U.S. Politics III

[The White Wolf]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1675927' date='Feb 5 2009, 22.08'][url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06cia.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print"]Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation[/url]



How is this any different than the last administration?[/quote]

How many ticking bombs did the last administration have? Hundreds? Note that it didn't say that the President would authorize the use of torture, merely that it would be asked for.

Edit: Yes, I am disapointed in the administration for that and if I find out there is torture going on, he's not getting a penny from me for re-election.

[Shryke]

[quote name='The White Wolf' post='1675931' date='Feb 5 2009, 23.09']How many ticking bombs did the last administration have? Hundreds? Note that it didn't say that the President would authorize the use of torture, merely that it would be asked for.

Edit: Yes, I am disapointed in the administration for that and if I find out there is torture going on, he's not getting a penny from me for re-election.[/quote]

This sounds like their way of getting around the much used "Ticking Time Bomb" Fallacy. Basically "Ok, if this impossible situation DOES actually happen, we might consider stronger action".

[Shryke]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1676060' date='Feb 6 2009, 00.56']The ticking time bomb is such a weak example. "If there was a ticking bomb somewhere in Los Angeles and Jack Bauer was in a locked room with the only man who knew how to stop it, would you let him go all 24 on his ass?"[/quote]

Yes, it is. It's a complete fallacy. But it's a very powerful and widely believed one.

What he describes in that article is the most common belief you get out of people on torture when you really ask them about it.

"Is torture ok?"

"Oh, hell no! That's shit terrible and shouldn't be done!"

"But what if there's a nuclear bomb about to go off in New York and you've only got 1 hour to get the information out of a terrorist?!?!?!"

"Well, I guess in that case, yeah, torture would be ok."

[DanteGabriel]

"Would you hit your mother?"

"Fuck no! I love my mom!"

"What if she was about to kill you and your wife and children and your dog?"

"Well..."

[Shryke]

The key words are highlighted here:
[quote][b]Under insistent questioning[/b] from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.[/quote]

Basically, he said "No torture" and they kept asking and asking and creating more and more implausible scenarios till finally he said "Yes, if this crazily implausible situation arises, I will ask the White House if maybe, this time, we could bend the rules just for this special case".

[litechick]

" insistent questioning " = "enhanced interrogation" = Torture!

So they tortured him until he admitted that he would use torture...and the cycle of violence continues.


[no. I'm not serious.]

[Shryke]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1676154' date='Feb 6 2009, 03.27'][url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29032319"]Should this worry me?[/url]

Getting shut down as far as bases. On the one hand, I want out of Afghanistan (where empires go to die) ASAP. On the other hand, I'm a bit fearful that this is an indication in the waning power of the US.[/quote]

Here's the main point in that link:[quote]Russia, irked by the U.S. military presence in Kyrgyzstan which it regards as part of its strategic sphere of interest, has long exerted pressure on the small, landlocked and mountainous Central Asian country to evict the U.S. forces.

NATO says it is concerned about Russia's possible involvement in the Kyrgyz decision. Moscow, which operates its own military base in Kyrgyzstan, has strongly denied any link between its aid package and the move to shut Manas.[/quote]

This is more of Russia flexing it's muscles. And considering what happened in Georgia not long ago, of course Kyrgyzstan folded.

They know which of the 2 sides will fuck them up if need be.

[litechick]

Just saw the Pelosi clip again. It's fun to chuckle at the misspeak but what should the statistic have been? What did she mean to say and where did she get the number?

[Ser Aardvark]

[quote name='litechick' post='1676240' date='Feb 6 2009, 05.56']Just saw the Pelosi clip again. It's fun to chuckle at the misspeak but what should the statistic have been? What did she mean to say and where did she get the number?[/quote]
5,000?

[Fatuous]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1676100' date='Feb 6 2009, 01.58']The key words are highlighted here:

Basically, he said "No torture" and they kept asking and asking and creating more and more implausible scenarios till finally he said "Yes, if this crazily implausible situation arises, I will ask the White House if maybe, this time, we could bend the rules just for this special case".[/quote]

It was just done so Righties could go "See, see! Obama's no different! Obama's no different!" But of course, they are smarter than that. I suppose I would have to check C-Span to see who in the Senate was badgering Panetta as it doesn't get mentioned in the article. Now that's torture.

[Annelise]

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1676452' date='Feb 6 2009, 10.02']I would have to check C-Span to see who in the Senate was badgering Panetta as it doesn't get mentioned in the article. Now that's torture.[/quote]

:lol: I doubt it was him, but put Kerry down as a master.

[Rhom]

[quote name='Ser Aardvark' post='1676433' date='Feb 6 2009, 09.48']5,000?[/quote]

Hell... we lost 5,000 jobs in my podunk county in Kentucky over the last couple of months. One article I read said the number is 500,000/month across the country. That sounds doable.

I agree completely that this is the sort of thing that would have been blown ridiculously out of proportion had Bush said it.

[TrackerNeil]

[quote name='Rhom' post='1676620' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.41']I agree completely that this is the sort of thing that would have been blown ridiculously out of proportion had Bush said it.[/quote]

Maybe because it would have provided further proof (if any were needed) that Bush was a president out of touch with reality. When this kind of thing comes from Nancy Pelosi, who recognizes the basics of the world in which we live, it's quite rightly written off as a minor flub.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1676707' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.15']Maybe because it would have provided further proof (if any were needed) that Bush was a president out of touch with reality. When this kind of thing comes from Nancy Pelosi, who recognizes the basics of the world in which we live, it's quite rightly written off as a minor flub.[/quote]
Well, to be fair, I don't think Pelosi is that much in touch with real life either. She strikes me as too much of a helicopter liberal.

Still, it's hard to imagine anyone as out of touch or willfully delusional as Bushipus Rex.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

What's a "Heliocopter Liberal"?

[Ser Aardvark]

[quote name='TrackerNeil' post='1676707' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.15']Maybe because it would have provided further proof (if any were needed) that Bush was a president out of touch with reality. When this kind of thing comes from Nancy Pelosi, who recognizes the basics of the world in which we live, it's quite rightly written off as a minor flub.[/quote]
:rofl:

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1676723' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.21']DG,

What's a "Heliocopter Liberal"?[/quote]
As an old buddy of mine once said, "The sort of liberal who gets on a megaphone to tell people about how harmful to the environment their cars are, and then gets into a helicopter to harangue the next crowd."

ETA: To be clear, I am pretty sure Pelosi simply misspoke when she quoted that figure.

[Commodore]

[url="http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart"]LINK[/url]

[quote]Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

"There's deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

[b]He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.[/b][/quote]

I wonder how long until the maximum and minimum wage converge into just the only wage we are allowed to recieve, as determined by Barney Frank and Co.

If he is looking for a way to drive every U.S. company to Dubai, this is a good start.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Commodore' post='1676730' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.27']I wonder how long until the maximum and minimum wage converge into just the only wage we are allowed to recieve, as determined by Barney Frank and Co.[/quote]
Yes, clearly populist-driven wage caps on the venal, irresponsible plutocrats who got us into an historically fucked up financial crisis and still keep their hands out for federal bucks to pay themselves multimillion dollar bonuses are one short step away from state-mandated wages for all.

I will see you in the toilet paper line, [i]tovarisch[/i].

[Commodore]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1676736' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.32']one short step away from state-mandated wages for all[/quote]

all U.S. companies, that's what Frank said