![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:48:52
In reply to The Reichstag all over again » lil' jimi, posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
Declan,
as much as i will hate to be doomed to repeat history least i ignore it, i am completely whelmed by our risks in our immediate current affairs.
but you are right.
and there should be a name for this syndrome.
i suspect there is and hope someone will enlighten us.vigilance,
~ jim
Posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 7:28:26
In reply to Re: The Reichstag all over again » Declan, posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 1:48:52
> ...i am completely whelmed by our risks in our immediate current affairs.
I thought my hubby was the only one who said "whelmed".
It's a great word!
:)
gg
Posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 11:19:18
In reply to Off topic » lil' jimi, posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 7:28:26
my greetings to speakers of Whelm,
> I thought my hubby was the only one who said "whelmed".
>http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=whelm
let your mate know that my merriam-webster 10th edition CD says
"whelm" had been an English word since the 14th century.> It's a great word!
>the whelmers apprecaite your endorsement.
and thanks.
we should ask pB socialers to list their favorite words.> :)
>;D
> gg
>whelm on!
~ wordhead jim
Posted by zeugma on November 8, 2005, at 16:18:57
In reply to The Reichstag all over again » lil' jimi, posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
> You mismanage a situation the consequences of which become the justification for the original mistake and the ones that follow. This is such a common pattern that it suggests something about us as a species.
> Declan
yes, but don't people study history for a reason.i see many parallels between the era of the Reichstag and this one, and it does not make me happy. Sacrificing the Geneva Convention, beyond the unjustifiable suffering it will directly cause, is a symbolic getsure of the highest importance. Unfortunately it seems to be back page news here in America.
-z
Posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 22:03:03
In reply to Re: over topic » gardenergirl, posted by lil' jimi on November 8, 2005, at 11:19:18
Cool, I had no idea!
gg
Posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
In reply to Re: over topic » lil' jimi, posted by gardenergirl on November 8, 2005, at 22:03:03
> Cool, I had no idea!
>
> ggyou're welcome, gg ...
but to reinforce and support zeugma's thrust here ...
discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful. It heaps discredit on every member of our military and intelligence services.
it speaks volumes that Sen. John McCain leads of the opposition.
it is madness.
it is self-defeating.
it is wrong.
it is pernicious.i support z's protests against this deranged affront.
Posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
In reply to Geneva Convention, posted by zeugma on November 3, 2005, at 20:35:38
z,
check out Steve Clemons at
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001075.html~ j
Posted by AuntieMel on November 9, 2005, at 17:20:08
In reply to Re: z's geneva convention topic, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
Besides losing any semblance of taking the moral high road there is another reason this is dangerous.
If any of ours get captured the capturers have a new excuse not to obey the accords themselves.
Posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » zeugma, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
thank you j for the reference.
The author picked up on the Reichstag analogy nicely.
Repudiating the Geneva Convention has effectively undone whatever progress Western civilization has attained since the fall of Nazi Germany.It is truly, truly frightening.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2005, at 20:47:31
In reply to Re: z's geneva convention topic, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 13:01:43
> discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 0:12:04
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » zeugma, posted by lil' jimi on November 9, 2005, at 16:06:41
Harpers (11/05), quoting Amnesty, has a figure of 100 deaths of detainees and 27 confirmed homicides. So the best part of 127 deaths by torture for operation Iraqi freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. That (of course) is not the number of cases of torture.
I've been giving the antiamerican issue some thought after Verne raised it. What I feel is not antiamericanism. I simply feel a deep and abiding anger at the current set of rulers of the US, UK and Australia. I feel they have been dishonest and that they dishonour our countries' best traditions.
Declan
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 1:10:17
In reply to Re: The Reichstag all over again » Declan, posted by zeugma on November 8, 2005, at 16:18:57
You know Zeugma, since reading "Blood for Oil" I wonder about parallels between now and pre-WWI.
Russia, China and the USA, the oil pipelines, the seperatist movements backed by different powers.
Declan
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 11:28:10
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
z,
the extent to which they, who oppose banning torture by our (US) services and their agents, have impugned the united states can not be overstated ... except here, where we must moderate our phrasing for other reasons ...
that it is now in fact possible and is in fact actually happening that a person can be designated an "illegal combatant" by executive fiat, lose all Constitutional rights, be held without charges or any recourse to any judicial review, in a secret CIA prison in an unnamed foreign country ... ... ... and TORTURED ... ... ...
... all funded with the tax dollars of american taxpayers ... is as undeniable as it is beyond belief.please, excuse me, but what was it that my country was founded for?
this makes me extremely angry and profoundly sad.
these are nontrivial reasons for my daily antidepressant dosage.i think when there is a discussion about bad torture versus good torture, it should not be non-controversial.
i think it should be a big controversy.
it should be a controversy that there could even be any debate at all.to restrain an incarcerated person and deliberately inflict pain on them FOR ANY reason is wrong.
this must be repudiated.
here and everywhere.
even if we (i) do have to tone it down some here.civilly,
~ j
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 11:48:31
In reply to Re: please be civil » lil' jimi, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2005, at 20:47:31
dear dr. bob,
doctor bob posts:
>> (i wrote:)
>> > discussing not prohibiting U.S. agents from the use torture for interrogations is not only unconscionably offensive, but despicably shameful.
>> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.it would be all too easy to complain about rules of civility which are used to protect the feelings of torturers and their supporters from being hurt.
so i won't do that. no sport in it.
and it would not be constructive.
... besides, i understand the rules. they serve another purpose and are mission-specific to this forum.
... i will gladly accept your cautionary as the useful coaching, Which i Need to be able to trip the babble fantastic.
... that i might not trip and fall unto the trespass against the civil order here.
... and i see that all as a good thing.thank you for your guidance.
~ jim aka "lil' jimi"
.... just don't call me "late for supper".
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 12:20:15
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e, posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 0:12:04
hi declan,
with my barest of knowledge of social psychology, even i know about the "Obedience to Authority" experiments done by Stanley Milgram at Yale in the 60s
(see http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/M/Milgram-experiment.htm)
and even more specifically relevant, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" done by Philip Zimbardo in 1971.
(see http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/S/Stanford-prison-experiment.htm)if we understand what these experiments reveal about human nature, what should we expect when these conditions are replicated at Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray and at Abu Ghraib, let alone any other God-forsaken place hidden from our view?
but for me it is not about being anti-American.
those who are guilty of perpetrating these crimes against humanity are the anti-American ones.
no uncivility intended,
~ jim
Posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 13:08:28
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » Declan, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 12:20:15
There is an academic here (Australia) in some law department made who the usual arguments in favour of torture (What if ripping someone's fingernails out would save a thousand lives, let's regularise it, we can't rule it out). It was controversial and dealt with in the quality press, but it would only take (the expected) terrorist attack to make such arguments more acceptable. I've been dreading what such an attack would do to politics here. It's already bad enough.
Declan
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 19:42:49
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
this letter was published in the washington post.
it was written by Chicklet's brother-in-law.
it seemed on topic for our thread.Tuesday, November 8, 2005; A18
There's Never an Excuse for Torture
Abuse, inhumane treatment or torture of any person in any place under any circumstance is wrong. Anyone who advocates the use of torture or inhumane treatment for any reason should be viewed with contempt. Abusing or torturing a captured enemy is an act of cowardice.
The Post has reported that some government officials advocate exceptions to a policy of absolute prohibition of inhumane treatment and that some are working in opposition to legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ["Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees," front page, Oct. 25 and "Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy," front page, Nov. 7].
Because The Post cited unnamed sources, it is unclear whether allegations that the CIA and members of the executive branch are trying to derail efforts to prohibit inhumane treatment of our captured enemies are true. I hope the sources are misinformed, for the alternative is too disheartening to contemplate.
Our nation, conceived in liberty, could just as easily die in tyranny if not for constant efforts to maintain our basic values. Rosa Parks courageously fought tyranny. I believe Mr. McCain is fighting the noble fight, too.
It is time for all people of conscience to do the same. If we do not resist the efforts by some to endorse the use of torture, the terrorists will have won.
CHRISTIAN MACEDONIA
Bethesda
The writer served for a year in Iraq as chief of the medical staff for the Army medical task force sent to Abu Ghraib in response to the Taguba report on detainee treatment. The views expressed here are his own.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 21:36:30
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e, posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 13:08:28
declan writes:
> There is an academic here (Australia) in some law department made who the usual arguments in favour of torture (What if ripping someone's fingernails out would save a thousand lives, let's regularise it, we can't rule it out). It was controversial and dealt with in the quality press, but it would only take (the expected) terrorist attack to make such arguments more acceptable. I've been dreading what such an attack would do to politics here. It's already bad enough.
> Declandeclan, declan ...
i do not mean to be one-upping you here.
... and it so in keeping with the braggart Texan motif ... ... i live in austin ...
there are a lot of the r*dneck elements which australia and texas have in common ..."an academic" you say?
well, it's not like your chief law enforcement officer (Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales) is known to have helped author the white house memo on torture and referred to the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.
see
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040607/editors
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536
http://kbonline.typepad.com/random/files/gonzales_memo_on_gen_conv_january_25_2002_pt_1.pdfor when the vice president's chief of staff (I. Lewis Libby) was indicted for obstruction of justice, David Addington, the chief author of the white house torture memo gets promoted to replace Libby ...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/01/1518210
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9917435/
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1030nj1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Addingtonthere is practically no (positive) quality in the mainstream media here and only lately have they begun to deal with any of this. ... ... but only after someone got re-elected a year ago ... ...
if only this were some ramblings of some denizen of academia's ivory towers ...
... instead of major operators within the administration of the world's only super power ...take care,
~ jim
Posted by lil' jimi on November 11, 2005, at 9:44:20
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e » lil' jimi, posted by zeugma on November 9, 2005, at 19:12:14
Posted by lil' jimi on November 11, 2005, at 10:27:46
In reply to The Reichstag all over again » lil' jimi, posted by Declan on November 7, 2005, at 17:47:36
see http://billmon.org/archives/002335.html
"Nuremberg International Military Tribunal"
would these guys beleive
"Crimes against humanty mean never having to have to say you're sorry" ?
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 12, 2005, at 2:07:53
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e, posted by Declan on November 10, 2005, at 0:12:04
> I feel [the current set of rulers of the US, UK and Australia] have been dishonest and that they dishonour our countries' best traditions.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
I recently asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for 1 week again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 12, 2005, at 2:08:31
In reply to Re: t o r t u r e = cowardice, posted by lil' jimi on November 10, 2005, at 19:42:49
> > Anyone who advocates the use of torture or inhumane treatment for any reason should be viewed with contempt.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Even if you're quoting someone else.
I recently asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for 2 weeks again.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Jakeman on November 16, 2005, at 1:53:31
In reply to Tree Frogs, Quilts, and Pine Cones » Jakeman, posted by verne on November 14, 2005, at 22:46:22
> When I said it's not "black and white", I'm not suggesting I condone torture or there's any room for doubt in my own mind, but only that there's enough gray area for discussion. That, in many circles, including the government, it's being debated. That, in some minds, at least, there's room for discussion. (The original topic also included inhumane treatment of prisoners)
>
> Then the question becomes, how is this topic discussed civilly? Even though, we may not think there's anything to debate about, how do we talk about the unspeakable, if the discussion already exists?
>
> We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong but what we can't say, is, anyone who disagrees with me should be "viewed with contempt". Such comments end any sort of civil discussion and don't really further our argument anyway.
>
> What if we don't really see any room for discussion, that our side is wholly right, and their's, wholly wrong? And what we really want to do, is throw red dye on their fur coats, cut their tuna nets, or yell at them - not discuss the matter! Like hockey, psychobabble has rules - well, maybe hockey was a bad example.
>
> We can say x, y and z are always bad in every way imaginable, we can describe our position at length, we can unmercifully win the argument with well-crafted wit, superior debating skills, and unrelenting logic, we can outquote and outreference them, but what we can't do, is attack those who disagree with us. We can't get personal.
>
> This is the point I try to be making.
>
> VerneIt was not my intention to cut off any discussion about the pros or cons of torture on this board. And I didn't make any derogatory personal statements toward others on this board. Let's talk, by all means! I want to hear all sides.
I was referring to policies advocated by some in our admistration. I DO think it is a is black and white issue for our government, and they are deciding it now. Are our reps in favor or not? We, (US citizens) are making a historic decision here that affects many people. It's one of those black and white questions of all time. Can one ask, where do you stand? Yes, by all means, let's discuss it here, civilly of course.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 16:10:42
In reply to Re: Torture, a clarification » verne, posted by Jakeman on November 15, 2005, at 22:54:02
Posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 16:20:07
In reply to Re: Torture, a clarification, posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 16:10:42
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2005/0607kleinconsent.htm
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.