following methods did not amount to torture: "(a) Wall-standing: Forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a 'stress position,' described by those who underwent it as being 'spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers.' "(b) Hooding: Putting a black or navy colored bag over the detainees' heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation. "(c) Subjection to noise: Pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise. "(d) Deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep. "(e) Deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the center and pending interrogations." Remarkably, the European Court reached this careful judgment despite the fact that the "five techniques were applied in combination, with premeditation and for hours at a stretch" and that some of the detainees sustained "massive" injuries. The court's reasoning wasn't meant to excuse the behavior of British authorities, which it rightly described as "inhuman and degrading." But by maintaining the "distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment,' " the court sought to preserve the "special stigma [attached] to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering." These distinctions are not "legal sophistries," as the Times would have it. They are a juridical necessity to ensure that our definition of torture does not become so diluted as to render its prohibition unenforceable. But the abuse of the word does have its rhetorical uses: As with the militant anti-abortion movement, which believes that every abortion is murder and thus that every abortionist is a "murderer," the Times editorialists and their fellow travelers would characterize anyone who favors so much as touching a hair on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's head as "pro-torture." This isn't argument. It's moral bullying. For the record, count me as one who does not object to the interrogation to which KSM was reportedly subjected, including waterboarding. This is not because I take the use of waterboarding lightly (although I have a hard time concluding that a technique, however terrifying, to which CIA officers are willing to subject themselves experimentally can properly be counted as torture). It's because I take the threat posed by KSM seriously. That makes it difficult for me to subscribe to the "So be it" line of reasoning. Taken seriously, it says that the civilized world would be better off sustaining a nuclear 9/11 than tarnishing its good name, that righteous victimhood is a finer thing than an innocent life saved through morally compromised methods, and that self-preservation is not the most fundamental requirement of democratic life. In nearly all conflicts, even existential ones, limits should be observed, and it's worth thinking through where exactly the limits lie. But when the moral trade-off comes down to KSM waterboarded in order to extract actionable intelligence, or some mother's child murdered, it's not a tough call. And no amount of inflated, imprecise and tendentious allegations of torture should change that. Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays. opinionjournal.com