The CIA's Secret Prisons
The Washington Post reports on a network of secret CIA prisons, or "black sites," scattered around the world, where top-level terror suspects are kept with, it appears, no effective oversight whatever:
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
[….]
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
[….]
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
It's well worth reading the whole thing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
andrew sullivan: "It's particularly ironic that Eastern European countries, recently freed from the horrors of communism, now acquiesce to a new prison system where torture takes place beyond the law. These days, though, it's run by the United States! Just for the record: when the president says he doesn't condone torture, he is lying."
I'm trying real hard to be outraged by this.
Still trying.
I read the article this morning. Very disturbing.
I know that some people will say that there's nothing illegal, unconstitutional, etc. about these prisons. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right, and that there's nothing in our Constitution, our statutes, court precedents, or duly ratified treaties that prohibits us from doing this.
With that out of the way, who here thinks that building a network of secret prisons is a good idea?
If you do think it's a good idea, do you see anything ironic about establishing one of those secret prisons in "a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe"?
I think we need a special prosecutor to subpoena the reporter and prosecute the leakers.
Ummm - who's SUPPOSED to have oversight of these 'prisons' - the government?? What's wrong with being libertarian in our anti-terrorism measures?
BTW, to be clear, I'm not calling for anybody to be released. I just think it might be nice if we had some sort of process to verify that the people being held in prison really are guilty of crimes against the United States. A process supervised by somebody who neither writes laws nor executes laws. Like, maybe a member of a third branch of government. And where evidence is examined in an adversarial process (as libertarians, don't we all believe that competition gives better outcomes?).
Yeah, what's new here? We already knew about the 'torture planes', extraordinary rendition and help from the Mossad etc. Why all the outrage now?
It wasn't that clever the first time, when Instapundit said it.
Yeah, Glenn Reynolds made the same joke about prosecuting the leakers. Hardy har.
This goes to the foundation of what liberty is. No one who supports this gets to cry "small government" again. If we let this continue, we are saying that when the President decides a situation is a special circumstance, he/she can snatch people off the street without a warrant, hold them in a secret facility in an undisclosed country, prevent them from having any means of legal redress, and torture them without regard for international treaty or American law. There are no checks on this executive power.
What's not to love?
The Washington Post sure seems to know a lot about these "secret" prisons.
Am I really supposed to believe that the CIA didn't have any secret detention/interrogation centers before 9/11? I'm sorry, the cynic in me just can't take that at face value.
Where are they holding bin Laden?
wasnt he trained by the CIA?
I agree with Thoreau. I'd like to know who exactly was in there and whether or not they are really terrorists, insurgents, etc. And yet I still find it hard to feel much sympathy for terrorists. I agree with the argument against this stuff in my head, but in my heart. . . "Black Sites" by the way is one of the creepiest names for something sordid and covert I believe I've ever heard.
If we can't have secret prison camps outside the rule of law, then the terrorists have won.
We just need the Congress to set up a Star Chamber court and be done with it.
Our own military has admitted that many of the people we've got in places like Abu Ghraib (including some we've tortured to death) had done nothing wrong, but were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wonder what percentage of the people in these CIA torture camps are also innocent.
eric-
There's no need to feel sympathy for terrorists. You can hate the terrorists and still fear unchecked power. All I want is some sort of process to correct mistakes.
And yes, I know, some people will say that this is all perfectly legal. Well, lots of things are perfectly legal, but not all of them are wise. This may very well be perfectly legal (I doubt it, but I'll concede the point for the sake of argument), but it is nonetheless dangerous to our liberty.
You can hate the terrorists and still fear unchecked power.
Typical Conservative Response:
What? Only the guilty have anything to fear from these camps. If you are afraid, you must therefore be GUILTY!
Just for the record: when the president says he doesn't condone torture, he is lying."
Am I really supposed to believe that the CIA didn't have any secret detention/interrogation centers before 9/11?
Both good points. Should we concede it's likely that every president in the last 60 years condones torture, then?
Ummm - who's SUPPOSED to have oversight of these 'prisons' - the government?? What's wrong with being libertarian in our anti-terrorism measures?
the CIA is a governmental organization. my tax money allows them to exist; therefore they are accountable to me.
and similarly, unfortunately, i am accountable to the rest of the world for what they do.
And remember folks, if this came to light under a liberal administration, the Repubicans would be demanding an investigation and the hosts of the right wing radio squawk shows would be screaming that these prisons were built by the ACLU to hold conservative Christians and gun owners.
Both good points. Should we concede it's likely that every president in the last 60 years condones torture, then?
Mmm, don't know. But I do know that this president knows, and is therefore an accomplice.
Sympathy for "terrorists" is beside the point. Who has sympathy for mass murderers? We still make the state prove someone is ACTUALLY a mass murderer (at least to some degree, flawed as the process is) before we stick needles in their arms.
Given that the administration has ruled that the President can detain a US citizen arrested on US soil FOREVER without charge or conviction, what assurances are there that there are no US citizens in one of these black sites? Or that there won't eventually be? If you were in one of these holes, what recourse do you think you'd have? Less than none. We have become a torture state, pure and simple.
Another argument will be that if it's OK to kill them on the battle field, why isn't it OK to detain them without trial?
Leaving aside any legal issues (I'm prepared to concede any legal points and get down to the "OK, but is it a good idea?" issue), a battle field is a kill-or-be-killed situation. Once a prisoner is in custody, the situation is no longer kill-or-be-killed, and so a different standard must apply. If not on legal grounds, or even moral grounds, then certainly on practical grounds. A mistake made while being shot at is more forgivable than a mistake that is continued for years, by people who aren't facing enemy fire, and who have had the time to review the prisoner's background and deeds.
And since the captors might make a mistake in their evaluation of the prisoner, it helps to have some sort of third party review the evidence, and also review evidence submitted by the prisoner and his representatives.
What the hell has happened to my country? We never fully lived up to "the land of the free," but at least in the old days we were trying. We were heading in the right direction. When did we reverse course?
And where are the partisan, brain-dead fools who support this? I know y'all are out there somewhere. Reassure me by explaining how we're still less evil than North Korea.
what's new here?
...except maybe that Sullivan is, at heart, a weenie -- a hysterical little reactionary girl who, upon first discovering that hamburger is ground from cows, vows to become a vegan and protest the morally unconscionable meat industry... for a few weeks, before discovering the delicate joys of sampling raw, and oh-so-buttery, thin-sliced Wagyu beef off the downy buttocks of some pubescent waif of a boy he found wandering around the streets of Provincetown.
And remember folks, if this came to light under a liberal administration, the Repubicans would be demanding an investigation and the hosts of the right wing radio squawk shows would be screaming that these prisons were built by the ACLU to hold conservative Christians and gun owners.
I don't know about that -- when one hears CIA they don't generally think "Democrats" -- but really, who cares? Whoever demands it, an investigation is called for.
Exactly, thoreau. Even on the battlefield, once you take a prisoner, he's protected (or is supposed to be).
you all don't get it. we're fighting a different kind of enemy here.
BTW, today is the anniversary of the vicious murder of Theo van Gogh. Let us not forget him.
Still trying.
Look I agree in principle with most of the arguments against this practice. Then the dark, vengeful side of me kicks in.
If these guys were political dissidents that have been disappeared by a fascist regime I would be outraged. But these are guys that want to blow me the fuck up and destroy every thing that I and most of the people who post here think is worthwhile. The fact that there are places that scare them a much as they scare me doesn't bother me very much at all.
I know this isn't a popular stance in these parts, but I'm just being honest. Many will make some very eloquent and intelligent refutations of my position. Others will just call me a hypocrite, a fascist or worse. That's fine. I'll fully admit to not being very reasonable or libertarian on this issue. I just don't really care.
I want these fuckers to rot.
Both good points. Should we concede it's likely that every president in the last 60 years condones torture, then?
Perhaps, but I still think there's a difference between not looking too deeply into the methods of the CIA and actively pushing or advocating the use of torture.
Well, if the leak of the classified information that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA merits a special prosecutor, why wouldn't this leak, which seems far more extensive and potentially damaging?
Under what standard do you prosecute one and not the other?
I mean, unless you think the CIA referral of the Plame kerfuffle had everything to do with their little bureaucratic turf war with the White House, and that's OK?
Where are they holding bin Laden?
In the cell next to Emmanuel Goldstein.
grigory, the point is that no one knows who these CIA guys in eastern Europe are actually "fighting", or how exactly they're doing it.
grigory
you all don't get it. we're fighting a different kind of enemy here.
Yeah, just like we had to deal with the horrible commies for 40 years. it is all the same. more fear mongering
R.C. Dean,
If it outted a NOC, then there would be potentail criminal liability under the law which is at the heart of the Plame affair. If not, then the leak is ok (as far as that particular law is concerned).
But these are guys that want to blow me the fuck up and destroy every thing that I and most of the people who post here think is worthwhile.
Ralphus,
Aare you sure that all the guys in these "black sites" want to blow people up, or is maybe enough?
grigory,
Not really. We've been dealing with asymetrical warfare since the founding of the Republic.
I want these fuckers to rot.
So do I. I just want to make sure that the people spending life in prison are really guilty. So let's verify their guilt by having evidence reviewed in a fair, open, and adversarial trial. Once their guilt is verified, they can spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Your goals are in no way incompatible with my goals.
But these are guys that want to blow me the fuck up and destroy every thing that I and most of the people who post here think is worthwhile.
This is known as begging the question.
this is about sending a message. if you even think about attacking us, much less associate with or hang around terrorists, we will get you. we will give no quarter.
"And where are the partisan, brain-dead fools who support this? I know y'all are out there somewhere. Reassure me by explaining how we're still less evil than North Korea."
They're getting ready to assure you that Kerry would have been worse.
Ralphus says:
"If these guys were political dissidents that have been disappeared by a fascist regime I would be outraged. But these are guys that want to blow me the fuck up and destroy every thing that I and most of the people who post here think is worthwhile. The fact that there are places that scare them a much as they scare me doesn't bother me very much at all."
And I say "But how do you know they 'want to blow me..up'? George Bush says so. Period. Are you willing to stake your life on George Bush's simple say-so? Are you willing to stake someone else's life (say your cousin)? The whole point behind due process is to protect us--not them!
If we don't require the government to prove, in public, what they are charging people with, we should expect those with the power to arrest without charge, torture without cause and murder with impunity to go ahead and do so. Due process is a security measure--it protects me against the bad guys. Even the Al Qaeda bad guys.
RC Dean,
There are whistleblower laws that protect government employees who publicize illegal behavior.
For your analogy to hold up, Wilson's wife would have to be committing a criminal act by working for the CIA or recommending her husband (which she doesn't seem to have done, in any case). Maybe it's just a liberal thing, but I don't see being employed by the CIA, or making a staff recommendation, to be a criminal act on par with operating unauthorized prisons and torturing people in them.
this is about sending a message. if you even think about attacking us, much less associate with or hang around terrorists, we will get you. we will give no quarter.
How exactly do secret prisons send a message? They're supposed be a secret.
So, if secret prisons are where we send hardcore terrorists, where do we send their minor flunkies? Double-secret probation?
Thank-you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress!
For every reference in this thread of "terrorists," "guys who want to blow me the fuck up," "fuckers," etc, search and replace with "people the CIA arbitrarily says are terrorists and I should take the word of the government without questioning it and without oversight."
I can't believe that the bad guys haven't taken more pains to be symmetric with this torture stuff and get it on tape. A videotape of Bibles in toilets and human stacks of enleashed, God-fearing US contractors would do a lot more in the court of US public opinion than the stupid beheadings they seem to favor. Sometimes I think they are just not very worthy opponents at the intellectual, black ops level.
Aare you sure that all the guys in these "black sites" want to blow people up, or is maybe enough?
Maybe works for me.
Your goals are in no way incompatible with my goals.
Actually they are. You want them put in trial. I want them dead. The only reason we should keep them alive is to get information or to use them as leverage.
I'm not saying this is a reasonable position. I'm in a bit of a salt the earth mood.
Some officers worried that the CIA would not be very adept at assassination...."We'd probably shoot ourselves," another former senior CIA official said.
Why do I think that's funny?
this isn't some police-action you dumbfucks. this is war, and they're protecting your sorry-asses from having another 747 hurtling into your bathroom window while you brush your teeth in the morning. if anything that's what the power of the executive is for. if you don't like it, or are squeamish about their methods, then vote for some pansy who'll lay out the welcome-carpet next time around. otherwise STFU.
I likewise take the word of the government that the Branch Davidians maybe were abusing children and were scary with guns and maybe wanted to blow me up. Therefore, if you are against the ATF action in Waco, you support the terrorists.
I seriously doubt that anyone has a problem with terrorists rotting. The problems are:
1) There's no accountability for whether or not the right people are being tortured.
2) This lends legitimacy to America-is-the-great-Satan-style rhetoric.
3) The backlash from this shit is more likely to fall on ordinary Americans-tourists, soliders, people trying to go about their lives-than on the policymakers who perpetuate it.
There's a problem when America would rather send the message that we're badass than the message that we're a free country.
I'm in a bit of a salt the earth mood.
Exactly like the terrorists we want to defeat! They say: some Americans have done me wrong, therefore all Americans and Westerners in general are deemed guilty and fair game for killing; we say: some people who live in X part of the world have done us wrong, therefore all people we find in that part of the world are deemed guilty and fair game for being disappeared.
See? We're all brothers under the skin.
I'm not saying this is a reasonable position. I'm in a bit of a salt the earth mood.
Admission is said to be the first step toward recovery.
Boys and girls, this isn't even new news in the Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15981-2004May10?language=printer
I agree with the oversight issues, and I think reasonable people would agree that there needs to be a check in place to fix potential honest mistakes, let alone any proactive abuses.
Am I the only one sick of tough-guy rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of terrorism that they're just *racing* to surrender basic freedoms to a protective father figure?
And I say "But how do you know they 'want to blow me..up'? George Bush says so. Period.
No. They say so. Period. Read the fatwas. Check out their websites. Pull the tapes on NYC, Madrid, London, Kenya, Tanzania, and Bali. I don't need George Bush to tell me shit. I have eyes and a brain.
For every reference in this thread of "terrorists," "guys who want to blow me the fuck up," "fuckers," etc, search and replace with "people the CIA arbitrarily says are terrorists and I should take the word of the government without questioning it and without oversight."
No problem. But do you have a shorter phrase I can use? What you wrote would make for some really long posts.
It's Cold War-itis. Sometimes I think that the CIA and NSA should have been completely purged after the wall came down.
I think there is an interesting question though. In general, I favor the cleansing power of light, but I accept that there are certain issues that pertain to national security that I just won't be able to know about in real time. I'm trying to think if the secret prison concept should ever exist. You always have a who watches the watchman problem, but I'm at least open to the idea that congressional oversight should be able to handle this sort of thing in a way that is not completely opaque forever.
It'd be nice to have a constitutional amendment to deal with this. Ultimately it will end up decided by the courts.
"Am I the only one sick of tough-guy rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of terrorism that they're just *racing* to surrender basic freedoms to a protective father figure?"
No. I've been saying for almost 4 years that the neo-cons have been adept at cultivating a new culture of victimization. "9/11 changed everything!" "we're all victims!" "the next plane could be in your house!" blah, blah, blah. And all so sure that they are victims or potential victims that government must "do something!"
the more things change, the more they stay the same.
We all want the fuckers to rot. But I also want to get the right fuckers. Having no oversight runs the risk of capturing people who are in fact not fuckers, who we then waste time, money and resources on while the real fuckers are still free to blow us up.
You want them put in trial. I want them dead.
Courts can hand down death sentences.
I'm not saying this is a reasonable position.
That's fine. You don't have to be reasonable. But it would be nice if the law is.
I'm in a bit of a salt the earth mood.
"Scorched earth" seems more accurate.
Paul W. gets it right about the Branch Davidians.
What about other groups of terrorists operating on US soil? Eric Rudolph set off a bomb at the Olympics and engaged in violence against abortion clinics. He wanted to kill innocent civilians. He was aided by a shadowy network of like-minded religious fanatics on US soil. He was handled by the normal rules and procedures and we no longer have to worry about him. Did you object to that?
Tim McVeigh had help from like-minded fanatics on US soil, and he killed a lot of people. He was executed after a trial. Did you object to that?
Last year or earlier this year, H&R posted an article on some domestic terrorists who wanted to release poison gas in a building on US soil. They were captured, tried, and sentenced in accordance with the ordinary laws and procedures. Did you object to that?
Rage is fine. We all have it. But law must be cool and deliberate. If rage becomes law, then the law becomes a threat to the innocent. My goal is to protect the innocent.
"They say so. Period. Read the fatwas. Check out their websites. Pull the tapes on NYC, Madrid, London, Kenya, Tanzania, and Bali."
Which "they" is that, ralphus?
Ralphus says:
And I say "But how do you know they 'want to blow me..up'? George Bush says so. Period.
No. They say so. Period. Read the fatwas. Check out their websites. Pull the tapes on NYC, Madrid, London, Kenya, Tanzania, and Bali. I don't need George Bush to tell me shit. I have eyes and a brain.
You are missing my point, Ralphus. How do you know these unknown people, held incommunicado in secret prisons are the ones who wrote the fatwas, designed the websites etc? George Bush says they are, but why should I trust him? I want proof exactly because I don't know that the people in these prisons are actually Al Qaeda types and not just innocents accidentally caught up in the storm. And if George Bush is torturing people in my name, I want to know for sure he's torturing the right people. Otherwise I'm just as liable as he is. That's what Nuremburg said, and that's the right moral stance.
But how do you know they 'want to blow me..up'? George Bush says so. Period. . . . .No. They say so. Period. Read the fatwas. Check out their websites. Pull the tapes on NYC, Madrid, London, Kenya, Tanzania, and Bali. I don't need George Bush to tell me shit. I have eyes and a brain.
And you know that the "they" in our prisons is the same "they" who calls out the fatwas?
Comment by: ralphus at November 2, 2005 10:31 AM
If these guys were political dissidents that have been disappeared by a fascist regime I would be outraged. But these are guys that want to blow me the fuck up and destroy every thing that I and most of the people who post here think is worthwhile. The fact that there are places that scare them a much as they scare me doesn't bother me very much at all.
The problem is that we don't know if these are the guys who want to blow us up. The whole torture thing wouldn't bother me that much if we knew for sure that they were conscience lacking mass murderers. The torture thing does bother me if it's just a matter of the wrong guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up in a place like that. In fact, torturing unfortunate innocents bothers me more than the prospect of being blown up.
Am I the only one sick . . . father figure?
"[T]he new style libertarians are . . . coming to take away both your army and your SS. . . . [S]ometimes called 'fearless libs' because we fear neither the prospect of invading armies nor the prospect of being reduced to eating dog food in our dotage. Comment by: Dave W. at October 27, 2005 06:54 AM
Eric Rudolph set off a bomb at the Olympics and engaged in violence against abortion clinics. He wanted to kill innocent civilians. He was aided by a shadowy network of like-minded religious fanatics on US soil. He was handled by the normal rules and procedures and we no longer have to worry about him.
This is a good point. If we handled Rudolph the way we're handling the Islamic business, we would have swept through the American South, raiding evangelical churches and putting thousands of people in prison on the grounds that their Christianity made them suspicious.
"Am I the only one sick of tough-guy rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of terrorism that they're just *racing* to surrender basic freedoms to a protective father figure?"
Not that I speak for tough guy commenters everywhere, but there are folks who are primarily motivated by a fear of undeterred terrorists with nuclear weapons. It is probably not too unreasonable to wet yourself at the prospect of nuclear terrorism if you consider it an increasing possibility.
As for tough guy rhetoric around wanting 'them' to rot, there is a dark part of me that understands that. It is just hard for me to view people dancing in the streets at the prospect of thousands of American deaths as anything other than part of the problem. It is hard not to consider taking someone at their word when they say they would do it too if they could.
In the end, I understand the big picture concerns and don't broadly endorse restrictions on liberties at home in the name of security, BUT I find myself sorely tempted to draw a line at American citizenship in that regard. I would be lying if I claimed otherwise.
Jason, the more dangerous the enemy, the more important it is that we get the right guys.
ralphus,
If Janet Reno says you are an anti-government, gun rights extremist with links to Tim McVeigh, can I hold your head underwater until you think you're going to die?
BTW, "maybe" is good enough for me. I'm in a salt-of-the-earth mood.
Exactly like the terrorists we want to defeat!
This one is getting as stale as "Then the terrorist have already won".
If you think that wanting to destroy a group of deadly fanatics is the same as wanting to bring down western civilization and turn the clock back to the dark ages then your moral equivalency gage is stuck on retard.
Am I the only one sick of tough-guy rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of terrorism that they're just *racing* to surrender basic freedoms to a protective father figure?
Am I the only one that is sick college debate session rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of our government using drastic measures against an avowed enemy that has complete disregard for any conventions of warfare?
It is probably not too unreasonable to wet yourself at the prospect of nuclear terrorism if you consider it an increasing possibility.
Fine, but how does imprisoning people more or less at random make us safer from nukes? To make the world safer we have to lock up the ACTUAL CRIMINALS, not any old schlub we can find. This sounds like a prosecutor who wants to convict somebody for the serial killings in his neighborhood, but doesn't much care if he convicts the actual killer.
Grigory writes "this isn't some police-action you dumbfucks. this is war, and they're protecting your sorry-asses from having another 747 hurtling into your bathroom window while you brush your teeth in the morning. if anything that's what the power of the executive is for. if you don't like it, or are squeamish about their methods, then vote for some pansy who'll lay out the welcome-carpet next time around. otherwise STFU."
Well, my bathroom is probably not a target. Also, no one is advocating laying out the welcome-carpet for terrorists. It was kind of you, though, Grigory, to introduce Mrs Questionbegger to Mr Strawman--you are quite the matchmaker!
Please stop with the Rudolph comparison. He was persued within the framework of the US legal system where US laws are broadly followed and US local officials were complicit in his capture. This situation has less than nothing to do with bagging a suspected terrorist in Afghanistan.
Even Tojo and Goering got public trials ...
There's no reason to stop interrogations after sentencing and clemency can be exchanged for useful information.
well if you want to blame someone blame this guy 😛
cheers!
Jason-
Fine, capturing Rudolph is easier than capturing Taliban fighters. Fair enough.
But once they're captured, once they're in the control of the US government, why shouldn't we have some process to verify that the public employees responsible for the capture got the right guy?
That's all I ask: Once they come and say "Hey, we got him!", there should be a process to verify that he really is who they say he is, and he really did what they say he did. That's all. Regardless of how they were captured, once they're captured somebody should make sure that we got the right guys.
ralphus, err oversight and due process would insure that we had the right "fuckers" and that would make me sleep better at night. Whatcha think?
Honestly ralphus you are no better than a liberal who overlooks the horrors committed by Fidel Castro because they also don't care as long as their worldview wins in the end.
To be fair, according to the article there's only about 100 people kept in these prisons. That may be too many (especially considering that only 30% are premium leads), but it's hardly indicative of a sweeping "torture all the brown people" program.
Either that or the CIA is so inept that they can't even indiscriminantly torture people properly.
It should also be noted that the article mentions a significant level of debate within the CIA about these methods. Again, that seems to go against the charges that these acts are done without thought from some sort of uber-nationalist viewpoint.
Regardless of how they were captured, once they're captured somebody should make sure that we got the right guys.
I don't think the ones supporting this action even care, deep down, if we got the right guys--they just want someone, anyone, they can hang as a scapegoat against terrorism. So long as our government is doing something that's good enough--just do SOMETHING, not necessarily the RIGHT thing. Just lock up some haji, don't worry if it's the right one.
Jennifer:
You are assuming a 0 correlation between the captured and the guilty. I agree that correlation of 1 is ideal. I am suggesting that in the absence of a functioning justice system, I am comfortable to some extent with a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get. This shouldn't be surprising, it is the same reason I'm comfortable employing military force in the first place.
"Am I the only one sick of tough-guy rhetoric from people who so readily wet themselves at the prospect of terrorism that they're just *racing* to surrender basic freedoms to a protective father figure?"
No.
The macho blowhard who fills his diapers at the slightest "boo" has more than worn out his welcome. I'm sick unto death of these cowards so afraid of their own shadow that they can't surrender their freedom to the nearest poltician fast enough. Really, you're a disgrace to the republic. Shut up and have a juice box. Don't take the rest of us down with you.
Jennifer:
"they just want someone, anyone, they can hang as a scapegoat against terrorism."
I'm not a they in this case, as I don't support completely black prisons, but this is a strawman characterization.
That's all I ask: Once they come and say "Hey, we got him!", there should be a process to verify that he really is who they say he is, and he really did what they say he did. That's all. Regardless of how they were captured, once they're captured somebody should make sure that we got the right guys.
Okay, but do you want this process performed: (1) the way a large, private corporation would perform it; or (2) done the way a US court would do it. Right now, I think the military is doing what you suggest, but it is just that they do it like a private corporation does its disciplinary determinations: in secret, no accountability, no set procedure, no publicity, no appeal. Maybe what you are really suggesting is that the military should stop acting like a private contractor and start acting like a part of the US gov't.
" Just lock up some haji, don't worry if it's the right one. "
But Jennifer - don't you know? If we don't hang the hajis, there will be mushroom clouds in YOUR BACKYARD! Heck, you even live near NYC - so you're a victim of 9/11! The hajis must be hanged because you were wronged! "They" owe it to you!
If you don't accept the fact that you are a victim, you're an uncle to... I mean anti-american!
Jason--
I cross-posted. You say it's a strawman for me to say "people don't care who we've arrested so long as they've got SOMEONE to blame for terrorism." Very well--how would YOU describe the people here who are oh-so-ready to insist that what we're doing here really isn't a problem?
"I am comfortable to some extent with a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get. This shouldn't be surprising, it is the same reason I'm comfortable employing military force in the first place. "
like any good statist - willing to have other people pay the price for your benefit. Nice to see a "libertarian" hawk finally admit clearly, though.
Errors are inevitable in any human endeavor. Even trials won't identify every innocent in custody. All I ask is a fair, open, and adversarial process before a court of law, so that the error rate can be brought down. Perfection is of course impossible, but due process goes a hell of a long way in the right direction.
If Janet Reno says you are an anti-government, gun rights extremist with links to Tim McVeigh, can I hold your head underwater until you think you're going to die?
Nope. I'm a US citizen. That still counts for something. I think that US citizens like Padilla should be put on trial. Same goes for Rudolf, the Republic of Texas, the Aryan Brotherhood or any other domestic terrorist group. Membership has its privileges.
And you know that the "they" in our prisons is the same "they" who calls out the fatwas?
You're right. I'm sure they were just tending their goats and whistling God Bless America when the big bad special ops guys showed up and whisked them away to the Black Site for absolutely no reason at all.
The may not be the guys that call out the fatwas, but I'm willing to bet they're the guys that take them to heart.
I am comfortable to some extent with a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get.
Ayuh, I feel the same way about rapists. If you lock up a WHOLE BUNCH of people with penises, chances are the rape rates will go way, way down. Sucks that some innocent men will lose their freedom too, but I suppose I'll settle for a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get.
I guess I can "take back the night" while the CIA "takes back the rest of the world," huh?
Ooh, he put "libertarian" in quotes. He's serious.
I'm also comfortable with a non-1 correlation to some extent. What I'm not comfortable with is unchecked power; the ratio of guilty to non-guilty is only an issue if these particular spooks decide they want it to be.
Jennifer:
Mocking though I suspect your post was intended to be, you have hit on it. It is a matter of utility. We can imprison too many and we can anger too many. I am suggesting that we can also be in a big pickle if we allow blending in with a sympathetic populace to be an Aegis against repercussions. It is similar to a hostage position. A policy is broken if it permits every hostage taker to get whatever they want.
Oh, and I realize that due process will also result in some bad guys being mistakenly released. Well, a bad guy who's been captured and then released can still remain on our radar screen. Ultimately, this is about balance: Balance the need to keep the guilty locked up against the need to protect the innocent from the state.
The state, if left unchecked, can be more dangerous than ANY terrorist.
Stop being so mean to Jason Ligon! He's raising a serious point.
Jason, in response to your question about the correlation between captives and the guilty, I'll say this: I'm a process guy. I want us to implement the very best processes we have to make sure that we aren't torturing innocent people, then torturing them some more because they can't give their tormentors good answers. OK?
Jason--
I would still like to know how many innocents you think we can imprison before we lose our good-guy status. I'll settle for either a raw number or a percentage of prisoners.
The may not be the guys that call out the fatwas, but I'm willing to bet they're the guys that take them to heart.
Yeah, see... I'm not.
"Nope. I'm a US citizen. That still counts for something."
You can't do this to me! I'm an AMERICAN!
*LOL!* That's exactly how it works.
Jennifer:
To put rape in the same context, let's take away all societal deterrents to rape. Local officials, business owners, and law enforcement decide to start protecting rapists. Rapists receive money. They are celebrated. Their families get pensions.
Even then, the problem of rape is non addressable by arresting all males. Then again, that is not what I'm suggesting.
Let me throw this out, with the caveat that I'm not supporting these prisons. Just food for thought:
100 people detained. How many prisons/holding areas are there? Are we talking about prisons or just areas where CIA operatives "question" people?
The CIA isn't in the business of punishing evildoers, they're in the business of gathering information. That's one explanation (though not justification) for the lack of due process.
I think this is quite different from holding enemies in a jail like Abu Ghraib. And of course, much, much scarier. The military, at the very least, DOES have some oversight and accountability. The fact that the CIA really doesn't, and is a proven clusterfuck, is what really worries me.
"That's all I ask: Once they come and say "Hey, we got him!", there should be a process to verify that he really is who they say he is, and he really did what they say he did. That's all. Regardless of how they were captured, once they're captured somebody should make sure that we got the right guys."
The problem is that the lack of US sovereignty in the areas where these guys are being captured effects more than the difficulty in capturing them. US court systems demand (usually) pretty strict trails of evidence that are impossible to obtain on a battleground or across several countries. If we are talking about people who lived planned attacks, and were captured all in France, it's one thing. Saudis who trained in Afghanistan and were caught in England are another.
As Dave W. says, there is a certain amount of oversight, but it's secret. The CIA is not going to want to waste its time interrogating people with no information to be had.
The hard question to answer is exactly what the evidentiary standard should be. It is also pretty clear to me (as clear as it can be to a non-lawyer, non legal-buff) that there is no law that adequately defines the government's role here.
Ayuh, I feel the same way about rapists. If you lock up a WHOLE BUNCH of people with penises, chances are the rape rates will go way, way down. Sucks that some innocent men will lose their freedom too, but I suppose I'll settle for a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get.
Again, the article suggests that it is not a sweeping, totally indiscriminate torture program. To use your analogy, it's more like locking up 100 men who have some history of sexual abuse, 30 of which are known rapists. Awful, perhaps, but not really the same thing as rounding up every cock in the metro area and throwing away the key.
The problem is that the potential for such an indiscriminate program is very high without due process and accountability.
Jason-
Look, the environment overseas may very well necessitate drastically different measures for capturing suspects over there vs. over here. Fair enough.
You still haven't addressed the question of whether we should deny them a chance to prove their innocence after they've been captured.
I just want to make sure that, however they were captured, they are who we think they are and they did what we think they did. That's all. Once they're in our system rather than whatever system exists in another country, the evidence should be examined by a court of law. Not for the sake of the guilty, but for the sake of the innocent.
That's all.
None of this, of course, has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with Cheney's recent push to have the CIA exempted from McCain's recent anti-torture proposal. Nothing at all. Just, um, look over there.
The state, if left unchecked, can be more dangerous than ANY terrorist.
Praising the strong arm of due process, a government sponsored innovation, in some parts.
Raising the alarm aginst the state in other parts.
Not inconsistent, I guess. Quite nuanced! Sad to see that none of the Reason writers are jumping in here to say how crazy juries and tort liability are.
Jesus Christ! For all of you big brave boys talking about how this isn't an issue, and we have to Be Tough to fight this Super Threat, can't at least one of you summon the balls to answer my question: how many innocent people can we lock up before we stop being the good guys?
Christ. I ask this of torture apologists, I ask this of imprisonment-without-trials apologists, and NONE of them answer--all they do is talk about bin Laden hiding a nuke in my bathroom or forcing me to wear a burka or something. Be scared! Booga booga! How can you ask for checks on government power when there are bad people in the world!
What drives me crazy about all of this, the PATRIOT act and the like is that it's not as if the experts were saying, "9/11 happened because civil liberties got in the way and our spies couldn't torture suspects abroad." People were talking about the FBI and CIA needing to cooperate better, officials needing to take certain intelligence more seriously and basically not being gunshy (we had Osama in our sights under Clinton and let him go).
So why all this, if we're not supposed to see the threat of terrorism as mere pretext?
"You are assuming a 0 correlation between the captured and the guilty. I agree that correlation of 1 is ideal. I am suggesting that in the absence of a functioning justice system, I am comfortable to some extent with a non 1 correlation if it gets us who we need to get."
I don't think she or anyone else is assuming a 0 correlation between the captured and the guilty. So I would say that you are presenting the straw man: that anyone who argues that detainees should not be held indefintely without evidence or hearing is assuming that the captured are innocent. What I would say that people here are contending is that there should be a 1 correlation between those who are detained and those for whom an opportunity of some kind to provide for a legal defense exists. THAT is what requires defending, not the claim that everyone in CIA prisons is innocent. Don't give up--with the thoughts you are thinkin' you could be another Lincoln!
Jennifer:
This might be shocking to you, but I don't believe in good guy status at a national level. it is an irrlevant question. I believe that there are nations with interests that run counter to each other.
"How many arrests is appropriate" is answeralbe by "The minimum number necessary to in net reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism." I do not have the information to know what that number is. I'm targeting the end result of low probability of nuclear terrorism and establishing that we have some flexibility in getting to that end.
zach's point is right on the money to me. The issue is unchecked power and zero oversight, not that your correlation is less than 1. You still have an obligation to make your correlation as high as possible, but mandating 1 is mandating no deterrent at all.
"How many arrests is appropriate" is answeralbe by "The minimum number necessary to in net reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism." I do not have the information to know what that number is. I'm targeting the end result of low probability of nuclear terrorism
And having trials to ensure the people we imprison are actually guilty will increase our vulnerability to nuclear terrorism. . . .how?
"how many innocent people can we lock up before we stop being the good guys?"
What number is acceptable to you?
Ethan:
"Fine, but how does imprisoning people more or less at random make us safer from nukes?"
This is literally assuming 0 correlation.
What number is acceptable to you?
In Afghanistan in 2001? Some, not many.
In Iraq in 2004? None.
Wouldn't reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism be better served by, you know, a coherent international plan to secure former Soviet nukes, and to keep an eye on Iran and North Korea and slap them when necessary, and to do a better job of tracking fissionable material, rather than what we're doing, which is the equivalent of trying to wipe up liquid mercury with a rock?
It doesn't matter if there are 10 terrorists or 10 thousand that wish to do us nuclear harm if they can't get a fucking bomb, does it?
I don't think she or anyone else is assuming a 0 correlation between the captured and the guilty.
Actually Jennifer somewhat did: Fine, but how does imprisoning people more or less at random make us safer from nukes?
So it's not completely a straw man. Although I'm sure she doesn't really think that the CIA is imprisoning people at random.
JDM--
Whatever the number is, I think we've surpassed it. And I think the family of Dilawar, the innocent cabdriver we tortured to death over the course of three days in Afghanistan, would agree.
But of course if Dilawar's family gets pissed off and joins the insurgency, it's because they're evil people, not because they have any legitimate reason to dislike the country that kidnapped and tortured their son.
It's not about how many good guys we lock up, it's about whether we care enough to have ways of remedying those mistakes.
JDM, while I was composing an earlier post you made a good point: Trails of evidence will be harder to establish for people captured in Afghanistan. I'm not 100% convinced that terrorists captured overseas can be feasibly tried in the exact same manner as Eric Rudolph. What I am convinced of is that the process should be open and adversarial, and the members of the panel rendering the verdict should not officers of the executive or legislative branches.
Sorry, Jason beat me to it.
"And having trials to ensure the people we imprison are actually guilty will increase our vulnerability to nuclear terrorism. . . .how?"
Because there is often little or no evidence due to sympathetic locals and officials. This isn't CSI. I think there should be a trial, by the way. The evidenciary standard is the tough question. Holding it to US levels will ensure virtually 0 convictions.
"I'm targeting the end result of low probability of nuclear terrorism and establishing that we have some flexibility in getting to that end"
By what objective method do you measure the probability of nuclear terrorism? And what cost is worth reducing it by say, 1%? Is it worth 300 trillion? How about 200 trillion?
It's the same question that is asked about automobile safety design. We could all be driving around in tanks - that would lower the probability that you would die in an automobile accident (which is much higher than the probability that you will die in a terrorist attack, BTW). How much is it worth to citizens to prevent these deaths? Who should have the power of answering that question? How can you possibly measure such fuzzy probabilities, and how can you then possibly assign values to them?
I'm not saying that we need to be perfect in our judicial system - clearly that isn't possible. But we have a fairly well tested history with due process. I have yet to see any argument against due process yet that gets beyond "but you see, I'm just too scared to follow the rules!"
I'm sure [Jennifer] doesn't really think that the CIA is imprisoning people at random.
I don't think they're saying "I'm bored, let's go out and arrest ten guys today," but I DO think (and they themselves have admitted) that they're picking up a lot of people in random sweeps on the street. A bomb goes off--anyone within a three-block radius gets arrested. The military has admitted that Dilawar, whom we tortured and murdered, had NOTHING to do with ANY anti-American activities: he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And now he's dead. Thanks to America, former land of the free and current land of "We're bigger than you so we'll do whatever the fuck we want."
If it outted a NOC, then there would be potentail criminal liability under the law which is at the heart of the Plame affair. If not, then the leak is ok (as far as that particular law is concerned).
But in l'affaire Plame, there was no violation of that particular law alleged by the prosecutor, so that can't be a reason to differentiate the Plame leak and this one. It was pretty clear from day one that the original referral was bogus, because it was pretty clear that she hadn't been overseas in five years and wasn't "covert" under the criminal statute.
The referral was amended, I believe, to a broader one about disclosing classified information, which means we are dealing here with two leaks of classified info, not one leak of classified info and one disclosure of a "covert" agent. I think the analogy holds.
There are whistleblower laws that protect government employees who publicize illegal behavior.
For your analogy to hold up, Wilson's wife would have to be committing a criminal act by working for the CIA or recommending her husband (which she doesn't seem to have done, in any case).
But how do we know enough to conclude that this leak is protected by the whistleblower law without an investigation? Maybe the motivation wasn't to publicize illegal behavior; maybe it was intended to cause political damage to the White House. Maybe what was disclosed isn't even illegal under any current statute, or isn't the kind of illegality covered by the whistleblower law.
Remember, we just came off a two year investigation that (apparently) concluded there was no underlying crime, something many were pointing out at the very beginning of the whole mess. You have investigations to determine whether a crime was committed or a defense applies, don't you? Isn't that what the Plame thing was all about?
Don't get me wrong - I don't think either leak should trigger a criminal probe. I just find it interesting that so many people who were rabid about chasing down the minor Plame leak are suddenly blase about a much larger leak. It almost makes me suspect that their motivations were political, not principled.
I just find it interesting that so many people who were rabid about chasing down the minor Plame leak are suddenly blase about a much larger leak. It almost makes me suspect that their motivations were political, not principled.
Which for you is more comfortable than suspecting that people see the Plame leak was not a case of someone exposing wrongdoing to the media, but the secret-prison leak is.
R.C. Dean,
But in l'affaire Plame, there was no violation of that particular law alleged by the prosecutor, so that can't be a reason to differentiate the Plame leak and this one.
You are being willfully obtuse. The point of the investigation was to determine whether the law was indeed violated; we don't know if it was due to the actions of at least one individual. Then again, you're the individual who thought that Switzerland is part of the E.U.
If you don't accept the fact that you are a victim, you're an uncle to... I mean anti-american!
Who said anything about being a victim? We were attacked, now we're attacking back and eradicating our attackers. Doesn't sound like a victim to me. And I'm certainly not calling anyone anti-American, just anti-reality.
And if the family of one of these innocents develops an anti-America bias and even becomes an insurgent, is that acceptable blowback?
Good thing we have all those Black Sites set up to house them. I don't care if they get pissed. They can be pissed all they want. I just want them afraid to do anything about it.
Honestly ralphus you are no better than a liberal who overlooks the horrors committed by Fidel Castro because they also don't care as long as their worldview wins in the end.
I'm not overlooking anything. I'm advocating. I'm not pretending like bad shit doesn't happen in the Black Sites. Why do you think they call them Black Sites? You can think of me as a bad person, but don't call me a hypocrite.
And as far as overlooking facts that conflict with your worldview is concerned, how about those of you that refuse to believe that a nuclear attack on our soil is a real threat? Everyone loves to trot it out as a punch line when making fun of right wing rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it has no basis in fact.
how about those of you that refuse to believe that a nuclear attack on our soil is a real threat? Everyone loves to trot it out as a punch line when making fun of right wing rhetoric, but that doesn't mean it has no basis in fact.
Who here has said that?
Jesus Christ! For all of you big brave boys talking about how this isn't an issue, and we have to Be Tough to fight this Super Threat, can't at least one of you summon the balls to answer my question: how many innocent people can we lock up before we stop being the good guys?
I certainly don't claim that this isn't an issue, only that it should be correctly defined. Again, there's a difference between a totally indiscriminate program (such as Japanese internment camps during WWII), and these secret prisons which are obviously discriminate to some (probably significant) degree but without any accountability. You seem to equate the two morally, and I don't totally disagree with that, but that does not make them the same thing.
It's hard to address a problem accurately when both sides are given to hyperbole; either we must use these methods lest a bomb will be planted on my toilet or the CIA is torturing every brown person they see.
R.C. Dean,
Remember, we just came off a two year investigation that (apparently) concluded there was no underlying crime...
It didn't determine that at all. Fitzgerald specifically stated that he can't tell due to the machinations of at least one individual.
Stretch,
More to the point, its hard to address the issue accurately when the facts about the issue remain hidden, unconfirmed, etc. This of course the major issue with government secrecy - how can the sovereign govern itself (meaning us) when it is blind?
Jason writes "I think there should be a trial, by the way. "
Well, then I don't think that you and Jennifer really disagree. You both think that holding someone indefinitely without an opportunity for a defense is wrong. Thus you both disagree with what is going on in the CIA prisons.
Jennifer,
Try arguing with what people say, rather than making up long strings of absurd arguments no one is making. There's only so much space here.
Dave W.,
"In Iraq in 2004? None." We aren't really talking about Iraq here, so much as the CIA policy in general.
Thoreau,
"What I am convinced of is that the process should be open and adversarial, and the members of the panel rendering the verdict should not officers of the executive or legislative branches."
I think so too, though it depends on what you mean by open. What I know is that there is no process in place now that has not been written exclusively and secretly by the executive. I also don't think that the best answer here would have been for the executive to throw up its hands and do nothing. It is obligated to go after terrorists to the extent of its powers.
Again, there's a difference between a totally indiscriminate program (such as Japanese internment camps during WWII), and these secret prisons which are obviously discriminate to some (probably significant) degree but without any accountability. You seem to equate the two morally, and I don't totally disagree with that,
I'd say what we're doing now is WORSE than the Japanese camps; at least the prisoners therein knew they'd only have to stay there until World War Two ended--in other words, until Germany and Japan surrendered. What even do TODAY'S inmates have to look forward to? What single discrete goal must we meet before the War on Terror is over?
None. It'll go on indefinitely.
Also, the Japanese in our camps at least did not vanish off the face of the earth for the duration.
Jennifer,
Whatever the merits of your argument, you are wrong to claim that some did not vanish off the face of the Earth. Some indeed did. Some were not heard from for years.
Who said anything about being a victim? We were attacked, now we're attacking back and eradicating our attackers.
Aside from Osama bin Forgotten, I'm fairly certain that our attackers were actually vaporized in the attacks. This is, after all, what I'm constantly told by hawks when I question why we don't go after the actual terrorists instead of, you know, innocent Iraqis and cab drivers. I guess that explanation is only operational when it serves the hawk line.
Good thing we have all those Black Sites set up to house them. I don't care if they get pissed. They can be pissed all they want. I just want them afraid to do anything about it.
Wow. Just wow. The families of innocent people who are deliberately tortured to death by the US should not seek justice for that death. And should, in fact, be imprisoned in a secret prison before they get the chance to. To use the words "inhuman monster" to describe you would be an insult to inhuman monsters.
JDM-
I think we agree on the general picture, then.
Jennifer-
Are you trying to lure D'Anghelone out?
Also, the Japanese-Americans in our camps were not tortured; this is not likely the case for the people in the CIA prisons. (Was it Phil who pointed out earlier in this thread that Cheney wanted the CIA exempt from anti-torture provisions? Gee, I wonder why?)
thoreau,
She wants to go for the elusive five hundred posts! Could today be the day?
Hakluyt wrote: "Not really. We've been dealing with asymetrical warfare since the founding of the Republic."
"Republic" is not a proper noun in this instance, and thus should not be capitalized. The "Republic" wasn't founded; the republic was. I don't understand the impulse certain people have to capitalize these sorts of words. The word "party" (the political kind) is another common example.
Honduras is not a Banana Republic, but it is a banana republic. However, the U.S. clothing conglomerate Gap Inc. owns a retail chain called Banana Republic, and each of those stores is a Banana Republic.
And yes, I am indeed a capital-"A" asshole.
Sex toys
Evolution
Civil war
Illegal immigration
Abortion
Religion
There, I've laid out the bait. Have at it!
Thoreau, I'm embarrassed to say your allusion went right over my head. Was D'Anglehone the one who always argues that what we did to the Japanese was okay?
I think "good guy status" is a possibility even when we make mistakes. The thing about maintaining it is that we at least have to have a system in place that can give the innocent a fair shot at being vindicated-- which is just what Thoreau's been saying the whole time. That in itself will still give us the moral high ground in that we're not just retaliating mindlessly at every poor muslim in the middle east. All of that said, I am not against enemy combatants taken in battle being held for a while-- as long as they are let go when or if there is no case that can be brought against them. Again, not a perfect solution, but what can I say?
RC Dean,
The point of "special" prosecutions is to essentially investigate the investigators, ie to investigate the executive branch in cases where the executive branch would seem to have the incentive not to investigate.
If a law was broken to trash the white house, I'm sure the white house already has all the resources it needs to investigate that.
Personally, I don't care if the leaker's personal motivation was to expose wrongdoing or to trash the white house. Either, the leak exposed information that's useful for the public to know. Much much more so than Plame's status in the CIA.
To use the words "inhuman monster" to describe you would be an insult to inhuman monsters.
You tell him!
Jennifer-
It's not entirely lear what D'Anghelone thinks about what happened to the Japanese-Americans, but he certainly has a lot to say about it.
pedant,
"Republic" is not a proper noun in this instance, and thus should not be capitalized.
That depends on the century you are writing in. I don't accept today's norms for capitalization, ergo I don't follow them. People should have figured that out by now.
Hak, you're just a nonconformist... Hak.
"We were attacked, now we're attacking back and eradicating our attackers."
This begs the question. You have no evidence that anyone in these CIA prisons has attacked us or plans to. You have no idea who is even in there. In fact, that's the point: it's secret! It's kept secret so that the CIA doesn't have to defend its actions. No one disagrees with that: in fact, those you are arguing against are saying exactly that.
"Good thing we have all those Black Sites set up to house them. I don't care if they get pissed. They can be pissed all they want. I just want them afraid to do anything about it."
Well, recent history shows that this approach doesn't work. They aren't afraid of us. They aren't afraid of dying, why should they be afraid of us?
"I'm not overlooking anything. I'm advocating. I'm not pretending like bad shit doesn't happen in the Black Sites. Why do you think they call them Black Sites?"
Since you say that you are "advocating" I am going to assume that you think some approaches to terrorism are better than others, and that you are attempting to show that your (and the CIA's) approach is better than what others are offering. But I think you need to do better than pointing out that the very name of the prisons implies that "bad shit" goes on in them.
More to the point, its hard to address the issue accurately when the facts about the issue remain hidden, unconfirmed, etc. This of course the major issue with government secrecy - how can the sovereign govern itself (meaning us) when it is blind?
I don't disagree at all.
My only point was that, as scary as these prisons sound, only 100 people have been sent into them. 70 of those 100 were lesser suspects and were released from the black sites and given to the intelligence community of the host nations, albeit under the watchful eye of the CIA. Only those top 30 "major terrorism suspects" are kept by the CIA in complete isolation without any recognized legal rights.
Of course, this may be only the very tip of the iceberg, but what we're really talking about is 30 people who are considered major terrorism suspects. Again, this is only according to the article on which this thread is based.
"We were attacked, now we're attacking back and eradicating our attackers."
This begs the question. You have no evidence that anyone in these CIA prisons has attacked us or plans to. You have no idea who is even in there. In fact, that's the point: it's secret! It's kept secret so that the CIA doesn't have to defend its actions.
"Good thing we have all those Black Sites set up to house them. I don't care if they get pissed. They can be pissed all they want. I just want them afraid to do anything about it."
Well, recent history shows that this approach doesn't work. They aren't afraid of us. They aren't afraid of dying, why should they be afraid of us?
"I'm not overlooking anything. I'm advocating. I'm not pretending like bad shit doesn't happen in the Black Sites. Why do you think they call them Black Sites?"
Since you say that you are "advocating" I am going to assume that you think some approaches to terrorism are better than others, and that you are attempting to show that your (and the CIA's) approach is better than what others are offering. But I think you need to do better than pointing out that the very name of the prisons implies that "bad shit" goes on in them. No one disagrees with that: in fact, those you are arguing against are saying exactly that.
Ethan,
The anti Western Civilization, pro-torture crowd that makes up much of the ranks of the hawks these days are all about question begging.
"In Iraq in 2004? None." We aren't really talking about Iraq here, so much as the CIA policy in general.
Right, and I am arguing that the relevant CIA policy should be context sensitive. Although I don't have a comprehensive plan written up yet, I gave a couple examples so you could get an idea of the type of context I think should be relevant when the CIA sets the context specific policy I want it to.
"How many arrests is appropriate" is answeralbe by "The minimum number necessary to in net reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism."
if that's the only qualifier, mr ligon, why not just jail the world so that we will be safe?
if it makes you feel better, ms jennifer, i don't really subscribe to the good-guy argument. i think any decadent imperial suzerain has to be evil by any reasonable definition of the word, and we certainly fit the bill and have for a long time.
I'm not saying that we need to be perfect in our judicial system - clearly that isn't possible. But we have a fairly well tested history with due process. I have yet to see any argument against due process yet that gets beyond "but you see, I'm just too scared to follow the rules!"
amen, mr quasibill. said perfectly. too scared to be reasonable and measured.
"To put rape in the same context, let's take away all societal deterrents to rape. Local officials, business owners, and law enforcement decide to start protecting rapists. Rapists receive money. They are celebrated. Their families get pensions."
That's called "war." (See human history of warfare, passim.)
Why are we outsourcing jobs to exploited foreign torturers when American torturers are out of work?
It's true.
if that's the only qualifier, mr ligon, why not just jail the world so that we will be safe?
....Because that doesn't meet the qualifier.
I'd say what we're doing now is WORSE than the Japanese camps; at least the prisoners therein knew they'd only have to stay there until World War Two ended--in other words, until Germany and Japan surrendered. What even do TODAY'S inmates have to look forward to? What single discrete goal must we meet before the War on Terror is over?
I'm not sure the interns believed they'd actually get out, but that's really beside the point. Yes, the actions inside the prison are certainly much worse in the case of these black sites. But I also believe that vast majority of those kept in black sites are not innocent, unlike the Japanese interns. I completely agree that they should be brought out into the open. My only point was that the article does not suggest that we are engaging in wholesale, indiscriminate torture. It suggests that we are in engaging in narrow, discriminate torture, and it's harder to stop the later if you incorrectly insist it's the former.
And the War on Terror will be over when we go to war with EastAsia.
zach,
Actually your standard is so vague as to be boundless, and thus a rather pointless and I should say inane response.
They aren't afraid of us. They aren't afraid of dying, why should they be afraid of us?
i think, mr ethan, that people who hate the united states aren't monsters. many of them are absolutely right to hate a foreign force that vulgarly and abusively manipulates and extorts from their society. the barbarism of islamic society isn't the convenient catch-all that many wishful hawks and america-as-god national religionists would hope. and they fear death like any man (though perhaps not as much as postmodern westerners, who are unnaturally obsessed with death.)
what they think, i imagine, is that some things are worth dying for -- and self-determination is one of those things. they hate america because america is their global imperial suzerain, whether we have the wits in our blinding state of hubris to realize it or not. i can hardly fault them, and i expect them to keep coming at us over the centuries until we default on our british imperial and commercial inheritance and cry for mercy.
Hakluyt/zach/gaius,
Actually one or zero might very well meet the qualifier since it was the minimum number needed to effect a net reduction in the threat of nuclear terrorism, and he didn't say how much of a reduction was required.
(Apologies if I'm being redundant; not all posts going through.)
Alright damnit, the pace is starting to slow. how can we get to five hundred posts if you slackjaws stop posting? Get it together people! 🙂
"Right, and I am arguing that the relevant CIA policy should be context sensitive."
I think so too. (See my France vs. Afghan example.) I just couldn't make sense out of "0" unless you are saying we should be out of Iraq altogether. The world's best court system can't come up with "0."
[Sorry if this is a double post. Someone start a server fund for these folks.]
fyodor,
Which simply illustrates that the standard is extremely vague, and thus useless.
Something tells me gaius just read a book with the word "suzerain" in it.
JDM,
France has far looser standards for holding someone in detention for potential connections to acts of terrorism (or plans to commit terrorist acts) for that matter.
As Dave W. says, there is a certain amount of oversight, but it's secret.
Oversight by whom? Not by the Congress.
The CIA is not going to want to waste its time interrogating people with no information to be had.
That simply begs the question.
Actually your standard is so vague as to be boundless, and thus a rather pointless and I should say inane response.
Actually it wasn't my standard, and I agree it's boundless without further specification, but in any case it's obvious that "the world" could by no standard be "The minimum number necessary to in net reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism", hence my response. Using the broadest possible interpretation of that standard, we still would only need to jail anyone who knows where a nuclear weapon could be found.
zach,
Which would include me. I know where nuclear weapons can be found, and so do hundreds of thousands (millions?) of other Americans.
JDM,
The CIA is not going to want to waste its time interrogating people with no information to be had.
BTW, attributing such foreknowledge to the CIA is a fairly bold and silly move on your part. The CIA can't even find very easy to find moles within its ranks, what makes you think they can tell terrorist from non-terrorist, or terrorist with information from terrorist with no information?
net reduction
agreed, mr fyodor -- but certainly those who live in a ridiculous mortal fear of dying in a nuclear blast would not be appeased by a trivial net reduction. the unstated implication of the statement is that there must be a reduction -- and it follows that a greater reduction would be better, yes?
so, without saying as much, mr ligon posits a moral threshold. my question: at what point does our level of monstrous amorality and (sorry for the term, but no other fits) abject sin become so spiritually painful for us that we accept some higher probability of dying in an event that has never happened?
clearly it's beyond fabricating wars of moral weakness in afghanistan and iraq and the deaths of thousands of american boys and girls in same, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of iraqis and afghanis. clearly it's beyond the bill of rights, as the patriot act and other legislation has proven. clearly it's beyond the establishment of a global imperial gulag network. (and now it seems more than ever, "gulag" is an appropriate term.)
so where does it stop? what level of self-revulsion will give us a sufficient illusion of control of our destiny?
i hope it isn't far off -- especially considering these acts are being done merely for the illusion, as the evil of the acts themselves guarantee redoubled efforts on the part of those who oppose us in our madness.
Which would include me.
Oh well. I guess our broadest possible interpretation of theoretical nuclear deterrent standard has just fucked you up the ass.
Something tells me gaius just read a book with the word "suzerain" in it.
no, mr jdm, surprisingly enough. it came back to me out of the clear blue -- a word i haven't used in a long time, but one entirely appropriate in describing the american system of indirect empire.
A few years ago, if someone had suggested that the white house outed a CIA operative in retribution for her husband's exposure of the President's mistruth in regards to African yellow cake, he would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
That actually happened to some who claimed that the Secretary of Defense, in collusion with the future Attorney General, rewrote "interrogation" policies eventually leading to the disgrace at Abu Gharib.
...Now I hear that there are secret prisons in various parts of the world, and conspiracy tales about black helicopters, etc. just don't seem so strange anymore. Such is the world we live in.
gaius marius,
Thank you for getting to the unspoken point that some people would like to disingenously ignore.
JDM,
BTW, if you want an example of what I am talking about all you need do is look at the career of Aldrich Ames and how the CIA completely mishandled him, letting all manner of red flags go unheeded for years.
"France has far looser standards for holding someone in detention for potential connections to acts of terrorism (or plans to commit terrorist acts) for that matter."
Maybe we could sic some of the posters here on them.
"Oversight by whom? Not by the Congress."
Oversight by CIA supervisors, mainly, and probably other parts of the executive. I agree that it is inadequate.
"That simply begs the question."
Not really, rough interrogation and torture is not the only means of figuring out who is or is not a terrorist. There are other forms of intelligence.
at what point does our level of monstrous amorality and (sorry for the term, but no other fits) abject sin become so spiritually painful for us that we accept some higher probability of dying in an event that has never happened?
That's a bit of a loaded question. Are you implying that, if we reconcile ourselves with the inevitability of death, it's because we secretly hate our materialistic lives?
In regards to Gaius' comment at 01:14 PM, hear, hear!
JDM,
Actually, it does beg the question.
What about other groups of terrorists operating on US soil? Eric Rudolph set off a bomb at the Olympics and engaged in violence against abortion clinics. He wanted to kill innocent civilians. He was aided by a shadowy network of like-minded religious fanatics on US soil. He was handled by the normal rules and procedures and we no longer have to worry about him. Did you object to that?
Of course he wouldn't Thoraeu. Rudolph and his buddies are good, clean, white, Christian, 'Mericans who most likely voted for Bush.
They weren't filthy, swarthy, foreign, moose-lilms, after all.
JDM,
French anti-terrorism laws would make would make you blush.
mr crick, i am reminded of the words of howard bloom:
The threat of today's Spartan storm troopers turned some defenders of democracy toward what in better times could have been dismissed as paranoid delusion. However when one is up against a real-life conspiracy, paranoid thinking can produce accurate predictions of reality.
By the way, I give this thread 300, maybe 350 posts, tops. We're already spinning our wheels here.
zach,
Don't give into negativity man. 🙂
Good thing we have all those Black Sites set up to house them. I don't care if they get pissed. They can be pissed all they want. I just want them afraid to do anything about it.
Setting aside any moral arguments about whether it is ever right to torture I'd like to know how you know torturing is effective at all in deterring further agression or even information gathering. Everything I've read tells me torturing is practically worthless in accomplishing your goals Ralphus. How can you scare someone whose life long goal is going to heaven with threats of death at the hands of their sworn enemy? It seems to me you're more out for vengenance than acutally fixing anything.
It's hard to address a problem accurately when both sides are given to hyperbole; either we must use these methods lest a bomb will be planted on my toilet or the CIA is torturing every brown person they see.
Excellent point Slim. Again, setting aside any moral arguments for a second, what metric could we possibly use to determine whether or not these camps are effective? The fact is the "perfect" system of threat avoidance will still let likely let at least one incident slip through and after that incident some people will be clamoring for anything that makes them feel better about the situation regardless of the effectiveness of the solution.
Why are we even at a stage in American political discourse where we have to "[set] aside all arguments about whether it is ever right to torture"??
Fuckin A.
Setting aside moral arguments in regards to torture completely ignores the reality of the practice. ...might as well discuss the pros and cons of the slave trade, setting aside the moral arguments that is.
As far as it goes, it would be best to have a world where we could use more strict evidentiary standards. The first step to achieving that is to end state sponsorship of terrorism. That would also end the threat of nuclear terrorism for all practical purposes.
I'm sure the terrorists are getting three squares a day and the best medical care in our death camps. Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps!
The apologists for this sort of policy tend to trot out the tired fallacy "if they're not guilty than they have nothing to fear." Well if the government?s not guilty what do they have to fear? Most of congress isn't even told about these prisons, let alone the public. Is the president and the CIA afraid that the congress is so full of terrorist loving crazies that the second there given any discretion they'll just hand the whole counter over to Bin Laden?
I understand that sometimes information and evidence must be kept from the public and maybe congress in the interest of national security. However this whole "there bad guys therefore we can't even tell you we have them" sort of things doesn't fly unless you believe the very idea of public governance is wrong. Maybe you do.
might as well discuss the pros and cons of the slave trade, setting aside the moral arguments that is.
absolutely, mr crick. we ignore the massive moral component to this sort of action to our peril. it has been a broadening feature of american management across the board to dispense with moral arguments to get at the technical effectiveness of this or that method of management.
so fundamental has this angle of debate become in our secularizing society that one never hears anyone question the worth of the initial separation of church and state, which is taken to be prima facie an absolute good. it seems to me that the course of american government is demonstrating irrefutibly the primary drawback of that attempt by the founders to establish a dispassionate government of reason. the danger this holds for us as a people should be made eminently clear by the devolution of this socal debate from the higher standard of "is it wrong?" to the very mean and myopic one of "does it work?"
gaius-
Here's a thought: I know you're big on being governed by an elite government rather than a popular one. What makes you think that an elite would be any more likely to try enemies of the state in a fair and open forum?
As far as it goes, it would be best to have a world where we could use more strict evidentiary standards. The first step to achieving that is to end state sponsorship of terrorism. That would also end the threat of nuclear terrorism for all practical purposes.
Hence the war in Afghanistan, and the supposed reason for the war in Iraq.
To use the words "inhuman monster" to describe you would be an insult to inhuman monsters.
That's fine. Just don't call me a hypocrite.
Well, recent history shows that this approach doesn't work. They aren't afraid of us. They aren't afraid of dying, why should they be afraid of us?
Really. Sounds like they aren't too fond of our Black Sites. And there are indications that insurgent recruitment is going too well these days.
I have yet to see any argument against due process yet that gets beyond "but you see, I'm just too scared to follow the rules!"
I admit I'm a little scared. Mostly I'm just pissed and vengeful.
The anti Western Civilization, pro-torture crowd that makes up much of the ranks of the hawks these days are all about question begging.
What's so anti Western Civilization about torture? Last time I checked Western Civilization perfected some of the best methods. And can we stop with the stupid hawk/dove thing? It's so Baby Boomer.
Since you say that you are "advocating" I am going to assume that you think some approaches to terrorism are better than others, and that you are attempting to show that your (and the CIA's) approach is better than what others are offering. But I think you need to do better than pointing out that the very name of the prisons implies that "bad shit" goes on in them.
Putting foreign aggressors on trial - bad. Throwing them in a hole where professional intelligence operatives can determine if they are threats and deal with them accordingly - good.
Again I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here. I'm on about as low a ground as you can get. I realize that. I'm an inhuman monster that wishes to kill anyone that even thinks about attacking us. But you've got to give me credit for being honest. I'm not wrapping it in any patriotic ribbons or neo-con double speak.
I respect most of the people in this forum for the strength of their convictions. Many of you have raised some un-refutable points. I'm glad people like you are here to keep us misanthropes in check. I just happen to think that the primal response in this particular scenario is the proper one. If they are going to hate us, I'd rather them fear us and hate us.
I will now return to my dank, dark lair.
Suzerain. Cool word.
The United States is going down a scary road with all this torture/prison/Patriot Act garbage. Where that road will lead only a cursory look at the history of the 20th century can tell us.
"I'm on about as low a ground as you can get. I realize that. I'm an inhuman monster that wishes to kill anyone that even thinks about attacking us. But you've got to give me credit for being honest. I'm not wrapping it in any patriotic ribbons or neo-con double speak."
I give you credit. (Ting!)
I lost a humungo response to a number of comments. Blah!
ralphus,
Slavery, genocide, etc. have also been aspects of Western civilization. The point is that we have grown out of these barbarities. Quit being so willfully obtuse.
gaius, quite frankly it's ridiculous to suggest that a more religious state would make better moral judgments than a secular one. After all, the torture-is-OK-because-it-works crowd is a largely religious one.
ralphus,
Slavery, genocide, etc. have also been aspects of Western civilization. The point is that we have grown out of these barbarities. Quit being so willfully obtuse.
same here.
it involved swearing and name calling. was fun to write, however. 🙁
big on being governed by an elite government
you mischaracterize me a bit, mr thoreau -- what i'm big on is what the romans called concordia and the greeks harmonia, an acknowledgement of all parties involved that a government is in their best interests. that is clearly not the case today, and hasn't been for centuries in the west (since the wars of religion, i would say). i would make no case for corrupted, manipulative elites doing anything meritorious in governing, just as i would make no case for decadent, self-obsessed individualists being practicably governable in any way except intimidation.
that is the flaw of our society in decline, mr thoreau. we long ago fractured as a society of concordia, and have been held together (ever more tenuously) largely by threats flowing in every direction ever since.
same here.
it involved swearing and name calling. was fun to write, however. 🙁
Message 200. Doesn't look like it's going to make 500 though :(.
gaius, quite frankly it's ridiculous to suggest that a more religious state would make better moral judgments than a secular one. After all, the torture-is-OK-because-it-works crowd is a largely religious one.
if you think what those people believe in is a religion, much less a christianity based on the sermon on the mount, i have a bridge in brooklyn i'm trying to offload.
those people are spartans, pure and simple, filled with fear at a degenerating society which they cannot divine a cause for, driven by that fear to militarize and dominate all that they can touch. simply calling it religion to assuage their deep sense of sin does not make it so.
Right. If I'm self-obsessed and decadent, that means I'm probably going to kill you if you piss me off.
gaius marius,
The societies you are talking about were run by elites - many of them born into the position - and were hardly great for everyone "involved." Or are you suggesting that you believe in natural slaves, in which case the body politic would be run by a small class of individuals (mostly male)?
Thoreau,
gaius marius is living in a fantasy world filled with fantasy images of past civilizations.
Jason--
" "Fine, but how does imprisoning people more or less at random make us safer from nukes?"
This is literally assuming 0 correlation."
I don't think it is, but even if one COULD interpret those words that way, why WOULD you? That strikes me as a wildly uncharitable rendition (and "wildly uncharitable rendition" = straw man).
gaius marius,
I mean really, the idea that the Roman Republic was founded on some 'common good' basis is flat out ridiculous. The Romans conquered their neighbors (on the peninsula and elsewhere) so as to better serve their purposes, get slaves, etc.
The societies you are talking about were run by elites
of course, gg. but that is not necessarily an exploitative situation. moreover, we should not forget that, while nobility was lineal, the church was meritocratic and generally in the superior to nobility in the medieval period. it was, after all, a vital and harmonious respublica christiana from the 7th c on into the era of the schoolmen -- regardless of what it later became.
natural slaves
do you think european serfs considered themselves to be slaves, gg? and why?
gaius marius,
but that is not necessarily an exploitative situation.
Ha ha ha! Right. That's been the line of apologists for paternalism all along - Southern slave owners were all about this.
...the church was meritocratic...
Not really. So many sinecures existed in the Church that calling it meritocratic is ludicrous.
do you think european serfs considered themselves to be slaves, gg?
I was referring to Aristotle of course.
European serfs voted with their feet when they could and left the institution of serfdom, which is how serfdom was destroyed in England and France. Of course, the fact is that serfdom didn't actually exist in many areas of Europe during the time period you're discussing - namely places like Spain, what is now the Netherlands and Belgium, most of eastern Europe, etc.
...vital and harmonious respublica christiana...
Ha ha ha. Yeah, right. This explains all the warfare between Christian states, the mass murder of Jews by mobs, etc. Because you know, it was harmonious. *rolls eyes*
As articulate as G. obviously is, I don't think I "get" what he's talking about in regards to elites. ...which is another way of saying that my precursory understanding makes me uncomfortable.
...but anyone who differentiates between so called Christians and devotees of the Sermon on the Mount can't be all bad.
if you think what those people believe in is a religion, much less a christianity based on the sermon on the mount, i have a bridge in brooklyn i'm trying to offload.
gaius... I really don't know how to respond. If you're going to refuse evangelical Christianity the tital of "religion", then the word is meaningless; and along with it, any discussion with you concerning religion. Suffice it to say that whether or not you choose to grant it religion status, the vast majority of us do. Perhaps this is why the rest of us see value in the separation of church and state, where you do not.
I mean really, the idea that the Roman Republic was founded on some 'common good' basis is flat out ridiculous. The Romans conquered their neighbors (on the peninsula and elsewhere) so as to better serve their purposes, get slaves, etc.
agreed, gg -- i don't think an abjectly spartan rome was ever a healthy form of government.
what was, in the flower of hellenic civility, was the greek society dating from the 9th c bc up until the period of the peloponnesian war, which served very much the same role in hellenic civilization as the wars of religion served in ours. in its course, athens degenerated from a society of concord into an intimidating spartan dictatorship -- and the spartan model subsequently became the model for the entire dessicating hellenic world, not least through rome, which adopted it wholesale in the strife of the punic wars.
gaius
"If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more."
(I believe this was uttered by one of our more famous former slaves).
As far as I can tell, about 60-80% of "self-identifying" libertarians would support a government like that which Italy had circa 1942.
Interesting. musing on the root "liber". Amusing musings....
Hakluyt, of course it was harmonious. If anyone got out of line, the Black Mages would just case a fire spell on them. And if anyone got hurt, the Paladins could just heal them instantly with their prayers. And national defense was easily achieved with the fleet of dragons. It was a harmonious Republica Christiana before those damn scientists had to come in and mess everything up with their "knowedlge".
"As articulate as G. obviously is"
Articulate is the last word I would use to describe gaius...
If you're going to refuse evangelical Christianity the tital of "religion", then the word is meaningless
not at all, mr zach. i'm simply saying that a religion is more than a mere belief system.
So many sinecures existed in the Church that calling it meritocratic is ludicrous.
and yet, men of low brith could and did rise to the bishoprics, and the papacy prior to its decadence did campaign actively against simony. what you say is certainly true of the later church, and i wouldn't defend it -- but not nearly so much of the earlier.
Southern slave owners were all about this.
southern slave owners were exploitative, and there can be no doubt about that. but as to
European serfs voted with their feet when they could
they were surely capable of upending the system long before the 17th c -- after all, very little held them in line for much of the age. why then? slave revolts in the americas were quite common as they were in rome -- why were medieval peasant revolts so rare, especially before the 15th c? if their lot was so repulsive to themselves, why did it last for those centuries?
i submit that serfdom lasted until the wars of religion because of the faith of the peasantry in the benefices of the system -- a faith that was not totally unevidenced, just as the modern technological man knuckled under to a corporate technoindustrial order almost indistinguishable from serfdom in many ways out of respect for its initial accomplishments.
warfare between Christian states
was a rare thing prior to the wars of religion. throughout chaucer and the medieval chivalric books, the ideas of the knight is not as a warrior against fellow christians but against agents at the perimeter of christendom.
I often agree with Gaius's points, but for different reasons.
The thing that gaius points out, often, on these boards is that personal moral responsibility is the flip side of the liberty coin. You don't get liberty unless you're willing to accept that YOU are responsible for the evil that YOU commit. Saying that "they forced me to do it" or that "but it was for the greater good" does not absolve you of the evil you commit.
So when you go to war in a foreign country because there's a 20% risk in the future (and that's being very kind) of a problem and kill 10,000 innocent civilians - YOU are responsible for murdering those innocents. YOU knew, going into this endeavor, that once you opened Pandora's box, you couldn't avoid killing innocents.
Further, the fact that a bad man might have killed them anyway does not absolve you. If he killed them, that is his personal moral responsibility, not yours for failing to stop him. Note that that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to stop him, just that you can't wash your hands of the evil of your actions by saying "but it was for the greater good".
Now, where I disagree with gaius is that forced "leadership," as he likes to refer to it, is compatible with such personal moral responsibility. History demonstrates that the very existence of states destroys this concept, whether in short order (as in the Weimar Republic) or over long, slow decay (as in Rome and the U.S.) The state is always based upon the premise that it is okay to rob from citizens as long as it is for "the greater good". Therefore, citizens are always going to argue for robbery to support their vision of "the greater good".
So I guess the short version is that, IMO, gaius correctly identifies the problem, but suggests the wrong answer.
This black ops/torture shit will eventually make its way to these shores.
i would say, mr quasibill, that being able to accept leadership is compatible with moral responsibility. it's poorly phrased (as i may have phrased it myself) as "forced" -- rather, perhaps the term is something more like "self-evident".
of course, gg. but that is not necessarily an exploitative situation. moreover, we should not forget that, while nobility was lineal, the church was meritocratic and generally in the superior to nobility in the medieval period. it was, after all, a vital and harmonious respublica christiana from the 7th c on into the era of the schoolmen -- regardless of what it later became.
You sure do use some smart words and serious brainpower telling everyone just how large and ornate your blinders are.
"Note that that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to stop him"
There's a lot of room around what "shouldn't try to stop him" means. I see nothing from the non-troll pro-war people that suggests that they don't understand the moral culpability of supporting the war. They, and I, will point out the moral culpabalitity of not starting a war when it is warranted. Again, there is obviously a lot of room around "warranted," but it is stupid and frustrating to constantly go back to square one in these arguments.
not at all, mr zach. i'm simply saying that a religion is more than a mere belief system.
I of course agree with that statement, but you're actually saying the exact opposite, when you say that the religious right are not Christians because they don't follow the teachings of the sermon on the mount. You're defining Christianity as a certain belief system, and then denying them the title because they don't conform with that definition.
The fact remains they're Christians, and the fact remains that's not necessarily a good thing.
You sure do use some smart words and serious brainpower telling everyone just how large and ornate your blinders are.
it's a novel concept in postmodernity, isn't it, mr mediageek? that a society's leadership needn't necessarily be exploitative and amoral simply by vice of being in leadership? that a leadership could actually feel a moral responsibility to the led? and that this situation may actually be what separates vital civilizations from dysfunctional and dying ones?
food for thought.
Ethan:
What, she gets to issue a gross exaggeration, use it as the basis of a moral argument, and when I point out that her premise is exaggerated I'm guilty of creating a straw man?
Zach, gaius is just engaging in the oldest and arguably most fun part of belonging to a religion:
Excluding others.
it's a novel concept in postmodernity, isn't it, mr mediageek? that a society's leadership needn't necessarily be exploitative and amoral simply by vice of being in leadership? that a leadership could actually feel a moral responsibility to the led? and that this situation may actually be what separates vital civilizations from dysfunctional and dying ones?
And gaius proves my point for me.
The fact remains they're Christians
self-identified, mr zach, and self-interpreting. am i a roman because i say i am?
while some people have the requisite moral strength to be christian and not quiesce into a vapid hero-cult centered on a self-ordained preacher with his own shallow and frequently evil interpretation of the bible -- not to mention a desperate need for donations -- my view of human nature is that those people are diminishingly small in number.
and that this situation may actually be what separates vital civilizations from dysfunctional and dying ones?
Fascinating. So civilizations that follow these rules are completely functional and never die. Fantastic.
By the way, could you point me in the direction of that society today? You know, the one that never died and is functional in every way?
Zach, my guess is that gaius' answer will require that you brush up on your Latin.
Oh, and be prepared to forego nookie for the rest of your life.
self-identified, mr zach, and self-interpreting. am i a roman because i say i am?
Well, no, because...
BEING ROMAN IS NOT A RELIGION.
And we're done.
Excluding others.
careful, mr mediageek -- while i think each and all of us possesses the capacity for great good in free will, i'm merely saying that, especially in a secular society that provides very little spiritual guidance, people are easily untracked and deceived as to the nature of good. witness the bush administration propaganda campaign for wmd.
Again I'm not trying to take any moral high ground here. I'm on about as low a ground as you can get. I realize that. I'm an inhuman monster that wishes to kill anyone that even thinks about attacking us. But you've got to give me credit for being honest.
That's a load of horseshit. You're talking about torturing innocent men to their deaths just because they look like and live around people who maybe, might, aspire to be terrorsts, then preemptively imprisoning their families in secret prisons lest they attempt to seek justice for that crime. I don't give you credit for being frank about it anymore than I would any other psychopath.
"What, she gets to issue a gross exaggeration, use it as the basis of a moral argument, and when I point out that her premise is exaggerated I'm guilty of creating a straw man?"
Couldn't you BOTH have created straw men? After all, since straw men are weak by definition, if one existed and then another came along, what would the original be able to do about it? Nothing. He'd just have to lie there with his weak little arms and legs twitching about.
You know what would be cool in 2008?
A candidate who would say that, if elected, s/he'd would shut down anything like this, stop all instances of torture by our government, stop rendition to other governments so someone can be tortured, stop indefinite detention of people without charges, and stop non-judicial executions.
I don't expect the Republicans to put up anyone like that. I don't expect the ever-so-different Democrats to put up anyone like that. (They'll probably find someone who'll say he'd have ordered the torture, but more multilaterally...)
You know what would be cool now, though?
People in Congress willing to actually say they oppose this and, you know, vote for it to be stopped!
No, I don't expect either party to do this, either.
BEING ROMAN IS NOT A RELIGION.
you're either not smart enough to carry this conversation, mr zach, or you're being willfully obtuse. which is it?
So civilizations that follow these rules are completely functional and never die.
this isn't utopianism. nothing is perfect about it. and any civility is under constant challenge to its existence from within.
is your cynicism so deep, mr zach, that you cannot imagine a functional society of concordia -- of the type most of the posters on this board seem to believe we are wrongly deprived of?
careful, mr mediageek -- while i think each and all of us possesses the capacity for great good in free will, i'm merely saying that, especially in a secular society that provides very little spiritual guidance, people are easily untracked and deceived as to the nature of good. witness the bush administration propaganda campaign for wmd.
Bush is hardly the poster boy for post-modern secularism. That you seem unable to tell the difference between such and an openly avowed born-again Christian who has publically admitted to hearing God speak to him says volumes about your chosen position.
Does God talk to you, gaius?
How about Jesus?
Do me a favor, next time one of them strikes up a conversation, tell 'em to give me a call.
Don't worry, they have my digits.
gaius marius,
was a rare thing prior to the wars of religion.
You are totally off your rocker now. Need I remind you that France and England were involved in a titantic contest to determine whether France would even exist for most of the 14th and 15th centuries? Need I remind you of the genocide that the Catholic Church still loves to view as a holy work - namely the Albigensian Crusade. Or the bloody wars of Charlemagne (whose entire reign was filled with one war after another) to destroy pagan nations? Get off your cloud mate and get in touch with reality. Medeival history was filled with warfare.
Concorduroy = functional King pants, chivalric at the perimeter
mediageek,
The point is that the societies that gaius marius describes never existed. He's wistfully pining for a glorious past that never was.
gaius marius,
I mean really, are you taking crazy pills?
Bush is hardly the poster boy for post-modern secularism
would you like me to name some other deception which resigned millions to commit great evil under the impression of doing great good? a secular deception? there are a great many, you know.
That you seem unable to tell the difference between such and an openly avowed born-again Christian who has publically admitted to hearing God speak to him says volumes about your chosen position.
it has nothing to do with whether or not the deceiver thinks himself religious of secular, mr mediageek -- it has everything to do with the ability of people to see to the root morality of an act, often in spite of their own perceived benefit.
"They, and I, will point out the moral culpabalitity of not starting a war when it is warranted."
It doesn't work that way. The only time war is warranted is when the threat is imminent and proportional. You can defend yourself. But if you kill innocents in doing it, you are morally culpable. Your culpability may be mitigated, as you were acting self-defense, but you are still responsible for your action. You can't wash the blood off your hands and put it on someone else's. That's personal responsibility. And way too many "libertarians" fail to understand that.
In other words, you can't say that you were warranted in killing innocent Iraqis because it was "for their own good." In such a case, you were the aggressor, you knowingly (or at least recklessly) killed innocents, and you were not acting in self-defense. You are morally responsible for those deaths. If Saddam would have killed them anyway, he is responsible for them.
So, no, there isn't a lot of room around opposing bad men. You can and should oppose them. But your ability and right to oppose them ends at the point where you commit crimes of your own to do it.
is your cynicism so deep, mr zach, that you cannot imagine a functional society of concordia -- of the type most of the posters on this board seem to believe we are wrongly deprived of?
Just to clear up a misconception you may have about libertarianism, mister gaius, this is no "concordia" any more than there is utopia. A society or even world governed by a state apparatus following libertarian principles would still have plenty of discord. And lest I seem to be engaged in mere wordplay, my point is that concordia versus discordia is not black and white but all shades of grey. Most of us here feel that the more libertarian principles that were followed, the more concordant (or at least just) our world would be. But there is no magical line over which one crosses into concordia. Now, maybe that's not what you meant. But just in case it was, you are now advised otherwise.
would you like me to name some other deception which resigned millions to commit great evil under the impression of doing great good? a secular deception? there are a great many, you know.
*cough*
Red herring, false dichotomy.
it has nothing to do with whether or not the deceiver thinks himself religious of secular, mr mediageek -- it has everything to do with the ability of people to see to the root morality of an act, often in spite of their own perceived benefit.
And how does this differ from your particularly midieval brand of Catholocism?
gaius marius,
they were surely capable of upending the system long before the 17th c
Serfdom collapsed in Western Europe (in places where it existed) in the 14th century due in part to the labor shortages caused by the plague - this was by both de jure and de facto measures.
why were medieval peasant revolts so rare, especially before the 15th c?
They weren't rare is the point. Revolts against local landlords were quite common prior to the 1th century, and at least some of Western Europe's most violent mass risings happened in the 14th century (think of the massacre of the Flemish by English peasants in 1385).
The point is that the societies that gaius marius describes never existed. He's wistfully pining for a glorious past that never was.
Evidently. But he makes the mistake that all zealots make, insulating himself in a philosophy that allows him to simply dismiss anyone who questions it.
Fundamentally, the only difference between the words of gaius marius on this blog and James Dobson of Focus on the Family is that one of them sounds like The Architect from "Matrix: Reloaded" and the other sounds like an idiot.
edit - If Saddam would have killed them anyway, he is responsible for them -
Should read
-If Saddam would have killed them anyway, he would have been responsible for their deaths, not you. You have no duty to protect them, liberate them, save them, etc., so it can't be your responsibility when the evil man harms them. -
zach, mediageek -
it isn't just religion that seeks to exclude. Communists, syndicalists, etc. all do it. It's an attempt to give meaning to a label. And it has its purpose - if your introduction to libertarianism was Al Franken, claiming to be one, would you view libertarianism favorably? Isn't all identification, at its base, by exclusion?
Someone else nailed my reaction gm - he believes in a history that doesn't exist. But then, many people do - look at how Lincoln is considered a patron saint of racial relations...
Concerning that earlier standard I suggested, the point was that it is a matter of utilitarian analysis to answer the question of how many innocents is an acceptable number to imprison. Not to pooh pooh on the world of idealism, but we have the same calculation in the US criminal justice system. We seek to set up a system that deters criminal behavior and that is successful in removing major criminals from the category of 'active threat'. Our system contains provisions around rights of the accused that I'm arguing are not transportable to Afghanistan at this time. If the same provisions we use were to be brought to bear on those captured in such an area, the justice system would cease to function. It would not deter anyone and it would not prevent key players from remaining active threats.
With that in mind, I am simply acknowledging that if we loosen rights of the accused, we are accepting a higher proportion of innocents in cages. It is not my favorite outcome, but I don't think it is avoidable to some extent.
The fact remains they're Christians, and the fact remains that's not necessarily a good thing.
I'm not sure either of those are a fact.
why were medieval peasant revolts so rare, especially before the 15th c?
Revolts were pretty rare in the days before any peasant could just pick up an arquebus and blast Lord Farquad off the back of his galloping steed.
RC,
You are incorrect to say that the Libby indictment has established that leaking Plame's name did not violate the law. Fitzgerald has made no such statement; indeed he said quite the opposite, that Libby's actions have impeded his ability to answer that question, and that the investigation remains open.
Or the bloody wars of Charlemagne (whose entire reign was filled with one war after another) to destroy pagan nations?
not internecine christian war, though, gg.
Need I remind you that France and England were involved in a titantic contest to determine whether France would even exist for most of the 14th and 15th centuries?
we're citing wars here, gg, that closely coincide with the dessication of christian meritocracy and the onset of the reformation. i agree with you, at dates this late, christianity was already coming apart. one sees the advent of large peasant revolts in the 14th c as well.
Albigensian Crusade
again -- i'm not trying to paint a utopia that never was. the church was far from the unerring representative of the lessons of christ. (do you really think me dumb enough to say otherwise, gg? i'm offended! 🙂 ) i'm simply saying that there was a period, now past, where concord between nobility, laity and clergy was the basis of a healthy society. the horrifying steps taken against the cathars, and in the inquisition generally it must be said, deeply undermined the church's position in this concord and can be seen as an early step toward the fracturing that became more prominent later.
but it bears noting that the first step of the church in the face of the cathars was not to conquer but to attempt for twenty years to peacefully reconvert them.
I mean really, are you taking crazy pills?
yes yes, i know, it's heresy to say a good word about religion. 🙂
" If the same provisions we use were to be brought to bear on those captured in such an area, the justice system would cease to function"
Any evidence for this assertion, or is it just a gut feeling? Because there's plenty of evidence for the opposite (several hundred years of British and American common law).
mediageek,
They really weren't rare, if you look at it at a localized level. What happened in late middle ages is that contact between regions of an area increased, as did the size of towns and cities, which provided a critical mass for very large risings against the government, etc. Local landlords in Germany, France and England had their places burned to the ground enough, or were killed enough to put a sock in the notion that Catholic Europe at any time during the middle ages was some sort of beautiful and saintly "Respublica Christiana."
Quasibill, I was being facetious.
However, given that Christianity can be broadly defined as including those who believe that Jesus Christ was the embodiement of God, and that He was sacrificed to assauge humanity's sins, I find it rather disingenuous when people point at Catholics/Baptists/Lutherans/Jehova's Witnesses/Whatever and sneer "Well, they aren't Christians."
Whatever.
my point is that concordia versus discordia is not black and white but all shades of grey.
absolutely, mr fyodor -- but we are definitely near black now.
Most of us here feel that the more libertarian principles that were followed, the more concordant (or at least just) our world would be.
i would take mr quasibill's position:
That's personal responsibility. And way too many "libertarians" fail to understand that.
and in so failing, discord is inevitable.
I don't think they're saying "I'm bored, let's go out and arrest ten guys today," but I DO think (and they themselves have admitted) that they're picking up a lot of people in random sweeps on the street.
Considering that the black ops sites involve roughly 100 prisoners in total, those must be the emptiest damn streets in the Middle East.
Excuse me, I'm going back to the Dowd thread so that I can talk about my penis a bit more.
"It doesn't work that way. The only time war is warranted is when the threat is imminent and proportional."
Terrific, if you say so.
It's not that I don't get libertarian morality. I just reject that it is the only moral code, and also that it is the right one.
It is my belief that we are all responsible for our fellow man, and morally responsible for our inaction as well as our action, which makes things extremely messy. Most Iraq hawks believe this as well. (For that matter so do most Iraq non-hawks.)
It is not a matter of failing to see the bad that comes with the war, was my original point.
quasibill:
I can only infer that a man who uses human shields always wins because it is impossible to engage such a threat without damaging those humans who serve as shields. No, it isn't a pleasant calculation. Yes you are responsible for every death you cause. Still, that is a pretty fantastic outcome for people who like to blow things up from behind a wall of people. You have defined them to be unassailable on moral grounds.
You're talking about torturing innocent men to their deaths just because they look like and live around people who maybe, might, aspire to be terrorsts...
No my criteria would be somewhat stricter than that. Somewhat.
then preemptively imprisoning their families in secret prisons lest they attempt to seek justice for that crime.
Not preemptivley. If they tried to act on their thirst for vengance then I would kill them or imprison them. Not that I would blame them for trying.
I don't give you credit for being frank about it anymore than I would any other psychopath.
Fair enough. But don't miscaricarize my psychotic vision.
gaius marius,
we're citing wars here, gg, that closely coincide with the dessication of christian meritocracy and the onset of the reformation.
And I am going the length and breadth of the middle ages to prove a point - it was a period of warfare as much as any period of human history has been.
not internecine christian war, though, gg.
I guess the war against fellow Christian Lombards prompted by Pope Hadrian doesn't count, then, eh? Of course the fact that you discount the lives of pagans as meaningless is quite telling.
i'm simply saying that there was a period, now past, where concord between nobility, laity and clergy was the basis of a healthy society.
And I am saying that it never existed anywhere except in the mind of medeival theorists.
but it bears noting that the first step of the church in the face of the cathars was not to conquer but to attempt for twenty years to peacefully reconvert them.
Heh. Are you going to take the same strategy with me if I remain an atheist even after many exhortations about the wonders of Christianity?
They really weren't rare, if you look at it at a localized level.
agreed, gg -- the peasantry showed ample ability to revolt where they were abused. but that they didn't widely before the 14th c indicates that sufficient concord in the system overall existed in spite of local despots.
some sort of beautiful and saintly "Respublica Christiana."
did you ever see me call it beautiful or saintly, gg? 🙂 i think you read too much nostalgia into my comments. i didn't live in the period! how could i be sentimental for it? i'm merely positing that concord did exist, and now it does not.
gaius marius-
Check your yahoo mail account.
"Any evidence for this assertion, or is it just a gut feeling? Because there's plenty of evidence for the opposite (several hundred years of British and American common law)."
This is either mere baiting or a gross misapprehension of the state of attaiable evidence, attainable witnesses, and public complicity that is present in Afghanistan at the moment. Those things that you need to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt? They don't exist there.
"You have no duty to protect them, liberate them, save them, etc., so it can't be your responsibility when the evil man harms them."
Yes, you've quite nicely summarized why 99% of the free world rejects hard core libertarianism. That's a morally repugnant position to most people.
I will however apologize for my psychotic spelling in my last post.
gaius marius,
I have to say if that was concord, then I perfer my current, liberated, free, etc. discordia.
And I am saying that it never existed anywhere except in the mind of medeival theorists.
you are entitled to that interpretation of western history, of course, gg.
Are you going to take the same strategy with me if I remain an atheist even after many exhortations about the wonders of Christianity?
i would never presume so much. 🙂
No conversation about the role of religion in government is ever going to be constructive if we change definitions mid-stream to define "true" religion basically as "that which is morally and spiritually correct", which is exactly what gaius is trying to do. Fortunately, such conversations are still possible with rational people, because they agree to define religion independent of right and wrong, and simply as a group of people with shared spiritual beliefs; and then make judgments about the moral actions of members of said religions.
Although you are obviously quite intelligent, gaius, you would rather claim the moral high ground than participate in a rational discussion, by claiming the title of "religion" or "Christian" only for yourself and a select few; and thus equating Bush with a secular leader. That's great if it brings you peace of mind, but again, it has no place in a rational discussion.
i'm simply saying that there was a period, now past, where concord between nobility, laity and clergy was the basis of a healthy society.
Yeah, I suppose that if one has no problem paying indulgences to get into heaven out of one's meager earnings that it would make for a healthy society.
Gaius, you're fundamentally no different than the people in Dobson's group, or any other theopolitical organization. No wonder you have such disdain for them.
Check your yahoo mail account.
why? is there a bomb in it? 🙂
An invitation, of sorts.
No my criteria would be somewhat stricter than that. Somewhat.
That's not what you said upthread; and in fact had no problem with random innocent people getting caught up in random sweeps, then being tortured until they died.
Not preemptivley. If they tried to act on their thirst for vengance then I would kill them or imprison them. Not that I would blame them for trying.
So, in your world, it is wrong -- a wrong punishable by imprisonment and death -- to seek justice for the detention, torture and death of an innocent family member. Or is it only wrong for brown-skinned people? Or just for evil Mooooooslims?
"Quasibill, I was being facetious."
mea culpa. That one flew over my head.
But I still see nothing wrong with trying to define your group by excluding those who don't agree with you. And as I'm sure you'd agree, many of those who claim to be Christian/Catholic/Anglican/etc. pick and choose which teachings they want to adhere to and ignore the rest because it's inconvenient. If I considered myself as belonging to one of those groups, I most certainly would want to exclude such people from the definition.
Kinda like the Catholics who say "Can't be pro-choice and Catholic" who are nevertheless pro- Iraq war. If I were Catholic, I would want to exclude them from the definition of Catholic. They clearly aren't following the church, they are merely using it selectively to support their world-view.
I guess I'm kinda sensitive on this one because I was for a long time reluctant to convert to libertarianism because of the many self-identified libertarians who were nothing more than ultra-selfish Republicans. That's what I judged libertarianism on. It wasn't until I read Rothbard that I started to see that there was more to it than just being the ultimate atomistic egoist...
Yeah, I suppose that if one has no problem paying indulgences to get into heaven out of one's meager earnings that it would make for a healthy society.
after all that's been said, mr mediageek, are you still confused as to the period under discussion? or as to the obvious imperfections of the church?
or is your reflexive antichristianity getting the better of you?....
Gaius, you're fundamentally no different than the people in Dobson's group
good god, mr mediageek -- i'm not even a practicing catholic, much less a postchristian zealot. my arguments (which you apparently have grossly distorted into strawmen in taking them in) are from a historical perspective, not a religious one.
What cracks me up is that ralphus is trying to position himself as some sort of straight-shootin', truth-tellin', rough-and-tumble pragmatist, when what he really is is a baby. A big fucking baby, so scared by the Bush administration's conception of the Evil Invading Muslim Jihadi Hordes that he retreates into psychopathy, asking for Big Daddy Government to save him from the bad men, then acts like it's a virtue.
Two invitations, Gaius.
Its a Catholic cabal.
agreed, gg -- the peasantry showed ample ability to revolt where they were abused. but that they didn't widely before the 14th c indicates that sufficient concord in the system overall existed in spite of local despots.
Kind of hard to revolt when you don't have the time or resources to learn how to effectively use a sword, horse, or other battle implement of the time.
Oh, and there's that whole bit where living life as a subsistence farmer with a body wracked with maladies and injuries, to say nothing of being on the verge of starvation all the fucking time would tend to make it somewhat difficult to, you know, revolt.
Yes, I suppose it's easy to argue that concord exists. After all, if the laity can't speak up, they must be cool with how things are.
gaius marius,
You arguments are from somewhere, but historical they are not.
Although you are obviously quite intelligent, gaius, you would rather claim the moral high ground than participate in a rational discussion, by claiming the title of "religion" or "Christian" only for yourself and a select few; and thus equating Bush with a secular leader. That's great if it brings you peace of mind, but again, it has no place in a rational discussion.
no, mr zach, i would say only that christianity is, post-reformation, as much as a shattered window. each sliver might be called 'christian', but none are the window that would be a religion. postmodern christian cults -- for that is what they are -- are entirely self-identifying. anyone can get up to a pulpit, wave a bible and claim to be christian. does that make them so? not necessarily.
men like pat robertson, for example, are not christian in any meaningful sense -- they run a hero-cult that has entirely mundane aspirations, political and material. it's virtually the antithesis of anything that might be recognizably christian, being in open controvention of christian gospel. (eg, calling for the death of hugo chavez.)
and i would NEVER presume to call myself christian. i'm not a practicing theist of any kind.
but what i'm also not -- which is a bit of a rarity around here -- is a reflexive neitzschean antichristian.
"This is either mere baiting or a gross misapprehension of the state of attaiable evidence, attainable witnesses, and public complicity that is present in Afghanistan at the moment. Those things that you need to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt? They don't exist there."
You have clearly never been present for a criminal prosecution the states. All that is needed to convict someone of a crime is circumstantial evidence. And in the past, we had much less of it than we do currently, and yet, criminals were convicted. So, yes, this evidence does exist there.
"Yes, you've quite nicely summarized why 99% of the free world rejects hard core libertarianism. That's a morally repugnant position to most people."
Of course, you selectively quoted it to make it sound worse. But even assuming your selective quote is all I said, if you disagree, you are morally responsible for failing to stop the genocide in Africa; you are morally responsible for the infant deaths due to poverty; etc. Very few people find this to be true. There is a difference between "duty" and "right".
Furthermore, to restore context, my statement was that your right to protect these people is limited to the point where you start committing crimes yourself to do it. At that point you turn into a criminal, no matter what flag or cause you drape yourself in...
That's not what you said upthread; and in fact had no problem with random innocent people getting caught up in random sweeps, then being tortured until they died.
Then quote me. I never said that. I did say that I don't think the sweeps are that random. And I'll say now that I doubt the number of innocent men tortured to death is that high. I'm not denying it's happened, but my feeling is basically - sucks for them.
So, in your world, it is wrong -- a wrong punishable by imprisonment and death -- to seek justice for the detention, torture and death of an innocent family member. Or is it only wrong for brown-skinned people? Or just for evil Mooooooslims?
Never said that either. I said I wouldn't blame them, but I would kill them if they tried. And don't play the race card; I don't care what color the person who wants to kill me is or whom he prays to. The only pertinent fact is that he wants me dead so I want him dead.
I'm a psycho, but not a racist psycho.
gaius marius,
There is nothing in Christianity which forbids the killing of foreign leaders.
ralphus-
What about people who have not taken up arms or even provided indirect support, but who (for whatever messed up reasons) have some sympathy for the terrorists? Do you want them killed too?
If you do, can you see why they might want you dead?
After all, if the laity can't speak up, they must be cool with how things are.
bu, as gg points out, mr mediageek, they often did -- it was well within their ability to do so all along, and against isolated despotic princes they certainly did.
that they did not en masse is a result primarily of a functioning medieval social contract between the laity, nobility and clergy that was built and maintained from charles martel into the italian renaissance.
no, mr zach, i would say only that christianity is, post-reformation, as much as a shattered window. each sliver might be called 'christian', but none are the window that would be a religion.
Unless you want to sink to the level of using the commonly-held definition of the word.
no, mr zach, i would say only that christianity is, post-reformation, as much as a shattered window. each sliver might be called 'christian', but none are the window that would be a religion. postmodern christian cults -- for that is what they are -- are entirely self-identifying. anyone can get up to a pulpit, wave a bible and claim to be christian. does that make them so? not necessarily.
Except by the commonly-held definition.
but what i'm also not -- which is a bit of a rarity around here -- is a reflexive neitzschean antichristian.
Nor am I. I was raised evangelical Christian and my family still is. My objection is that you're operating under a different definition of the words "religion" and "Christian" than the rest of us, and then, you're using your changed definitions to prove your points while arguing about religion and politics, while your changed definitions make such argument impossible to refer to reality.
There is nothing in Christianity which forbids the killing of foreign leaders.
except the fifth commandment, of course, gg. and that whole spiel about loving thy brother. i can see how robertson would have forgotten about those -- but you? 🙂
"I can only infer that a man who uses human shields always wins because it is impossible to engage such a threat without damaging those humans who serve as shields"
Not true. If the human shields are willingly protecting the evil man, they are not innocents. If they are not, he can't keep them there forever, or there are ways to breach the shield without killing them (one of them will probably willingly use a gun you provide them to do the job for you, etc.).
But even assuming that such can't be done, if you kill the evil man, and kill some innocents, you are still culpable for their deaths. You can't wash your hands of it. Again, your guilt may be mitigated because you were acting in self-defense. But that doesn't change the fact that you ARE responsible, and no amount of jingoism or collectivism can change that.
gaius marius,
No, its a result of the isolated, disjointed nature of pre-13th century Europe. When large masses of people were drawn together (by say the murderous Crusades), they could wreak some serious havoc (see the nightmare associated with the "People's Crusade").
commonly-held definition
if the dictionary is the limit of your understanding of religion, i can see why we're having difficulty seeing eye to eye, mr zach.
you're using your changed definitions
i'm using the words to represent deeply complex human interactions and institutions as i've come to understand them following a great deal of education and reflection. i can't answer for other people's conceptions of what a religion is or is not. but i concur, terminology may be at the root of misunderstanding.
I don't see the point of continuing this ralphus discussion. He said he's a psycho (in regards to this issue); hence, he has no logical points to offer concerning morality (on this issue).
What cracks me up is that ralphus is trying to position himself as some sort of straight-shootin', truth-tellin', rough-and-tumble pragmatist, when what he really is is a baby. A big fucking baby, so scared by the Bush administration's conception of the Evil Invading Muslim Jihadi Hordes that he retreates into psychopathy, asking for Big Daddy Government to save him from the bad men, then acts like it's a virtue.
I'm the baby? Who's calling people names?
There's nothing virtuous about my position. I've freely admitted that. And I don't need the Bush Administration to shape my conception of Islamo Facists. They do a perfectly good job of defining themselves. They've made their intentions perfectly clear. And as far as Big Daddy Government goes, he's doing one of the few things that fall under his job description. Killing our enemies.
gaius marius,
The Fifth Commandment clearly refers to in-clan murders.
Oh, swell, gaius.
At least the theocratic nutjobs can fall back on the excuse that God told them what to think.
But you don't even rest your position on divinity?
So how can you possibly defend the actions of the Vatican? Regardless of any Golden Era that may or may not have happened, the historical record bears out that they were just as nasty as any other power structure.
And yet, the best you can do is point to all of this historical thuggery and cry out that the Vatican was truly the victim.
Hogwash.
or is your reflexive antichristianity getting the better of you?
Reflexive antichristianity? Really?
Where have I attacked the divinity of Jesus, or mocked people for a belief in God?
Where have I mocked Jesus' sacrifice?
Perhaps you'd like to find a post wherein I've belittled Jesus' teachings?
You're making the classic blunder of confusing disdain for a religious power structure for disdain of the Deity it claims to represent.
gaius marius,
As to loving neighbors, well, neighbors don't include non-Christians - especially Jews, who have been singled out from the start as the murderers of Christ.
"Of course, you selectively quoted it to make it sound worse. "
No, I've quoted it for clarity. Once you deny that principle, morality is no longer as simple as it looks before you deny it. That's my point here. Go look at the post that started our conversation. You were saying that people who are pro-war don't understand their moral responsiblity for their actions. That's not true (trolls aside.) Most of us simply weight the moral resposibility of inaction higher, among other things.
"if you disagree, you are morally responsible for failing to stop the genocide in Africa; you are morally responsible for the infant deaths due to poverty; etc."
Yes, that is true. As we all are.
gaius marius,
Suffice it to say that religion, like all other collectivist ideologies has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the history of humanity - Christianity being one of the primary movers and shakers re: these evils.
See?
What Hak posted, that's reflexive antichristianity.
Sheeze, you'd think a guy would actually be able to tell the difference.
;-p
mediageek,
Its not reflexive. My response is not a knee-jerk one. It is studied and well thought out.
"Most of us simply weight the moral resposibility of inaction higher"
Higher than anti-war folks, I mean, inasmuch as it applies to this war.
What about people who have not taken up arms or even provided indirect support, but who (for whatever messed up reasons) have some sympathy for the terrorists? Do you want them killed too?
They can sympathize all they want. But if they take up arms or provide material aid then they're fair game.
Now, gaius marius' reactions are reflexive.
its a result of the isolated, disjointed nature of pre-13th century Europe
i find that argument difficult to credit, gg. medieval trade routes were copious and not only international but intercivilizational, reaching through byzantium into the islamic world and china. western medieval armies interacted a great deal with saracens and byzantines all thoughout the middle ages, and brought home (as they invariably do) the influences of their enemies. the church circulated its clergy throughout christendom, educating them in rome and elsewhere before returning them to their posts.
to the point, the transmission of ideas over distances in the medieval world was not only possible but active and ongoing.
while it was far from the superconductor of ideas we have today, that is a consequence of the medieval mindset and its priority on society, tradition and institution, not any sociopolitical or geographic barrier. ideological revolutionism is easy now because we are fleeing history -- what is new is best, we think. that was not the medieval interpretation.
if the dictionary is the limit of your understanding of religion, i can see why we're having difficulty seeing eye to eye, mr zach.
You can have as deep an understanding of religion as you like, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word "religion" into something else entirely, for which evangelical Christianity would not qualify.
You can use it as such, but don't expect to be taken seriously. Well, expect it all you like, but nobody will. Excuse me, save a "select" few.
gaius marius,
medieval trade routes were copious and not only international but intercivilizational...
But they didn't include the mass of Europe's population. You are confusing what happened with minor portions of Europe's population with the vast bulk of it. Most Europeans lived and died and never left a very narrow geographical area.
Its not reflexive. My response is not a knee-jerk one. It is studied and well thought out.
heh.
Regardless, I was being flippant.
So how can you possibly defend the actions of the Vatican? Regardless of any Golden Era that may or may not have happened, the historical record bears out that they were just as nasty as any other power structure.
indeed they became as much.
You're making the classic blunder of confusing disdain for a religious power structure for disdain of the Deity it claims to represent.
at least we agree, mr mediageek, that there is a tremendous difference between the two.
but tell me -- do you genuinely believe that the church was never beneficial? or, to widen the question, that any "power structure" was ever beneficial?
They can sympathize all they want. But if they take up arms or provide material aid then they're fair game.
How should people react to what they perceive as a foreign invader? Your ideas will keep us at war in perpetuity.
gaius marius,
The Soviets did some "beneficial" things, but that doesn't make me want to adopt their system. That members of the Church set up some hospitals, or St. Vincent DePaul did some nice things doesn't offset all the evil committed by the Church, or the evil it would commit if it were ever in a position as it was in the middle ages - that a significant power broker in medeival society.
but tell me -- do you genuinely believe that the church was never beneficial? or, to widen the question, that any "power structure" was ever beneficial?
I would say most "Power structures" begin as benificial entities, but after a few generations, they all seem to degenerate into something else.
But they didn't include the mass of Europe's population.
medieval trade did, however, directly affect the lives of the majority of europeans through the nobility. ideas have a way of making it around through trading networks, as you know, even if the trade itself is in luxuries.
Most Europeans lived and died and never left a very narrow geographical area.
are you suggesting that this changed materially between 1200 and 1500, gg? it's all a bit too early to posit a portable middle class, methinks.
That members of the Church set up some hospitals, or St. Vincent DePaul did some nice things
that's the limit of the catholic church's contribution to western civilization, gg? i don't think even you believe that.
doesn't offset all the evil committed by the Church, or the evil it would commit if it were ever in a position as it was in the middle ages
secular government has acquitted itself better, gg?
it's often thought i'm somehow advocating putting the pope back in charge. 🙂 hardly. i agree, gg, that the church -- while potentially a better power structure than any amoral secular concoction of western man because of its implicit commitment to the new testament -- is not in a position any longer to govern. one cannot and should not try to go back.
My response is not a knee-jerk one. It is studied and well thought out.
but, in a weaker moment, i think we could both agree that your reading of religion is about as black as any can be, yes?
Gaius, if power structures didn't benefit someone, somewhere, then people wouldn't put forth the effort to construct them.
Duh.
The most benevolent ones will benefit all, and generally through a hands-off approach.
gaius marius,
Yes, I am suggesting this. This was a period of dramatic economic expansion after all, which helped let loose the economic basis for Western freedom.
gm,
that's the limit of the catholic church's contribution to western civilization, gg?
I'll throw in some art and Boethius' Consolation.... 🙂
secular government has acquitted itself better, gg?
I'm a libertarian. Remember?
How should people react to what they perceive as a foreign invader?
They should fight them or surrender. In war two sides kill each other until one side gets tired of being killed or runs out of people to be killed.
Your ideas will keep us at war in perpetuity.
Are we still fighting the Civil War? The Japanese? The Moros? Nazi Germany? Is Scotland part of Great Britain? Is Spain still running the globe? Are we still in Nam?
Eventually one side submits or retreats. Unless the UN comes in to referee. Then you just end up with simmering hostilities always on the verge of boiling over.
Wow, we're nearly to five hundred! Keep it going folks!
i'm simply saying that there was a period, now past, where concord between nobility, laity and clergy was the basis of a healthy society.
From what year to what year, over what precise geographic area?
I agree that the Reformation seems the starting point for the disintegration of the idea of a unified Christendom. ...but that idea died as a natural consequence of the priesthood of believers, the printing press, the publication of the Bible in common languages, etc. What would it take to get that idea back in common currency again?
...To bemoan the loss the idea of a unified Christendom is to bemoan those advances, or so it seems to me. The Bible's already in every common language and the ability to read is universal, relatively speaking. With these developments, how can Christendom go back to any one church dictating a single interpretation?
...People didn't embrace righteousness by faith as some intellectual construction. They read the Bible and, informed by culture, they found their own meaning. ...How do you get people to stop doing that? I know people who would rather burn at the stake than cross themselves in front of a statue.
G., you seem to talk about religious convictions as if they were some malleable substance that can be massaged into one form or another. ...but it isn't like that. There are many people who will not accept some interpretation of Christianity just to save society from whatever you're afraid of.
These people don't reverence the Sermon on the Mount just because of its wisdom and logic; they reverence it because they truly believe the creator of the universe spoke these words to them. ...Would you convince them otherwise?
During the American Revolution, similar issues arose, particularly regarding the treatment of prisoners. Although it is dangerous to generalize, the Americans generally treated their prisoners better than the British did. One of the reasons for this was that the American leadership believed that it was very important to establish a positive precedent for the new nation in the court of world opinion, particularly because of the ideals for which the new nation stood. The byword was a paraphrase from the play Marcus Cato: "we can do better than win this war...we can deserve it". Although I think it is essential that we do what is necessary to protect our nation and its people in an often anarchic world, we are lost if we lose sight of the basic principals that motivated our nation's founders.
Ron - too late. We've already gone about invading countries preemptively. Now we're talking about torture and the suspension of due process, as if these things should even be discussed, and not immediately dismissed.
I had posted earlier that gaius pines for a historical time and place that never existed. Unfortunately the reason hamsters seem to have been especially tired today and didn't post my post.
Maybe they partied on my birthday as hard as I did, since I'm still recovering myself! 🙂
Zach:
Thanks for all your posts! You saved me a bunch of typing.
Gaius: That post of 01:14 was excellent. I just feel a sense of umm, discordia with most of your later posts.
Ralphus: Your post of 05:31 was almost useful. While it may often be true that wars with decisive endings don't need to be fought again, it's also a truism.
Too bad your earlier posts qualify you as batshit insane.
Too bad your earlier posts qualify you as batshit insane.
I prefer crazier than a shithouse rat.
Although I'm not to sure what's so crazy about wanting people who want you dead, dead.
To me it's crazy to be the one side in a street fight that's fighting by Marquis of Queensberry Rules.
"Although I'm not to sure what's so crazy about wanting people who want you dead, dead."
Nuthin crazy about that. However, when we simply round up all the Iraqi's near a bombing scene for questioning, we get a high percentage of folk that had nothing to do with it. If we procede to torture them all, here's what happens, best case: a few give up good intel, and we go take out a terrorist cell. A few dozen are scarred for life, and go on to become new terrorists.
This math leads us inexorably to the "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out" solution.
Lowdog: It's never too late. Just because American rebels were throwing Tories in Simsbury mines during the Revolution (and goodness knows how many appalling things have been done since) doesn't mean the principal shouldn't be a permanent talking point every time some new outrage is perpetrated by our government. My point is that our country has NEVER stood for pure self interest--the Europeans have been ragging us for years about not being "pragmatic" in our foreign policy--Iraq is just a new verse of a very old song. Ralphus will never be right, no matter how compelling his reasoning, because that is simply not what our country has ever been about.
Although I'm not to sure what's so crazy about wanting people who want you dead, dead.
TJ responded to this before me. Can't you recognize that people here hate "bad guys" as much as you.
The issue that people in this thread have with your attitude is that too many innocent people will suffer if the US confronts these problems in the brutal ways that you are comfortable with.
This thread is about to leave the main page, but I feel I should also throw in the comment:
I hate the Secret Overseers who oversee the Secret Prisons.
333: mark of the half-beast
Another thought about issues of evidence and burdens of proof when the terrorists do much of their training and planning overseas. JDM agreed that some sort of trial should be held, but raised concerns about standards of evidence when much of the terrorist planning took place in a country that is at best lawless and at worst sponsoring the attack. The usual law enforcement methods for collecting evidence may not work, raising questions of admissibility. Jason Ligon amplified on this point.
I don't claim to have any solution to this issue, but I will observe that it is worthy of the attention of our smartest legal scholars, most experienced law enforcement experts, most thorough investigators, and other high caliber people. However, for the past 4 years the administration has not tasked its lawyers with finding ways to solve this problem. Rather, the White House has tasked its lawyers with finding ways to justify torture and indefinite detentions.
Their lawyers may very well be right. I am ready to concede the "is it legal?" question so we can move on to the "does it make sense?" question. They may very well be right on the legal questions, but they are posing the wrong questions. They are looking for ways to justify unchecked power, when they should be looking for ways to maintain checks and balances.
Jason may be right that we need to use unique methods to capture bad guys overseas. JDM is right that overseas captures pose unique issues for standards of evidence. But if we want to avoid the specter of unchecked power then we must find an appropriate way to deal with the people in our custody. These are the questions that legal minds should be contemplating, not "How can we justify unchecked exercises of power?"
How can anybody continue to support an administration whose preferred approach is to claim unchecked power for itself?
And if anybody is naive enough to think that these tactics won't eventually be used against non-Muslims, I've got a beach front lot in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.
Perhaps there should be secret prisons for government agents who treat the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as if they were toilet paper, with former torture victims in charge of deciding on living conditions for the penned agents.
And if anybody is naive enough to think that these tactics won't eventually be used against non-Muslims, I've got a beach front lot in Arizona that I'd like to sell you.
Is it near Otisburg?
"Yes, that is true. As we all are. "
Then you are, by your own definition, evil for sitting here and wasting your time on this website. You should be in Africa, saving those people from genocide, or in the inner city working 20 hour days to feed the poor. That's what "duty" means - it means it is WRONG for you to not do it. That is the difference from a right. Which addresses the difference between your "weighing" inaction vs action.
Inaction does not make one responsible for the actions of evil men. You have the right to exercise your personal morality to oppose evil men, but the second you commit evil to do it, you yourself have crossed the line.
By defining morality the way you have, you accept that those hate groups who want to "cure homosexuals of the gay" are acting properly upon their moral system - they believe it is their duty to save gay people from themselves.
I reject such a definition of a "duty to harm people for their own good". You and the religious right loonies can rally around that flag, if you wish.
Then you are, by your own definition, evil for sitting here and wasting your time on this website.
He's already called himself evil and psychopath!! Why are we still wasting time with this guy?
Oh, JDM said that, not ralphus. Heh. Sorry.
thoreau:
In a longish post that the server hamster ate yesterday, I offered the suggestion that while perpetual imprisonment is clearly reprehensible and ineffective, the nature of an insurgency may well dictate that one of those things that needs to slip in these circumstances is the right to a speedy trial. I can see a argument that with suspicion (but not proof) a detainment may be needed until the insurgency is reduced to some degree, for example.
At the end of the day, I think there is a difference of opinion about what someone completely dedicated to crapping all over everything in the midst of a cowed or complicit populace can accomplish. The corollary argument is a one over how ineffectual standard police tactics and legal proceedings can be.
In general, I dispute the breadth of what many fellow libertarians (and I won't even use scare quotes) insist must be taken off of the table concerning this conflict. I have a broader view of self defence than many of the locals, and I shift to utilitarian concerns in a hostage delimma. We can not afford to allow those committed to killing us to remain completely undeterred by ruling out on moral grounds any action that might harm people they hide behind, and we can't pretend that a domestic justice system is going to serve as a deterrent of any sort in that case.
From what year to what year, over what precise geographic area?
as with most historical trends, mr .5b, it faded in and out -- but one could put approximate dates on the front end of charles martel's victory at poitiers and the establishment of the papacy under gregory the great -- and in the back end of the establishment of the inquisition in 1186 and the outbreak of the wars of religion in 1562. the body politic of western society too, of course, has changed over time, but is most reasonably defined as western europe.
if you're looking for a day or a border, however... well, society and history don't work that way.
over that approximate time -- 7th c to 13th c -- it should be noted, western civilization went from being a disintegrated, barbarous, depopulated, collapsed backwater of the former roman world to a body politic capable of the high gothic renaissance and attractive enough to convert peacably whole regions of adherents (scandanavia, ireland, germany) which the roman empire had never conquered.
from the period of breakdown onward, western civility was increasingly forced to conquer where it went, and has met with greater and greater resistance and dissent over the centuries even in places where it has been successful (russia, india, japan, china) in its incursions.
To bemoan the loss the idea of a unified Christendom
mr crick, it's too much to bemoan it. i'm simply pointing out that civilizations -- not merely our own, but in general -- rise in a period of concordia and morality and collapse in discordia and relativism. this is a pattern that can be illustrated by civilizations across millennia and around the globe. i say this not as a devout christian (for i am not one) but as a reader of histories.
and i'm further saying that our period of concordia plainly has ended -- it doesn't take a genius to observe our society over the last few centuries, its arts and letters, its wars and strifes, and find that to be true. the onset of nihilism over the last 200 years is yet more plain.
for example, look at this site -- does it exist for any reason other than to resent leadership and social concord? all that would be "oppressive", of course -- but oppression is a state of mind far more than a physical fact in our society. a lot of the folks here who live in fear and resentment of oppression are vastly more irresponsible than anyone in a 10th c european city who found social life gratifyingly structured -- and yet, we are the ones filled with angst. why? because in the main he felt part of a reciprocated moral responsibility to his fellow man, be he noble, clergy or laity. what today do any of us truly feel a part of? our nameless angst is rooted in that lack of spiritual and social connection to each other.
what i'm saying is not that we need to go back -- that cannot be done. what i'm saying is that, if we are to have any slim chance at all of perpetuating western civilization, we must resolve ourselves to do whatever we must to reestablish a society in moral concord.
can it be done? probably not -- we are far down the path to dissolution, imo, as can be seen by the desperate attempts of our management class to establish control over that which they increasingly fear -- the proletarians, both internal and external. it is the reason for our imperial "police actions" and the ever-more invasive hand of authoritarian government in our society.
they reverence it because they truly believe the creator of the universe spoke these words to them. ...Would you convince them otherwise?
no -- and why would i? on a very profound level, the insight not only of christ but of mohammed, buddha and the vedas which was the social advance that demarcated the move for humanity to a higher religion was that god is love. matthew 5 is a sentiment, new to mediterranean civilization in the 1st c bc, which binds us together -- literally making god into that which binds us to one another. god is to be found in concordia, and the root of evil is an inability to forgive, help and trust.
in many ways, their god, regardless of whatever hebraic overtones and hellenic imagery they also associate him, is fundamentally my god. why would i try to talk them out of that?
"Then you are, by your own definition, evil for sitting here and wasting your time on this website. You should be in Africa, saving those people from genocide, or in the inner city working 20 hour days to feed the poor."
Africa? Poor people? Holy crap! This sounds complicated!
"By defining morality the way you have, you accept that those hate groups who want to 'cure homosexuals of the gay'"
I find your arguments compelling. Tell me more about this "gay."
otis!!!!!!
JDM: apparently you catch the gay from watching reality TV, devoting your time to saving cute, cuddly, fuzzy animals, and from inserting rutabegas into glove compartments of 77 El Camino(e)s...
" I have a broader view of self defence than many of the locals, and I shift to utilitarian concerns in a hostage delimma. "
Which means you should have no problem with Joe's and M1EK's positions on global warming - they just have a broader view of self defence, and shift to a utilitarian view in a commons dilemma.
And you shouldn't have a problem with WoD - it's a broader view on self-defense (if you can link Iraq to 9/11 or terrorist threats to the U.S., you certainly can link drugs to increased violence and property crime). Heck, Welfare too. The best defense is a good offense, right? Why not attack the root of most violence and property crime - poverty!
Shew. Self-defense, when view broadly enough, lets the Feds do anything! Let's go for it!
quasibill:
That was pretty ridiculous. I've made a number of very specific arguments that are very obviously not transferrable in the manner you suggest.
Note: If there is a real commons delimma, it does need to be addressed. I don't agree with either the scope of the problem or the remedies proposed by joe.
More Note: The argument that a war on terror is exactly the same as a war on drugs or poverty is simple minded. I don't know how else to say it. That is a completely un thought out position that steadfastly refuses to look at every important detail of its assertion - starting with where and upon whom the wars are being prosecuted and going all the way to the character of terrorism vs. the character of poverty or drugs. It is just a childish argument. That doesn't stop it from being uttered over and over again, though.
"It is just a childish argument"
A childish argument you have yet to refute, besides resorting to ad hominem.
I stand by it. If you can define defense of life and property as broadly as you feel like defining it, these policies are the result. Only by restricting it to the meaning OUR LAW defines it, can you argue from principle, and not from "yeah, but my fear is more rational than your fear!" - which is exactly what you argument boils down to.
Talk about childish and ill-informed arguments that have been repeated ad nauseum...
I nailed it. This is post #347 and it's not going anywhere from here. My prediction was 300-350.
I just want to take this opportunity to enjoy being right.