Forums | MacLife

Here's what I found most provocative in the aritcle:

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite wrote:

Instead, more than half of people who attend worship at least once a week, or 54%, said that using torture on suspected terrorists was "often" or "sometimes" justified. White evangelical Protestants were the church-going group most likely to approve of torture. By contrast, those who are unaffiliated with a religious organization and didn't attend worship were most opposed to torture -- only 42% of those people approved of using torture.

In other words, if you think that 54% of churchgoers are scum, then you have to acknowledge that a hefty 42% of church-avoiders are also scum.

I don't know that church causes people to support this violent criminal behavior; maybe it just attracts those who do.  After all, they seek out people who are already sinners.

mackerm wrote:

Here's what I found most provocative in the aritcle:

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite wrote:

Instead, more than half of people who attend worship at least once a week, or 54%, said that using torture on suspected terrorists was "often" or "sometimes" justified. White evangelical Protestants were the church-going group most likely to approve of torture. By contrast, those who are unaffiliated with a religious organization and didn't attend worship were most opposed to torture -- only 42% of those people approved of using torture.

In other words, if you think that 54% of churchgoers are scum, then you have to acknowledge that a hefty 42% of church-avoiders are also scum.

I don't know that church causes people to support this violent criminal behavior; maybe it just attracts those who do.  After all, they seek out people who are already sinners.

Also, all people polled were crackers. FWIW

I really think it's funny that a 54-42 difference is enough for some people to create "CHURCH MAKES YOU LIKE TORTURE" theories.

That's very lenient of you. Sure you don't want me waterboarded for it, or something?

After all, I do "advocate" "killing children".

.tsooJ

Are these churches abdicating some sort of moral responsibility?

I am just so original!

Interrogation Debate Sharply Divided Bush White House
This bit is interesting, in light of Dr. Rice's recent defense of administration policies.

Acutely aware that the agency would be blamed if the policies lost political support, nervous C.I.A. officials began to curb its practices much earlier than most Americans know: no one was waterboarded after March 2003, and coercive interrogation methods were shelved altogether in 2005.

Yet even as interrogation methods were scaled back, former officials now say, the battle inside the Bush administration over which ones should be permitted only grew hotter. There would be a tense phone call over the program’s future during the 2005 Christmas holidays from Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, to Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director; a White House showdown the next year between Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney; and Ms. Rice’s refusal in 2007 to endorse the executive order with which Mr. Bush sought to revive the C.I.A. program.

The real trouble began on May 7, 2004, the day the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, completed a devastating report. In thousands of pages, it challenged the legality of some interrogation methods, found that interrogators were exceeding the rules imposed by the Justice Department and questioned the effectiveness of the entire program.

Farmerkev wrote:

And here I thought I was supposed to be keeping threads civil and discussing issues.

So, it's civil (on this board) to endorse a violent crime, but it's not civil to disparage those who do?

That's a simple yes or no, by the way.

Farmerkev wrote:

mackerm wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And here I thought I was supposed to be keeping threads civil and discussing issues.

So, it's civil (on this board) to endorse a violent crime, but it's not civil to disparage those who do?

That's a simple yes or no, by the way.

There comes a time when you've made your position clear and it's time to leave it alone.

Your comment came after my first post! Neveretheless, I'll just note you didn't answer my simple yes/no question and, as you suggested, leave it alone.

Last edited by mackerm (2009-05-03 9:54 pm)

user wrote:

:: waterboards res ::

Trust me - I'm a chicken, I'd divulge anything you wanted to know long before it came to that.

Daddyo wrote:

Krauthammer has an interesting article about this-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 08_pf.html

Already mentioned and addressed that in the other thread.

resedit wrote:

Alien wrote:

That's very lenient of you. Sure you don't want me waterboarded for it, or something?

After all, I do "advocate" "killing children".

.tsooJ

Free tip of the day - it isn't handing my ass to me when you have to blatantly mis-represent my position.

Most seem clear on you having your facts wrong and being unwilling to learn better, which not is the scholar's way.

One of the three heavily waterboarded, whom you characterize as 'unquestionably deep in the counsels of A-Q,' was not- he was a glorified go-fer. His info was worthless unless he said 'yes, Saddam does lunch with Bin Laden,' which was really what the WH wanted to hear. Very useful, something like that would'be been. Also false.

Farmerkev wrote:

mackerm wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

And here I thought I was supposed to be keeping threads civil and discussing issues.

So, it's civil (on this board) to endorse a violent crime, but it's not civil to disparage those who do?

That's a simple yes or no, by the way.

There comes a time when you've made your position clear and it's time to leave it alone.

You never made clear your choice of torture or swift execution, kev. I'll leave everything else in the other thread, as it's locked and not to be heavily reffed by past practice- but I was going to address your response to me. I'm not here every day, let alone live in MT, and it was locked when I did get back.

In my reffed materials there, tho, you'll find many resources not 'written by the victors.' You could get an education with some time invested there. I did.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

:: waterboards res ::

Trust me - I'm a chicken, I'd divulge anything you wanted to know long before it came to that.

...which is why torture is basically useless to get information- torturees will usually say whatever is needful to stop the pain.

Alright, fair enough. I wasn't around for those previous threads. I'll assume an answer and toss in another truism- it's always more complex than simple truisms.

There's reason for another thread in any case, with new info emerging streamlike these days. Cynical as I can be, I didn't think my country would ever reach such lows in my lifetime- codified, systemic, sanitized-by-fiat policy.

===

Let's not derail this one, folks, 'k?

resedit wrote:

I don't believe it to be torture.
It has no long term physical effects, in does have immediate psychological effects but they can be avoided by providing the information during the interrogation before it ever gets to that point.

Water boarding should never be done as punishment, it should never be done for a fishing expedition, it should only be done when other methods have been exhausted, only done under oversight, and only done when there is absolutely no question to the matter of the individual withholding critical information necessary to save innocent lives from an attack the prisoner is involved with.

If it's not torture, then why hold it to such a high standard?

You seem to be fooling yourself in order to justify your bloodthirst. Just accept that you're not perfect, and that you're going to want to do things to satiate your lust for vengeance, but that you are also able to rise above your more base instincts to be a better person.

bedstuy wrote:

You know things are bad when you get confronted about torture by a 4th grade student.

Because fourth grade students are known for their wisdom and discernment.