Melania Trump plagarizes 2008 Michelle Obama DNC speech

[VanPastorMan]

You're entirely unqualified to be a pastor of any kind.

You are not qualified to have anything to do with the military. In war you shoot people and drop bombs on them. You might have to break necks with hand to hand combat. And you are complaining about water boarding? And you would complain even if your son or daughter was over there? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[UncleMark]

Lots of things done in the execution of war would normally be considered barbaric. I'll say this much, if you gave me a choice between having a bomb dropped on my head or being waterboarded, it wouldn't be a terribly difficult choice.

You're conflating the waging of war with the treatment of prisoners.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So you don't think it's torture. So what? That doesn't speak to the point I was making. The general consensus is that it is torture, and we shouldn't do it. The stereotypes tell us that moral codes are more likely to be supported by conservatives and disregarded by liberals. When it comes to this particular moral code, the stereotypes are flipped.

Whether or not you personally as an individual think waterboarding qualifies as torture is entirely irrelevant to that point.

So...the general consensus is that it's torture, it doesn't work, we shouldn't do it, it's immoral, and it's illegal....

...but we're not going to prosecute people who we know did it because we want to keep our options open.

You know the obvious question this begs: if it's illegal -- and ineffective, to boot -- why would it make sense to keep open the option to do it again in the future?

As for the whole moral code thing...some people consider homosexuality to be immoral, too. I don't -- as such, why would I make a moral case against it?

I have no problem with moral codes. It's just that waterboarding doesn't violate one that I have any affinity to.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are not qualified to have anything to do with the military. In war you shoot people and drop bombs on them. You might have to break necks with hand to hand combat. And you are complaining about water boarding? And you would complain even if your son or daughter was over there? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

And you're not qualified to preach the gospel.

I haven't claimed any military expertise. I've only defended the (correct) proposition that waterboarding does legally qualify as torture, and pointed out the interesting reversal in stereotypical left/right roles when it comes to following socially-constructed moral codes on this particular issue. You are apparently reading into my posts words that I never actually typed.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I for one am in favor of prosecuting W and all his neocon brethren as war criminals. Send the whole lot to The Hague.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So...the general consensus is that it's torture, it doesn't work, we shouldn't do it, it's immoral, and it's illegal....

...but we're not going to prosecute people who we know did it because we want to keep our options open.

You know the obvious question this begs: if it's illegal -- and ineffective, to boot -- why would it make sense to keep open the option to do it again in the future?

As for the whole moral code thing...some people consider homosexuality to be immoral, too. I don't -- as such, why would I make a moral case against it?

I have no problem with moral codes. It's just that waterboarding doesn't violate one that I have any affinity to.

Again, I'm not talking about your personal moral code. I'm simply pointing out that it's generally accepted - both anecdotally and through research - that conservatives are more likely to defended socially-constructed moral codes, while liberals are more willing to reject them. On this issue, that general rule doesn't seem to fit.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're conflating the waging of war with the treatment of prisoners.

They're just different chapters in the same book. And to me, it's kind of absurd to say "On the field of battle, we'll try to blow you and everybody else around you to bits. But if we capture you alive, we won't even so much as pour water over your head to get vital information out of you."

Not that this is the sort of thing that should be decided by popular will. And not that I consider something as relatively mild as waterboarding to qualify as torture. But I remember seeing a poll not long ago where about 65% of respondents said it was OK to either regularly or sometimes employ torture to gather intelligence. And the poll even used that actual term -- generically.

Heck, even I probably would've answered no to that specific question -- but only because I don't think waterboarding amounts to torture.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Again, I'm not talking about your personal moral code. I'm simply pointing out that it's generally accepted - both anecdotally and through research - that conservatives are more likely to defended socially-constructed moral codes, while liberals are more willing to reject them. On this issue, that general rule doesn't seem to fit.

For a simple reason, Goat.

Why would anybody make a moral argument against anything they didn't consider immoral? Would you do that?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

They're just different chapters in the same book. And to me, it's kind of absurd to say "On the field of battle, we'll try to blow you and everybody else around you to bits. But if we capture you alive, we won't even so much as pour water over your head to get vital information out of you."

Not that this is the sort of thing that should be decided by popular will. And not that I consider something as relatively mild as waterboarding to qualify as torture. But I remember seeing a poll not long ago where about 65% of respondents said it was OK to either regularly or sometimes employ torture to gather intelligence. And the poll even used that actual term -- generically.

Heck, even I probably would've answered no to that specific question -- but only because I don't think waterboarding amounts to torture.

You might be right that it's a dumb dichotomy, but it's a dichotomy that's developed over centuries. It's something we've all agreed to abide by.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For a simple reason, Goat.

Why would anybody make a moral argument against anything they didn't consider immoral? Would you do that?

I'm. Not. Talking. About. You.

Jesus, dude.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You might be right that it's a dumb dichotomy, but it's a dichotomy that's developed over centuries. It's something we've all agreed to abide by.

True, we have. But, setting the applicability of the GCs aside for a second, I think it's the application of US law that is so telling here.

As Justice Jackson (who, coincidentally, also presided over the Nuremberg Trials) famously wrote: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. That's the answer to this question.

Of course we're going to leave ourselves the opportunity to use waterboarding again if the situation warrants. And the fact that we've done that probably tells us all we need to know about its effectiveness.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm. Not. Talking. About. You.

Jesus, dude.

But I'm the one here defending it. Who are you talking about?

I think we can take it for granted that anybody who speaks out in defense of waterboarding either has no moral qualms about it or has determined that whatever moral qualms they do have are outweighed by the practical utility of it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But I'm the one here defending it. Who are you talking about?

I think we can take it for granted that anybody who speaks out in defense of waterboarding either has no moral qualms about it or has determined that whatever moral qualms they do have are outweighed by the practical utility of it.

I think it's clear what I'm talking about, if you pay attention and read a little more carefully.

Generally speaking, conservatives are the ones that are most likely to support socially-constructed moral codes. Not personal moral codes. Socially-constructed ones. On this issue, the trend is reversed. The liberals appeal to the generally accepted code, and you - the conservative - keep repeating that it doesn't conflict with your own personal code. You're proving my point even while you fail to understand it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

True, we have. But, setting the applicability of the GCs aside for a second, I think it's the application of US law that is so telling here.

As Justice Jackson (who, coincidentally, also presided over the Nuremberg Trials) famously wrote: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. That's the answer to this question.

Of course we're going to leave ourselves the opportunity to use waterboarding again if the situation warrants. And the fact that we've done that probably tells us all we need to know about its effectiveness.

And yet, I haven't been arguing about its effectiveness. I'm just trying to make you understand that its legal status as torture is not really controversial. Legally, it's torture.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think it's clear what I'm talking about, if you pay attention and read a little more carefully.

Generally speaking, conservatives are the ones that are most likely to support socially-constructed moral codes. Not personal moral codes. Socially-constructed ones. On this issue, the trend is reversed. The liberals appeal to the generally accepted code, and you - the conservative - keep repeating that it doesn't conflict with your own personal code. You're proving my point even while you fail to understand it.

But...I don't think waterboarding violates any socially-constructed moral code, either.

You say that it's "generally accepted" by society that this is immoral, and I'm over here citing recent polling data showing nearly 2/3 of the American public supporting at least the occasional use of "torture."

Something doesn't compute. And, yes, it may be my comprehension of what the hell you're trying to say.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

And yet, I haven't been arguing about its effectiveness. I'm just trying to make you understand that its legal status as torture is not really controversial. Legally, it's torture.

Just a law that we've apparently chosen not to enforce -- or, for that matter, appealed to the courts to adjudicate.

Hmm, wonder why?

 

[iuwclurker1]

Posted for those other than straitjacketed ideologues:

Waterboarding is not merely pouring water over someone's head. Furthermore, all the voluntary acts to submit oneself to it are not remotely comparable to being a POW and having it done to you. In the former case, you know your friend is doing it so when you're having water go down your nose and throat and your brains are screaming out that you're about to die, you know you're not because there is a professional conducting a test on you. When you're a POW, you have no idea whether your enemy will let off the gas in time. You're getting put through mental agony and anguish and that is torture by any definition of the word.

When someone says waterboarding is not torture, they either have no clue what waterboarding actually is or they're using some definition of the word torture that doesn't mean torture whatsoever.

But the real reason to not torture, as McCain and so many others have said, is that you don't want it done to your own POWs.

 

[zeke4ahs]

That's a real interesting point

I don't think you need to ask the GOP about this though, Instead you should ask the blacks. I suppose much of it can be explained by the black delegates lost in the primaries. The Colorado GOP has nominated a black to oppose Senator Bennet this fall. He's a solid buy. But he is too much like Ted Cruz for me, I didn't vote for him in the primary. A couple of other things. The Colorado GOP delegation was selected by caucuses, and they walked out of the convention. They are more reflective of the GOP than the Trump delegates from open primary states, where Trump dominated. Who knows where those voters came from. There is just too damn much voting in the US. The GOP will probably now go to a super delegate system as the democrats did. But as we have learned, that is no guarantee of quality either. Sigh.

Funny i have yet to talk with one person here in Illinois voting for HRC. But i don't hang around teachers or union backers much either. Was in Chicago over the weekend and even a couple taxi drivers loved Trump. Not one person i spoke to about the current choice was voting HRC. Some of you teachers and lawyers need to get outside your small bubbles and see what is really taking place.

My small bubble... That's truly hilarious. You aren't on here enough or you'd know better. I'm speaking as someone who travels extensively and talks to people around the globe. I'm speaking as someone that has close friends from every religion you can think of and atheists and agnostics. I'm speaking as someone who has friends in every age group. I'm speaking as someone who has close friends that are gay and transgendered. I'm speaking as someone who has friends that were former students that were crack babies, lived in cars , were raised by their grandparents because their parents were dead or in prison. s. I have a friend that works pretty closely with Warren Buffett. I have friends from every political persuasion. What I don't have are friends that are ignorant and or racist. But I'll try real hard to get out of that bubble.

 

[zeke4ahs]

According to this link. Obama has done the same thing and he is President.

View embedded media

So what are we to make of it? People borrow from others at times. When I preach I quote a person, I attribute their words to them. But I am borrowing their words to make a point. I don't see this as a real big deal.

Would you at least do some research instead of using some lame talking point you got off the Internet or from Rush? If you did, you'd know the difference.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Would you at least do some research instead of using some lame talking point you got off the Internet or from Rush? If you did, you'd know the difference.

I doubt that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Posted for those other than straitjacketed ideologues:

Waterboarding is not merely pouring water over someone's head. Furthermore, all the voluntary acts to submit oneself to it are not remotely comparable to being a POW and having it done to you. In the former case, you know your friend is doing it so when you're having water go down your nose and throat and your brains are screaming out that you're about to die, you know you're not because there is a professional conducting a test on you. When you're a POW, you have no idea whether your enemy will let off the gas in time. You're getting put through mental agony and anguish and that is torture by any definition of the word.

When someone says waterboarding is not torture, they either have no clue what waterboarding actually is or they're using some definition of the word torture that doesn't mean torture whatsoever.

But the real reason to not torture, as McCain and so many others have said, is that you don't want it done to your own POWs.

I suspect that most Americans who have been captured by the likes of AQ and ISIS could only wish they'd have merely waterboarded them.

In case you missed it, they tend to prefer filmed beheadings....and without us having done that to their guys, if you can fathom that!

They don't care what we do or don't do to the jihadis we capture. Or, at least, it has no bearing on what they do to Americans they capture.

 

[iuwclurker1]

I suspect that most Americans who have been captured by the likes of AQ and ISIS could only wish they'd have merely waterboarded them.

In case you missed it, they tend to prefer filmed beheadings....and without us having done that to their guys, if you can fathom that!

They don't care what we do or don't do to the jihadis we capture. Or, at least, it has no bearing on what they do to Americans they capture.

You do see how asinine your post is, don't you?

 

[Rockfish1]

Did you just say that water boarding may NOT be torture??? It clearly is, and no amount of legal BS arguments can make it not so. It's the very definition of torture.

And besides that, it has been proven to not be all that effective. In short, it's illegal (per the Geneva convention and other agreements/laws) and it really doesn't work.

My head hurts after reading that from you. Few things shock me on this board- I'm pretty open to all viewpoints. And I'll listen to everyone's take and reasoning. But to say that water boarding may not be torture is batchit crazy.

Waterboarding has been regarded as an iconic form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition. Republicans only became confused about this when it was revealed that their tribe had reverted to torture.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I suspect that most Americans who have been captured by the likes of AQ and ISIS could only wish they'd have merely waterboarded them.

In case you missed it, they tend to prefer filmed beheadings....and without us having done that to their guys, if you can fathom that!

They don't care what we do or don't do to the jihadis we capture. Or, at least, it has no bearing on what they do to Americans they capture.

So what?

Should we torture serial killers, too?

 

[Rockfish1]

I don't consider waterboarding to be immoral.

George Orwell:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. . . Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

. . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
​

It's no accident that, when ISIS commits barbaric atrocities against Westerners, it garbs the victims in orange like our Guantanamo prisoners.

"It is worse than a crime. It is a blunder." -- Talleyrand.

 

[Rockfish1]

We don't perpetrate suicide bombings.

But we do drop bombs on people from the air.

Whether or not I'd call that barbaric, I don't know. Lots of things done in the execution of war would normally be considered barbaric. I'll say this much, if you gave me a choice between having a bomb dropped on my head or being waterboarded, it wouldn't be a terribly difficult choice.

This is just stupid.

Under the laws of war developed in revulsion over the horrors of WWII, it is now a war crime to target civilians or even to target combatants when disproportionate civilian deaths will result. But it is not a war crime to kill combatants wherever and whenever they may be found. Even if they're not fighting at the time. Even if they're retreating.

Once they're captured -- and removed from the battlefield -- a very different set of rules comes into play. No longer can combatants be summarily killed -- or subjected to torture or other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment. The combatants who could have summarily been killed on the battlefield must be treated humanely when they become prisoners. It is a war crime to do otherwise.

Whatever the merits of what you regard as your "morality", it obviously has nothing to do with the morality embedded in modern rules of war.

 

[Rockfish1]

You're entirely unqualified to be a pastor of any kind.

Who would Jesus torture?

 

[Rockfish1]

They're just different chapters in the same book. And to me, it's kind of absurd to say "On the field of battle, we'll try to blow you and everybody else around you to bits. But if we capture you alive, we won't even so much as pour water over your head to get vital information out of you."

This may (now) seem absurd to you, but it's the recognized law of war, and until you guys had to defend Republican war criminals, you understood this full well.

 

[UncleMark]

...and until you guys had to defend Republican war criminals, you understood this full well.

Bingo.

Hell, how many administration lawyers did Cheney have to go to before they found one that would sign off on it?

 

[Rockfish1]

You are not qualified to have anything to do with the military. In war you shoot people and drop bombs on them. You might have to break necks with hand to hand combat. And you are complaining about water boarding? And you would complain even if your son or daughter was over there? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

No pastor. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Crazed, not only did we try the Japanese after WWII, we tried an American Captain during the Spanish-American War. He was found guilty, though admittedly the sentence was fairly light.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I don't think it is.

Here's my litmus test for torture: if people of sound mind willingly volunteer to undergo something, it's not torture. And people of sound mind regularly volunteer to undergo waterboarding -- mostly for SERE training, but in other instances as well.

Are you familiar with anybody who has volunteered to try out an acid bath? Me neither.



Proven? You do realize that Leon Panetta publicly let the cat out of the bag about KSM's waterboarding being the source of at least some of the intel that led to locating OBL. And what on earth does "not...all that effective" mean, anyway?

Look, if it was actually ineffective, then the entire conversation would be moot...because nobody in the intelligence community would even want to employ it. You think they want to do things which don't work....or, worse yet, produce faulty intelligence?

I don't have a strong opinion on its effectiveness. I'm in no position to have one. There certainly are intelligence pros who say it isn't -- there are also intelligence pros who say it is. I'm content to leave that to them to decide -- depending on the particulars at any given point in time.



What happened to the prosecutions, then?



Tell Osama that.



As I said in that post, I think reasonable people can disagree about this. But few people who do disagree with me on it seem to share that sentiment.

This is not your finest post. It's torture. SERE trainees go through it to experience it in hopes they'll be able to tolerate it. They won't be able to.

This is another example of you creating definitions that serve your ideology. Another example is your framing African Americans' issues on not making good choices...as if it's that simple.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

No it isn't.

Again, people volunteer to subject themselves to it -- all the time. People (sane ones, anyway) don't subject themselves to things which are actually barbaric.

Ludicrous.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Goat, I wonder if you would change your tune if you had a child serving overseas in the middle east. Is water boarding torture? Yes, but it does get results. Khalid Sheik Muhhamad sang like a canary after receiving it. Nobody likes or loves water boarding. But it gets results and could save American lives. If my child was over there I would hope my govt uses every possible means to protect my child. The old saying is true, "war is hell". It ain't pretty and sometimes to get the job done things like water boarding has to be done to get vital info to defeat the enemy and secure American soldier lives.

Try this on for size: I rendered UCMJ against a soldier that I caught punching a bound detainee. The detainee was an HVT in our area and was suspected of ringleading a cell that was setting off IEDs in our AO.

You don't torture and you don't hit detainees. Once you do, you lose the high ground. Anybody who tolerates it on their watch is a chicken-shit not worthy of commanding troops.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

You're entirely unqualified to be a pastor of any kind.

No he's not. This is exactly what preachers are. They say exactly what their flock wants to hear.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

So...the general consensus is that it's torture, it doesn't work, we shouldn't do it, it's immoral, and it's illegal....

...but we're not going to prosecute people who we know did it because we want to keep our options open.

You know the obvious question this begs: if it's illegal -- and ineffective, to boot -- why would it make sense to keep open the option to do it again in the future?

As for the whole moral code thing...some people consider homosexuality to be immoral, too. I don't -- as such, why would I make a moral case against it?

I have no problem with moral codes. It's just that waterboarding doesn't violate one that I have any affinity to.

You're looking way too in to the "we didn't prosecute so it's legal" defense. Do you really think that the Bush administration that git us into an expensive (lives and money amd politicall capital) land war in Asia (one of the classic blunders) was going to prosecute soldiers and agents that theyve endangered and overworked for years? Do you really think that Obama's first acts of a presidency are going to be to alienate agents and a military that have basically been following orders?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And you're not qualified to preach the gospel.

I haven't claimed any military expertise. I've only defended the (correct) proposition that waterboarding does legally qualify as torture, and pointed out the interesting reversal in stereotypical left/right roles when it comes to following socially-constructed moral codes on this particular issue. You are apparently reading into my posts words that I never actually typed.

Goat, I believe your position is blatantly correct. And thus I don't accept the pastor's position. That said, isn't questioning his qualification as a pastor the very definition of an ad hominem?

I am just hoping we all get better on the concept a person's idea is wrong, but that doesn't mean the person is (bad/evil/horrible/whatever).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is not your finest post. It's torture. SERE trainees go through it to experience it in hopes they'll be able to tolerate it. They won't be able to.

This is another example of you creating definitions that serve your ideology. Another example is your framing African Americans' issues on not making good choices...as if it's that simple.

At least describe my positions accurately, INRanger. I don't mind defending them or discussing them with anybody who disagrees. But -- as I said a whole bunch of times -- my point about choices and other controllable factors in life being the strongest influence on outcomes is race-neutral. Of course it can apply to blacks -- just as it can apply to anybody else.

I'm not making up any definitions to say that -- simply pointing out that most people are far more empowered to improve their lives than they might think...and the single best way to do this is to make good life choices (re: drugs, school, sex, money, etc).

As for waterboarding, I just can't consider anything people of sound mind willingly volunteer to do to be torture. I agree that acid baths and things like that are torture -- but nobody willingly subjects themselves to that. There has to be a cutoff line somewhere...and that's simply where I'd put it. You might put it somewhere else, and that's your prerogative.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge. We didn't prosecute our intelligence pros (or those who gave the orders) for waterboarding terrorist detainees back in c. 2003 -- and that's because we aren't going to deprive ourselves of the ability to do it again if/when the situation warrants.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Anyone who actually reads the US Code cannot argue that water boarding as practiced on the 3 Gitmo detainees by the Bush administration constituted torture...unless they wish to out themselves as a partisan simpleton.

The US Congress never adopted or approved any other definition.

I've quoted and explained it here dozens of times, and to still have people who graduated from law school still try and argue it was torture is proof that law school is about getting tuition paid rather than educating people to be lawyers.

Pouring water on a guy while doctors attend to assure no harm occurs is awful.

Killing with a drone is OK.

Good to know.

Bye.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're looking way too in to the "we didn't prosecute so it's legal" defense. Do you really think that the Bush administration that git us into an expensive (lives and money amd politicall capital) land war in Asia (one of the classic blunders) was going to prosecute soldiers and agents that theyve endangered and overworked for years? Do you really think that Obama's first acts of a presidency are going to be to alienate agents and a military that have basically been following orders?

There's no reason it had to be his first act -- or even remotely close to it. Hell, he could make it his last act.

And are you suggesting that presidents direct prosecutions? For shame!

No, it's obvious why it wasn't prosecuted. You may not want to consider the prospect. But think about it for a minute. Do you really think we're about to tie our own hands like that? If so, then you're being naive.